CCPC Minutes 01/21/2010 R
January 21, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, January 21, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, CDES
Susan Istenes, Director, Zoning/Land Development Review
Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 21,
2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 'I' AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRJOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRJATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARJNG. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENT A nONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ DECEMBER 16, 2009 CRA AND IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN &
VISIONING COMMITTEE WORKSHOP and DECEMBER 17,2009 REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS ~JANUARY 12, 20JO
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: VA-PL2009-37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky,
Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback
requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30-foot eastern and western side yard
setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard
RequirementsfiJr Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7.4-foot setbacks, respectively,
for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning
District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to CU-2008-AR-14085)
1
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085, l<'LO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications
tower and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified
in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre
subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in
Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to V A-PL2009-037)
C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318. Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and
Teryl Brzeski, Trustee of the Land Trust # I-B, represented by Davidson Engineering and Patrick White
of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, are requesting a rezone from the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Ordinance No. 98-49, and Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning Districts to a Mixed-Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Magnolia Pond MPUD, permitting 231 multi-family
dwelling units and/or an assisted living facility (ALF) at a floor area ratio of .60 with the applicant seeking
to add an additional 5 acres to the site. The subject property is 47 .05x acres and is located on the north
side of the 1-75 right-of-way and half mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. Petition: CU-PL2009-405, Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department represented
by Abra Horne, AICP, of Wilbur Smith Associates is requesting a Conditional Use in the Gallman Olds
PUD zoning District to add a Government Facility, limited to a Bus Transfer Station pursuant to LDC
Section 2.01.03.G. I .e, Essential Services. The subject IO.04x acre property is located on the south side of
Radio Road extending to Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet from the Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard intersection in Section 3. Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
E. Petition: RZ-PL2009-469, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District No. 26, represented by Robert
L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes Inc., is requesting to rezone from Rural Agriculture (A) and Commercial
Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a Fire Station and accessory
uses. The subject property is 3.68x acres and is located in Section 20, Township 5 I South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CPSP-2009-3, A staff initiated petition amending the Capital Improvement Element of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan to incorporate updates based on the 2009 Annual Update and
Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR), and additional statfanalysis, including updates to the 5-Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements (for Fiscal Years 2010 - 2014) and the Schedule of Capital
Improvements for Future 5-Year Period (for Fiscal Years 2015 - 2019). (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,
AICP, Principal Planner)
10. OLD BUSINESS
I I. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
1/81\ 0 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellowslld
2
January 21,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the January 21st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all -- no, not please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter; I almost said that again -- please rise for Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if the secretary will please make
the roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is
absent.
Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I of course am present.
Commissioner Murray is absent. Commissioner Wolfley is
absent.
Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we do have a quorum.
The next item is Planning Commission absences -- or addenda to
Page 2
January 2], 2010
the agenda. I don't -- the agenda is short enough; I can't imagine
having any addenda. So unless I hear any, we'll move on.
Item #3
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning Commission absences. Next week, a week from today,
we have our Land Development Code Phase I standards to review.
And the advertisement for that meeting apparently was in error by one
day, so the meeting cannot be held in a manner in which it is
considered one where we vote. We can't take action.
But we could meet as a workshop, do all the discussion that takes
a lot of time, and then actually hold off the voting until the next
regularly scheduled LDC meeting, which we have to have anyway,
because we're only looking at Phase I of the stuff next week to begin
with.
And if that's okay with everybody, including the staff and county
attorney, I think that's how we should proceed.
What do you -- any planning commissioner members have any
concerns?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that okay with Jeff --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and Nick? Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at the schedule for the
CC -- or for the Land Development Code, I don't see any evening
meeting. Is that right or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the County Attorney's -- I
mean in the past the County Attorney's Office indicated we had to
Page 3
January 21,2010
have at least one or the starting meeting or some meeting starting at
5:05 in the afternoon. I don't know if that is still the case or not.
Jeff, do you?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're fine on this one. I'll double
check, but I think we're fine on current schedule.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll wait to hear from you
then.
And while we're on this subject, Phase II of the Land
Development Code changes. Hello.
MR. BELLOWS: We were trying to nail down that 5:05 issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
Phase II of the Land Development Code changes, do you know
when we're going to get those?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I talked to John Kelly, and the book two
is on its way. You'll be getting it soon.
(At which time, Commissioner Wolfley and Commissioner
Midney enter the boardroom)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what was passed out today,
I noticed Susan passed out a hand-out, could you tell us briefly what
that hand-out is in relationship to next week's meeting, Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Sure. Good morning, Susan Istenes.
The packet I handed out today, I had sent you an e-mail about a
week and a half ago or so indicating that the memo dated December
22nd had said that staffs comments on the private amendments would
be submitted to you at a later date. And also some of the relevant
minutes related to some of the amendments would also be handed out.
So that's what I handed out today.
It's pretty self-explanatory. I hole-punched it and explained
where you should probably put it in your packet and what it relates to.
The only thing that's not in there is the staff comments for the
Immokalee amendments, and I will get those to you probably within
less than a week. But you're not hearing those until February anyway.
Page 4
January 2], 2010
So you should be all set for next week with the information you have
in those packets.
And if you have any questions, feel free to call me or e-mail me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, Commissioner
Midney and Commissioner Wolfley have arrived.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One small little point; had nothing to do
with the data that's in the packet. But when I picked it up, I noticed
God, what nice expensive bond paper this is.
MS. ISTENES: I knew you were going to say that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if the county -- you can buy
reams and reams for a third of the price of this paper, if you guys
would do that.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I was -- it's just kind of the situation at
hand where I'm over here now and the time frame. And I did
recognize the paper is a little bit -- they got a good price on it and they
advised me just to go ahead and use it so I did.
But yes, please don't expect it next time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, it just seems -- I mean, in the
private sector you would never ever do that. But okay, thank you.
Now that we've talked about next week's meeting, we're going to
hold it as a workshop. It will be 8:30 in this room on the 28th.
Does anybody at today's meeting know they will not be here next
week?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be next Thursday. Okay, then
we're good to go.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 16,2009 CRA IN
IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN & VISIONING COMMITTEE
Page 5
January 2], 2010
WORKSHOP AND DECEMBER 17.2009 REGULAR MEETING
Let's move on to approval of the minutes. First one -- we have
two of them. First one is December 16th, the CRA in Immokalee
Master Plan Envisioning Committee Workshop. Anybody have any
changes or corrections to those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnone, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion, Mr.
Vigliotti seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
December 17th, our regular meeting. Are there any corrections
to those minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will.
Page 6
January 2],20]0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 12,2010
BCC report and recaps, January 12th.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners
heard the petition for the King's Lake variance. That was approved.
And so was the conditional use for the First Haitian Baptist Church.
Subject to CCPC conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
By the way, the last couple of days, or prior to last couple of
days, I think the Board of County Commissioners had a lot of review
of the GMPA's that we had reviewed. I don't remember how many we
Page 7
January 2], 2010
recommended for transmittal, but it wasn't a majority, ifI'm not
mistaken.
Do you know how many they recommended for transmittal?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They recommended for transmittal all
but one, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All but one they recommended for
transmittal and we recommended I think just maybe two or three, if
I'm not mistaken.
MR. KLATZKOW: The one that they didn't recommend, we're
going to a straw ballot on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't for transmittal, that was for
referendum, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's -- they recommended transmittal on
each of them but one. The one that they didn't recommended
transmittal on, they want to have the straw ballot on to gauge the
public sentiment. Then that will be coming back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So they didn't recommend
transmittal on it, they recommended it not go to transmittal but go to a
referendum and then after that --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Be continued is what they did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it goes through the proc--
MR. KLA TZKOW: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To continue it is what they did.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. So that one didn't make it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To be clear, it's not all the voters, it's a
specific area, so it's not --
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's the Estates.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it's just the Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I under -- I watched them. I saw
it on television. But I just wanted to -- this board to know, we are
probably a little bit more conservative, thankfully so, than the political
process.
Page 8
January 21,2010
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
So with that in mind, the chairman's report.
If you all notice, there's a new entrance to the building. And I
couldn't figure out why all the guards down there were so smiley and
happy today. And I thought it was over their new entrance. But after
I got through, they started giggling because they said aha, we got a
body scan. I said no, you don't.
But anyway, it's a nice new entrance, and I want to congratulate
the county, it looks like it's going to be efficient, it can take a lot of
people, and hopefully we will never have a body scan down there.
So with that, I'll move into the consent agenda items.
Item #8A
PETITION: V A-PL2009-37. FLO TV. INC.
Petition V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV, Inc., and that's a companion
item to Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc.
I'd like to ask, is there any corrections needed to either of those
from anybody on the Planning Commission? Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we need a motion, each one
separately.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we accept the
summary for V A-2009-AR-37.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner
Page 9
January 2],20]0
Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Midney.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark? I have to abstain, because
I wasn't here for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay. No, that's fine. That's one
abstention. So it would be 7-0 and one abstention, so how's that.
Item #8B
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, INC.
Petition, CU-2008-AR-14085. Any motion on that one?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, Mr.
Schiffer seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying
aye.
Page 10
January 2],2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one abstention.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, same 7-0 with one abstention.
Item #8C
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10318, MAGNOLIA POND
HOLDINGS. LLC
Next one is Petition PUDZA-2006-AR-10318, and that's
Magnolia Pond Holdings. Is there any --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- corrections?
Mr. Vigliotti's made a motion to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approve. Is there a second?
Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
Page 11
January 2], 20]0
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there -- one abstention.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One abstention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 7-0 with one abstention.
Item #8D
PETITION: CU-PL2009-405, COLLIER COUNTY ATM
DEPARTMENT BUS (CAT) TRANSFER STATION
Petition CUPL-2009-405, the Collier County Alternative
Transportation Modes Department. That's the C.A.T. transfer station.
Are there any comments or corrections needed on that one?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve,
seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Is there discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 12
January 2], 2010
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is there an abstention?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One abstention.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven to zero with one abstention.
Item #8E
PETITION: RZ-PL2009-469, EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT NO. 26
And the last but not least is the Petition RZPL-2009-469, East
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District No. 26.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to approve?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve it.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page ] 3
January 2], 20]0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Two abstentions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed, so that's 6-0 with
two abstentions.
Okay, thank you. That gets us through the consent agenda about
as easily as you can possibly get through it.
Item #9A
PETITION: CPSP-2009-3, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
(CIE) OF COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The next and only item up for today's regular advertised public
hearing is Petition CPSP-2009-3. It's the Capital Improvement
Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.
And in regards to that single item, we were provided with an
e-mail last night with corrections to several pages. And those pages
have been handed out in yellow to every planning commissioner this
morning, in case you didn't print them out last night. I think there's
nine pages or eight pages there.
And Corby, we'll turn it over to you.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner with the
Comprehensive Planning Department.
And yes, if you printed them out at home, there are nine
individual pages. If you look at your colored hand-out pages that I
provided earlier, there's six pages, some of them simply double-sided.
These page change-outs coincide with two rather minor and
simple changes to the five-year schedule of improvements and to the
Page 14
January 2],2010
second schedule of capital improvements.
The first two, the brighter yellow page changes that you have,
and I believe it's in the first five-year scheduled capital improvements,
Pages 20 and 21, CIE 20 and 21, Page 20 being solid waste disposal
facility projects and 21 being wastewater. The first of those two, the
change was simply to bring a project which had previously appeared
in the second five years into the first five. And you'll see on the end
page, the colored sheet, you have a project in 2010 and in 2013, just as
they appear in the A UIR.
The mistake was made when looking at the AUIR where one of
the projects was kept in the first five years, and the second project was
showing your second five-year schedule. And that's what was
provided to you previously.
On CIE Page 21, that schedule page for wastewater treatment,
there's a rather wholesale change there, including the amounts, figures
and scheduling. But again, this appears as it does in the AUIR and
previously, it simply did not.
And because those two pages are changed and modified, that
affects your summary pages. So all four of your summary pages are
changed and just simply reflect those earlier changes.
In the second five-year schedule, there's again two pages to swap
out. One of them for solid waste and the other for wastewater. Again,
coinciding with moving a project from the out years into the current
five-year schedule. And that's reflected in the first.
And in the second amount of changes for wastewater treatment
facilities coinciding with the changes and figures from the earlier
schedule.
And then again, you have just one summary page there that have
the coinciding changes reflected.
Whether you choose to actually swap those pages in or out
physically at this moment, fine. Either way, we'll just follow along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, for my own part and maybe
Page 15
January 2],20]0
some of the other commissioners, having received that kind of
information as late as we did, I had already made my notes and
questions on the original sheet, so I will be working off of those. And
where it's already been corrected, if you remind me, that would be
helpful. It's going to be hard to go back and forth.
I would hope that -- and this seems to happen often. I was
hoping that next time we can try to avoid it again. But we've asked
that before and it's not happened, so --
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, do you want to make any
formal presentation other than that, or do you want us to go straight
into our questions? What's the easiest for--
MR. SCHMIDT: A few short comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly we come to you every year with
updates and amendment recommendations to the Capital Improvement
Element for the county.
The five-year schedule that you have in front of you now
indicates another downward trend in population, reflected through
some of the information I've provided for traffic counts and school
enrollment.
In your summary pages, some of those school enrollment figures
have been amended since those was written, so I'd like to quickly go
over those.
I believe it's on Page 3 of your summary. We talked about
indicators, and there's a few bulleted points there, beginning with
October, 2005. October 28 and October 29.
In those figures, between 2000 and 2005, it should read, the
school district grew by more than 9,100 students at a growth rate of
three to five percent. That's a larger increase over a longer period of
time -- or shorter period of time, I'm sorry.
In the past four years, not three, the district has experienced a
Page 16
January 2], 2010
decline in enrollment as economic forces have changed.
We've used the membership reports from 2005 to 2009 to
illustrate those downward trends. But what we actually see is a flatter
rate of growth. And that sentence really should read a flatter growth
rate in the recent years, ranging from 1.18 percent in 2006 to a modest
gain of just .43 percent in 2009. So not that we've seen a downward
trend, but a flattening of that growth.
The figures then in that third bullet point are simply adjusted to
reflect that flatter growth rate, instead of a decline.
In October, 2009, counts report a total of 42,882 students; 20,486
children enrolled in elementary schools, with 8,977 in middle schools
and 12,594 in high schools.
And in the closing paragraph for school enrollment figures,
simply pointing out that overall decline has resulted in 414 fewer
students since 2005.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby, could you just give me two
numbers again? First the total of 42,000 what?
MR. SCHMIDT: 882.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 882.
And the number of elementary?
MR. SCHMIDT: 20,486.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 86, thank you.
MR. SCHMIDT: You're welcome.
All right, then to quickly introduce what we're about to hear, you
have in front of you a Capital Improvement Element, schedule of
capital improvements for the first five years, fiscal years 2010 through
'14.
And at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners the
transportation division prepared alternatives. Instead of just one
proposal, there are three for county roads. And there are two
alternatives proposed for stormwater management systems.
Page I 7
January 21,20]0
For roads, the alternatives reflect an anticipated 11 percent ad
valorem reduction in the coming fiscal years, or a 15 percent reduction
of ad valorem general funding, or a 20 percent reduction.
Those changes reflected in three different transportation pages in
your schedule and part of the combination of summary pages that's
part of your packet.
For stormwater, the two alternatives reflect an anticipated 11
percent reduction for one of the two alternatives. And then the other,
a millage rate reduction from .15 percent to .10, plus the 11 percent
reduction. So it's a greater reduction for the second.
Those two alternatives are also reflected in your pages with two
alternatives for stormwater and also part of the mix, the combination
that appears in your summary pages.
With that then I can pass this on to Mr. Feder, who can address
those transportation and stormwater figures more specifically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we do that, let us approach the--
let us approach this document as we have all others. So we'll work our
way to Mr. Feder.
And normally we take it page at a time with questions asked.
And there may be some generalities that would help us better
understand transportation if we got through that process first.
Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to ask --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a couple of questions
on the staff report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going to start.
So why don't we start then and -- well, let's move to Page 1. Every
page has a lot of intense writing in it and we may have questions on
those.
Anybody got any questions on Page I?
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think we're seeing a new
term which is the backlog authority, and I'm not sure -- I know what
Page ] 8
January 2],2010
that is, so --
MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that.
MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Casalanguida.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
A transportation concurrency backlog authority is an authority
that would be set up if you could not meet the level of service. The
state could mandate you to go back in an area that doesn't meet the
level of service and set up almost a taxing unit, similar to an MSTU, to
fund that backlog. And that's what a backlog authority essentially
does. It's a forced taxing unit to take care of a backlog if you don't
take care of it on your own.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in line with that question, does the
backlog authority force those people that will be taxed for it to meet
the intentions of some county staff devised long-range plan, or does it
meet the practical road's on-the-ground applications?
And where (sic) I mean in this, I could see it now if we went to a
backlog authority but you have on there the destruction of homes in
Golden Gate Estates to put in your six-lane roads, does that mean the
people in Golden Gate Estates would be taxed to take down their
homes to put in the roads that you believe we need that we don't?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly what it means.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you need to take those roads
off the books, Nick.
Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was exactly my question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A backlog authority, if you don't meet
the level of service the state would send you notice. They could say
per the Florida Statute you have to form a way to fix that. They give
you a certain amount of time to fix that. And one avenue would be for
the county to fund a backlog. It's not a requirement to fund that
Page ] 9
January 2],2010
backlog authority or to establish it, it's just one avenue that you have
to use.
And it would go through the board to be reviewed or you could
provide the state a long-term fix for it as well too. So there are
solutions. It's not something that's imminent or forthcoming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Give me another example of some
other way it could be handled.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Increase in ad valorem millage. You
know, you could generally tax all the population instead of forming a
backlog authority for a certain area.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But regardless, the only way to
handle it is -- has to do with adding taxes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could be. Tolls, franchise fee. You'd
have to find a way, a funding source to come up with the money to
pay for that backlog.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me understand this. The staff
could come up with a solution to what they believe is the only solution
to traffic in an area. And that solution could be one that the area
absolutely does not want. But if we go to a backlog authority, because
staff put that road system on the books as the solution, the backlog
authority's only choice is to go to that scenario, the one that really --
and I -- the worst case scenario to me is the one that's going on in
Golden Gate Estates. You know, I don't understand why we'd be
forced into that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't be forced on (sic) it.
The state would be required to fix that failure. You know, according
to, you know, Florida Statute you'd have to come up with a solution to
fix that. It wouldn't necessarily be a backlog authority.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if the backlog authority
kicks in, what plan for solution do they have to follow?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure I'm understanding your
Page 20
January 2],2010
question. They'd have to fix the problem. If there was a failing road
segment, either an alternative roadway or expand the existing
roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the alternative roadways that
you show through Golden Gate Estates right now is pretty horrendous.
And is that what they would have to fall to, or could they go to a more
practical solution like approving less to the east so we don't have the
need for these roads or looking at expanding road systems that were
always supposed to be expanded instead of creating new ones?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that would be a
discussion in front of the board to review all those options. It wouldn't
be, you know, a staff -- staff would have a recommendation whether
to follow the long-range transportation plan or an alternative solution,
but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said it would be a
discussion in front of the board, but you said the board wouldn't have
the ability to do this because it would now be a -- there would be a
backlog authority. So would the discussion be in front of the board or
the backlog authority?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, the backlog authority is an
authority that's set up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the county commission, sent
up to DCA, reviewed by the state. It's a taxing unit is what it is. The
board would make that decision if that was the solution that we would
go forward with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I know you've been
patient. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
I think the key point to be made is the plan that you're referring
to first of all goes through the MPO process, of which all five
Page 2]
January 2],2010
commissioners are on that MPO. Then it doesn't go into our Capital
Improvement Element unless approved by the board and having gone
through a number of committees, including this committee.
So you have projects on there that we have established to meet
our established level of service, which are D and E, fairly low levels
of service. All those projects have been defined previously.
What is being reviewed is that we've met our concurrency. And
as you've seen in our AUIR, which we've discussed previously, we've
gone in a section and other approaches to not find ourselves in a
deficiency that can't be addressed. One to avoid long-term
concurrency, and two, not to end up in a backlog authority.
This discussion is hopefully moot, because we don't plan on
getting there. But it is appropriate to review all of the issues and how
they transpire. If we don't meet our concurrency needs, we could be
forced into long-term concurrency which means you don't have to
address it today, but say somehow you'll do it in the future, which
doesn't get it done.
Or if that goes for a while and is not successful in getting it done,
there is an ability for a requirement for you to tax yourself to get it
done.
But those projects are vetted, continue to be vetted, they're in a
plan based on a very extensive vetting process, and you'll have more
than enough opportunity -- we've got another plan coming forward to
identify those projects and whether or not you feel they're appropriate
for the community, and ultimately the board decides that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though the board's already
decided on the corridors that are going to be bulldozed through
Golden Gate Estates, the backlog authority, if it goes into effect, they
could change their mind and say those are not necessary anymore?
MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, I don't know where I'm
bulldozing, but what I will tell you is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you --
Page 22
January 2], 2010
MR. FEDER: -- the board has approved--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you'd like.
MR. FEDER: I understand. You have a concern with a project.
There is a process that has been through, was vetted over considerable
time, considerable efforts and a decision of the board to keep that
project in the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's three of them. Not just a
project, there are three roads going through Golden Gate Estates and
all three are taking out homes. So why don't we just stop talking about
one, it's much broader than what you're suggesting.
MR. FEDER: Okay. And what I will tell you is that that plan
goes through a process. We're in plan update now through the MPO.
It will come back through the board. It will have plenty of
opportunities for further community involvement and vetting.
The only thing that is set is a series of process. And to try and
take that end result, which is the possibility of a backlog authority, and
bring that today and apply it to a plan when we're meeting our plan,
we've shown that to you in the AUIR, is probably not necessarily what
we're here to discuss today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if this backlog authority
would have to go into effect and it does tax the area in which the road
corridors are needed, how does it decide what area is benefiting from
the road corridors? For example, the three-quarters --
MR. FEDER: Because you have a long-range plan and you have
a Capital Improvement Element that you said you were going to do to
meet your concurrency. Once you show that you're not meeting it, it
would be established to fund the shortfall from meeting what is in
your plan at that time for deficiency. But it wouldn't necessarily be in
there to meet your 2030 plan in 2015.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The only -- the cost for these
corridors is about a billion dollars. And right now the entire -- all the
taxpayers in Collier County are paying for it. I can't imagine that
Page 23
January 2],20]0
burden being put on the residents of Golden Gate Estates, especially
when it's not for us. So that was the reason for my question.
MR. FEDER: I fully understand your position and your concern.
And it's been consistent throughout the process, I know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't get an opportunity to
challenge you on it too much, though.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on
Page I?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 2--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- anybody -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Corby, in -- under the
heading staff analysis, in paragraph three, you need to explain to me
why the decreases in population, why these decreases may also be
interpreted to mean that it will take 22 to 34 percent more time to
reach the populations.
MR. SCHMIDT: It's another way of looking at the figures. For
instance, if a target date is 2030 and we know that there'll be another
50,000 people here at that time, with old projections, and that rate of
growth goes down, that decrease means more than one thing. It means
that there will be fewer than 50,000 people here on that date, as a
projection, or that number, or that number of people, those additional
50,000 people, are actually taking longer to be citizens, to be part of
the count.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but where's the correlation
that if the population drops 22 percent it's going to take 22 percent
more time to make it up?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's not a one-to-one correlation, it's a loose
correlation, just to use as a thought.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because that -- I have some
Page 24
January 2],2010
serious questions about using that as a real figure. I mean, I'm not sure
what the basis for it is, other than if you want to have something, let's
throw that number out there. That's why I was trying to understand
the basis for it.
MR. SCHMIDT: Sure. And we've I believe used it in some of
our comprehensive plan amendment proposal recommendations as
well, with simply having an expectation of a certain population being
there to create demand for a commercial -- new commercial
development, for instance. And we expect those populations to be in
those locations soon. They won't be there that soon any longer as
those rates decrease.
Exactly how much longer we will take to reach those numbers,
we don't know. But loosely, it's about we can just make that
relationship.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 2?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a question about a
sentence in the third paragraph from the bottom. It said, however,
staff is concerned that when the economy rebounds the vacant
residential units are occupied, there will be an instantaneous demand.
It will be obviously a demand based on how fast the sales of
these empty units come back. But aren't we already built to the
standards or to the levels of service to accept that demand that's
already there? I mean, not that's already there, but occupied?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe so, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The way it was written, it
appeared like it was something of a concern when in actuality the
reason we don't have more capital improvements needed right now is
because they're already built ahead enough for items that we aren't
utilizing to their full extent right now.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. I think it's written more not to put out a
concern but to highlight an opportunity that we can react quickly.
Page 25
January 2], 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, let me add to that
quickly for the record.
I know coming from my background on roads, that's not
necessarily true. You don't necessarily have the capacity to be able to
have all those units that are vacant right now come on-line. And one
of the problems is determining what that vacancy rate is. It's hard to
do through electric hookups, through HOA's. In some instances it's as
high as 50 percent. I know in some of the Estates roads we've
traveled, they're 50 percent.
So when those roads come back on -- those units come back
on-line, you may not have the capacity and facilities in terms of roads
to handle that vacancy rate that you right now think you have the
capacity for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why were they approved?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of those are considered the
backlog that we just discussed. Some of those units were already on
the books before we started this program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So to the -- and I know some
projects that had predicted sales of seven or eight or 900 units per
year, and you had to keep that on the books. But in actuality those
predictions are probably dropped down to a tenth of what they were.
And based on -- I don't know if you've read the most recent economic
forecast by the University of South Florida -- University of Florida,
but they're predicting the slowdown is to gradually come up but it's
going to be very gradual. So we could have a long, long time before
we get to that point where we're saturated with everything that's been
built or planned in the way it was before.
I'm just -- I know that you had planned so far ahead based on
what was on the books. You may not have gotten 100 percent
completed, but you got significantly completed in your road systems.
There's been huge improvements in our road systems across the
county .
Page 26
~.'''''~''''.'--"'-'--' .
January 2],2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say in certain areas that's true,
and I would say in other areas that's not true. So it's not -- by location,
that's a true statement. By certain other areas that's not going to
happen. When those units come back on-line, you're going to see a--
you're going to see congestion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, is that what you were going to--
he's taken your thunder?
MR. FEDER: No, but I think he's appropriately handled it.
The key issue is that what we do in transportation concurrency
and setting up the real-time is we're looking at what is the actual
traffic count on each roadway segment today. We also factor in what
we call vested trips; things have been approved but haven't yet
occurred but they're soon to occur over time. So they sort of get
dropped off the books, because those -- that absorption rate is assumed
in there. So when I do my background traffic, I don't want to double
count it, I'm saying it's in my background traffic.
But in reality, if it's a vacant unit then it isn't there. But you are
correct, Mr. Chairman, that in fact we do and did have some ghost
trips that we've been trying to deal with, get them off the books if
they're not going to get built. So that's a counter-reading measure.
But on the balance I think the statement generally is correct, I
don't know if I'd say, instantaneous, generally instantaneous or quicker
than development might have brought it on board. With those vacant
units, if they come at any decent rate of growth, if it's nice and slow
and steady, probably not an issue. And I think that's what the
projections are.
But it's just alerting the fact that those aren't considered right now
in the process. They do have the county reading balance, as you
noted, but on the balance there are more vacant units, although we
don't have a great hit on exactly what, that could well come on the
system that aren't accounted for in everything we're doing concurrency
management.
Page 27
January 2], 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know nobody can for sure know
what's going to go on in the future, but in reading that report it did
really strongly suggest that we're going to have a much more
progressive manner in which we build up again to our absorptions in
this area. And it went county by county, basically.
MR. FEDER: Smart growth would be nice, but I haven't seen it
yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's that?
MR. FEDER: Smart growth would be nice. I haven't seen it yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But ifit occurs and we do find
that instead of selling 5,000 units a year county-wide we sell! ,500 or
2,000 and it's more maintained growth, with the monies that your
department still spends every year with what amounts you do have out
of ad valorem and other revenues, can you keep up with any level of --
what is your level of growth that you can keep up with?
MR. FEDER: At the end of today's discussion you'll have a feel
for that. We -- the last, with the capital program, and that may not be
a true statement in another week. Our program has been cut
significantly. We're being asked to make more cuts.
Other than my impact fees, which have nosedived from 68 to 13
last year, and we projected about the same and running right now at
about eight or nine, gas tax, which I'm having to pull over into
maintenance, expanded maintenance requirements and operation,
there's very little to our capital program.
So that's why this note is important to know those things out
there. Not to change the direction of where we're going from fiscal
realities, but to be aware and hopefully not replicate the past where we
decide a job done, things are level, they're slow, we don't need to do
anything. We spent seven years disputing the theory that if we don't
build it they won't come.
And then I paid a premium, the community paid a premium, to
get at least some body parts out of that hole. And I agree with you,
Page 28
January 2],2010
some parts are out of there, I'm not sure all of them are. And
hopefully we'll weather this storm, keep a level program. I don't see
11 active major projects at one time in our future. At least I hope I
don't. If we do, then we dismally allowed it to go backwards on
ourselves again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you thought of, and maybe you've
done this, have you ever looked at this from a back door approach?
Instead of saying here's what we can do next year, convert that to this
is what we can do and this is the number of units it will take care of on
a yearly basis, so that we know how we're getting into trouble based
on the total sales and absorptions of either foreclosed units or new
units throughout the county? Is there a way to -- have we looked at it
that way?
MR. FEDER: We are trying to look at some of that. And on a
broader scale you can, but you have to go further out and do it
broader. And I'll tell you why. And Nick, and even in his new
position working along with me, we're trying to do a mobility master
plan; not just simply do a long-range transportation plan that as you
pointed out identifies needs, then I take my revenues and decide they
don't meet anyway near that price tag. So then I do a cost feasible,
and then I walk away and the gap in there is left as, oh, well. And
that's been the process.
We're trying to combine those two issues of what do I change in
the inputs or what can I work with the inputs to do that. Here's the
problem with not trying to do a big picture and further out is that, as
Nick pointed out, my issues are segment by segment. My
concurrency issues are by segment, they're not just area wide.
So area wide I would tell you that we have pretty much pulled
out of that big hole that was developed in the Nineties segment by
segment. We have not necessarily done that in areas. And do I have a
little bit of extra capacity, especially vacancy rates down in some
areas? Because you don't build it for today's need, you build it for out.
Page 29
January 2],20]0
It does tend to fill up, though, the minute you do it, because you can't
put the whole system in at one time. And so whatever you put in gets
utilized pretty quickly.
But in answer to your question, we're trying to look at that in a
mobility master plan, but it has to be looked at in a broader picture a
little further out segment by segment. It's pretty difficult to do that,
although we do that with our concurrency management. But there are
variables that we have difficulty factoring in, like vacancy rates and
other issues which generate this whole discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you do that -- if you were to
do it, wouldn't you be able to break it down through your T AZ areas,
or not?
MR. FEDER: Probably not on T AZs. It's really segment by
segment. Because the T AZ is assuming general trips in an area. And
I've got areas where one would think I can do it, you can get from the
node to a place, but then I've got canals and other things that don't
allow connection and other issues of the sort. So I really need to do it
by segment by segment.
But your point's still well taken. And I think that's things that
we're trying to get to, but I don't want to mislead you, so I'm trying to
give you some of the I guess conditions on it or the assumptions that I
have to make and put into it so that nobody assumes that I can do
exactly what you're saying, although that would be ideal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you were to start
working it towards what's permittable on a total basis and then when
each project were to come in and that project actually had an impact
that was positive on the vehicle miles traveled and you could show
thus it would have an increase in what would be permittable --
MR. FEDER: And in our processes, one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based on projects present, it may help
us better understand why something is or is not needed in an area.
MR. FEDER: And in our processes, one by one as we go
Page 30
January 2], 2010
through things, I think we do some of that. But you're right, unless we
get into a rate of growth and a consumptive use permit and tertiary
effects is basically what you're talking about.
But I think there's movements towards that, there's some
limitations, but there's some real opportunities there, especially now
that I'm not so far backlogged that it becomes moot to even discuss the
point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Questions on up to Page 3 then. Anybody have anything up to
Page 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question, Corby. It's on the
second paragraph on the bottom on Page 3, and it's talking about
interdepartmental transfers. These transactions represent changes to
land inventory in the corresponding value of land holdings.
And obviously the one that comes to mind occasionally are the
ones that the park departments do with transportation. And I notice in
our AUIR that transportation correctly so showed a reduction in their
costs per unit. And that cost per unit in the AUIR was based on road
cost, construction cost and right-of-way.
But yet I had a concern with Parks and Rec. during the
discussion, because they would not lower their cost per unit. Their
cost per acre was what it was in the high side of the best peak of
season, when we know that land has been devalued substantially.
So when these inter-department transfers go back and forth, does
the transfer happen at the rate that parks is using or at the rate that the
transportation department actually knows it to be out there if they
were to buy that land?
And if it -- and that's going to depend. And then how does your
book reflect that in the AUIR in gain or loss of value between the
departments?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, I'll let someone involved in those
Page 3 1
January 2], 2010
transactions answer that question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'll have Mr. Feder -- I
don't think there are any interdepartmental transfers with
transportation for parks land right now.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we do--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're using Randall Curve as
one of them. And I --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a potential, but that has --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- around a regional park.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just to answer, I know this has been an
ongoing issue. Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director.
I know the transactions you're talking are in the out years. I don't
know that that changes your point of view. I think that -- and
throughout the process with AUIR you've been very clear that our unit
cost that we associate with the transactions seems inflated, seems not
real.
I'm sorry that we don't have Amy Patterson here today to talk
about that and where we have arrived at that. I know that part of what
we've tried to communicate, though, is that that unit cost, it is a
placeholder. It doesn't reflect the market cost, the amount of money
that we would pay for an acre, per se. And what our level of service is
depended on is acres per 1,000 people.
I don't know, though, to answer your question about how it
reflects in the CIE and with Corby, you know, those differences in the
cost associated with transportation's reflecting a more accurate market
cost than ours, you know, reflecting this other how that affects that, so
I'm not sure I can answer that question, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there is a sig -- there could be a
significant change in value between the two departments. And I'm
wondering what happens to it, who takes the laws, where does it go,
how does the hit come down. And I -- with that statement in this staff
report, it made me wonder how you would do it, so -- unfortunately
Page 32
January 2],20]0
some of this stuff gets read.
I don't know how to -- I know you don't have an answer. If you
-- and Norm or Corby, if you guys figure that out and could let me
know, just e-mail me a response. I'm just curious how your
departments handle those inter-transfers valuation-wise.
MR. FEDER: I'll go to Barry to see which ones are being
considered and we'll try to get the answer to your question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And wasn't Randall Curve already
done?
MR. FEDER: I'm going to defer to Barry.
Randall Curve is part of the old I believe it's Avatar Holdings.
That curve area was being looked at and established and allowed for
government use, including possibly transportation and the school
board for bus bond. Because Parks and Rec wanted to take the old bus
barn on Oil Well and wanted to get some of the utilities property
below the future plant out in that area. The idea being that we would
then put a -- although it's not in any of my plans and I don't have it
funded, a maintenance facility on a portion of that Randall Curve, that
the school board would take a portion of it and relinquish their 20
acres on Oil Well. And to my knowledge none of that has quite been
worked out with the school board. And on our end we don't have the
money to buy the land at this time, so I'm not sure where that one
stands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had -- part of that Oil Well
transaction, though, I thought was for a drainage facility for the Oil
Well expansion. The parks or school board had some swap going on
where they were going to have a maintenance facility along Oil Well,
and now it's being suggested as a change of use in Golden Gate
Estates off of DeSoto on an Avatar piece that was put up.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and just to reiterate, and Norm is saying
something, in what we presented in this cycle of the AUIR, that had
been consistently the plan where we were talking about this, this land
Page 33
January 2],2010
swap.
The 47 acres related to Randall curve, you know, we were
looking for land on the other side of Immokalee Road. It was better
suited for a park, and so we didn't want that Randall Curve land. And
so what Norm is talking about, we know when we present the next
AUIR that that whole transaction, that's going to be re-characterized.
We're hearing that that Randall Curve, that land swap, that there's
some question about that now. So that's going to change when you
see the AUIR in the next year, the next cycle, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have any concerns about
this, blame Corby, he put it in there as an example, so --
MR. WILLIAMS: We usually do blame Corby, if we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else up to Page 3? If not, we'll go on to Page 4.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on Page 4?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one on the hibernated facilities of
water. Or actually it's water treatment facilities. It says they're 100
percent designed and can be reactivated, permitted and constructed in
four to five years. Then it says, the hibernated wastewater reclamation
facilities are 100 percent designed in the same terms.
I do enough active work in the I guess construction development
field to know that there isn't a single plan I draw this month that's
going to be any good six months from now because the codes will
change. If it isn't building codes it's fire codes, if it isn't fire codes it's
the science or the safety.
And example, right now in the codes in countries like Haiti that
built to hurricane standards will certainly change to be building to
earthquake standards.
So how do we know that this 100 percent design is going to be
that ready when four or five years down the road we probably won't
Page 34
January 2], 2010
be operating under the same science or codes that we're operating
under today?
MR. SCHMIDT: These entries are entered into the staff report at
the request of those departments, so I'll let them answer.
MR. BEALS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Nathan Beals, Public Utilities, Planning and Project Management.
When it comes to the northeast water treatment plant and water
reclamation facilities, those are 100 percent designed currently, as
noted. And they are in hibernation ready and we are current -- we will
be continuing to review the plans to make sure they're concurrent with
then codes each year to keep them consistent until the time is needed
in the northeast area when the plants -- to build them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your design contracts for these plants,
were they done in such a manner that the design is kept up to date, or
we pay extra as we keep them alive each year?
MR. BEALS: I believe there's a small consulting fee annually to
maintain those plans, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Commissioners. Phil
Gramatges, Public Utilities.
Yes, indeed, we are reviewing those plans on a yearly basis. And
yes, we do have some money set aside in order to keep those plans as
fresh as possible.
We realize of course that the longer this goes, the more the
regulations will change, the more the technology will change and the
more money will be required in order to bring those up to date. But
there is no way for us to avoid that. And for us to be able to react
quickly, we need to make sure that those plans are kept as fresh, as
greenfield, as possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was the purpose of my
question. Because it didn't say that in this document and I was trying
to make sure that we had it covered. So thank you, appreciate it, Phil.
Page 35
January 2], 2010
Okay, signature page. We shouldn't have anything on that.
We've got to move into the appendix. Staff support, Appendix A.
Page 1. Are there any questions on Page I? This is the one starting
with the road projects.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, second paragraph from the
bottom you talk about the different scenarios. And alternative number
two would require a certain reduction in the gas tax. What do you
mean by that?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Mr. Feder address that.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
We were asked to come up with some options, as you know, in
presenting our AUIR to you, to the Productivity Committee and then
back to the board. They wanted some options presented to them.
Basically what that says is I don't have enough ad valorem that is
non debt service structured. Once I get past 11 percent to just take the
ad valorem totally out of capital, I then have to take the ad valorem
out of my operating. And I'll go through all this in my presentation of
the alternatives.
But essentially then what I would do is take some gas tax out of
my capital program to then fund those operatings (sic) at the same
level so that my backlog of deferred maintenance doesn't get greater.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think since we have started on
the appendix, and the first one up is the road projects, it would
probably be a good time for you to go through your presentation on
the various scenarios so we -- that might avoid a series of questions
that at least I know I have, so --
MR. FEDER: Be happy to do so, sir.
I've got too many pieces of paper with changes and items here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: I'm sure you do as well.
Page 36
January 21,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you.
MR. FEDER: What I've put up on the overhead is hopefully
something that we'll go through I'm sure page by page and item by
item, which is fine. But I'm trying to give something that will help put
it into perspective.
When we're asked to look at alternatives, what we looked at is
that while I have ad valorem, the bulk of it that I have in capital, and if
you can read that hopefully on your prompters and hopefully the
audience can see it there. In my capital program I do have just over
18 and a half million dollars. But 14.6 of that is dedicated to
repayment of debt service. So that leaves really about 3.9 that I have
in ad valorem specifically in my capital program that is non-debt
service relate.
And if you'll afford me the opportunity, I'll digress just briefly.
But that debt service was established when I came here in 2000. And
we had declared a transportation emergency because we hadn't built
anything in years and created a big backlog.
We went out and tried to get a half penny of sales tax.
Unfortunately at the time we neither had a list of projects, any track
record of success nor necessarily a sun-setting or re-upping provision
in it. And to say the least, it didn't do well. I think it's probably, from
referendums, one that failed the most, miserably of any that I've seen.
With that in mind, we then had to figure out, how are we going to
address that backlog. Because while the board, who basically came on
about the same time that I did, made a strong commitment, growth
pays for growth, and that impact fees pay for future growth, and
impact fees hadn't been updated for seven years, from 1993, I believe
it is, to 2000. We couldn't increase the impact fees and use the
growth-pays-for-growth until we showed that we had funded and had
a plan to meet the backlog.
So with the failure of the sales tax we went out and bonded the
gas tax, which gave us about two-thirds of what we needed to meet the
Page 37
January 2],20]0
cost of the backlog. And that was in two increments, a little over 100
million each.
And then the rest of it was coming as ad valorem rather than
general obligation pay as you go ad valorem proceeds back in the
hey-day of increased assessed values and the ability to do that.
The 14.6 you see here is totally the debt service payment. It does
not include -- a portion of that 3.9 is actually that portion of the
additional dollars beyond the payback of the dedication of gas tax for
the bond repayment. Which it got reduced a couple of times, the last
couple of years we reduced budget. Because it was close to 10 million.
You probably saw figures in the past about 24 million. Well, it got
reduced a little bit each year, three percent, seven percent and the like
as we went down the budget on ad valorem.
But also it got changed this year because rather than having that
10 million come to me, it also always included some of that turn-back
of interest that came particularly from the clerk's office.
So we were a major generator ofthat interest, because you
commit a project day one, you don't pay it out over about two and a
half years or plus. So that money moves from year to year, but you've
encumbered all of it and you have to have it there to payoff that
contract. And we were in a very aggressive program.
So all we got was the 10. That's what we needed to cover the
backlog beyond the debt service. That got dwindled down a little bit,
as I noted. And then this year, about three point something on it, I'll
get you the exact figure, 1.9 and 1.7, so about 3.6., our interest coming
back. And therefore our ad valorem, that 10 million, which came to
about nine, down to about eight, was no longer provided to us because
we're getting it back as part of interest, including impact fee interest,
which I can't use as ad valorem.
So in the past it was coming to the general fund. I was getting 10,
then slight reductions beyond the debt service. Now with the interest
coming back, most of that being impact fee interest; I'm down to about
Page 38
January 2],2010
3.9 that is coming beyond the debt service. So that's what this is
showing you.
So the answer to your question that you had a minute ago is as
you look at this, if you look at a reduction -- and that's the key point in
what I'm presenting in the three concepts in roads today. I'm not
presenting a concept of 11, 15 or 20 simply on my capital program ad
valorem, but on overall division ad valorem.
So if you look at it beyond the capital program, I've got 7.9 in
general fund, and I've got a total of about 20.3 in Ill, or the
unincorporated general fund Ill. And the total that I get in ad
valorem for all of my operations is 32 million a year. That is for
capital and for all of our operation activities.
And so what we did in the 11, 15 and 20 percent alternate options
that the board asked us to bring back is we looked at that reduction
against that total number of 32 million plus that I get in total ad
valorem, whether it be the general fund or the unincorporated general
fund.
And as is pointed out in the prior comment, at 11 percent if I've
gotten capital of3.9 and 11 percent reduction of that total comes out
to be 3.5, I can handle that out of my capital as a straight ad valorem
reduction.
Once I get past 11 percent, I guess 12 and a half, I haven't done
the exact math. But if I go to 15, that's where the demand is for 4.8
million to be reduced. I can take 3.9 of that out of the capital, but then
I have to go into my operations and maintenance to get the balance.
And what I'm saying to the question that was posed is I then am
going to take gas tax out of my capital to replenish my operating and
maintenance so it's not reduced. And I'll go into that in a second.
If! go to 20, obviously the same situation. I've only got 3.9 in
my capital ad valorem. So I need to then recoup the rest of that 6.4 in
gas taxes out of my capital to replace it from where I take it out of my
operation and maintenance ad valorem.
Page 39
January 2],2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what you're -- now that you've
explained that paragraph, you're not really reducing the gas taxes,
you're reducing the way they're used in a certain element.
MR. FEDER: I'm reducing them to my capital program, because
of course it's the Capital Improvement Element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FEDER: So what I'm trying to show you is in these
scenarios I'm dealing not only with what is typically in the Capital
Improvement Element, which is our capital projects and budgeting,
but also in my overall budget in a time of shortage of ad valorem
revenue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in the general fund 001, that's
where you dump the gas tax revenue.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said earlier that you bonded
a percentage of the tax -- gas tax revenue. Does general fund 00 I
represent all the gas tax revenue or is that just gas tax and other
revenues?
MR. FEDER: It's gas tax and ad valorem that comes in as my
total in 313. It includes 001 and gas tax. So when I show you a gas
tax in 313 in my budget, it has ad valorem, as you see about 3.9, as
well as 14.6 of debt service, as well as gas tax proceeds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you bonded 100 percent of the gas
tax revenues?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the gas tax revenues have
been reduced. Even by your own numbers we're losing gas tax
revenues. But I've assumed that when you bonded that you locked the
bonds in at an interest rate that equaled the gas tax revenues at the 100
percent level that you were taking them at.
MR. FEDER: Yes. And I also pledged the backup of ad
valorem, and that's why I'm talking about the ad valorem here. And
Page 40
January 2], 2010
the 14.6 is ad valorem that is helping pay back that debt service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much of the negative and the
gas tax debt service is reimbursed by the ad valorem?
MR. FEDER: The ad valorem that we're getting, the 14.6 I
mentioned for debt service, is covering the full debt service. Because
what we did is level that out, we took the bonds. So the money I'm
getting in ad valorem is covering that. That leaves me the gas tax
revenues to then be able to do my program.
And as we discussed --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm mixed up again.
MR. FEDER: -- and I got Xeroxed, I apologize, it does show a
lien to the side here, which is probably appropriate with all the graph.
But it got moved on the page some.
But basically if you remember this when we were talking, that
red was my impact fee revenue stream. Used to be my highest revenue
stream. As of last year it was 13 million on my lowest revenue
source.
You see the gas taxes in the lower end here, in the blue, and as
you point out, it's going down a little bit.
You see the ad valorem in the green, and that's going to soon
change appreciably from our discussions. But that includes in that
number the assumption of the debt service and the interest revenue.
Because in the past it didn't come to us in that way, it came always
just in ad valorem to the division.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you carry the liabilities for
the impact fees that have been paid but not yet utilized by the
certificates of -- COAs? You have a 50 percent deposit, more or less,
put at the time of development order issuance.
MR. FEDER: They're out there in asphalt today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're out there -- so we've already--
we've already pledged the remaining impact fees that will come in at
the time of building permit issuance, even though we don't know when
Page 4 ]
January 2], 2010
that is?
MR. FEDER: No, we have not pledged them. We only utilize
them as we receive them. Transportation has done no borrowing
against its impact fee revenue. So the 50 percent that's provided
up- front, which is not reimbursable, that has already been used in
projects.
Obviously I carry a little bit of money in impact fee forward, but
generally speaking, the answer to your question is, as the impact fee
revenues are generated and received, projects have consumed that
funding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, if the -- if you have 100 percent of
an impact fee due -- required for an improvement in order to meet the
level of service, you get 50 percent of it in and you go out and
complete the road because you got the 50 percent you needed as a
deposit. Then how is that other 50 percent when it does come in at
building permit issuance applied if the road's already built?
MR. FEDER: I wish it would apply. Right now we're not
getting the second 50 percent --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know --
MR. FEDER: -- and that's why that impact fee stream, when I
was getting the 50 percent, when it was going up there, it was utilized
in improvements, there was an assumption that the other 50 percent
would be coming.
Therefore, the ability to have a more aggressive capital
improvement program, which you have seen has gone down in the last
two or three years and as you're going to see today is pretty much
beyond this year one project in the five years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if you've already built the
road with the 50 percent, you got the other 50 percent coming say
three years from now when they finally come in for a building permit.
MR. FEDER: If that happens--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The road's built, where does that money
Page 42
January 21, 2010
go? How is--
MR. FEDER: Well, first ofall--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it used at that point?
MR. FEDER: -- we're waiting for that to happen. As you know,
we went to the board. The industry itself worked with us very strong
on that issue of 50 percent. And that's how we were able to make a lot
of the progress we did.
What -- the industry now is suffering some hard times and what
we did is try to respond to that. We've now made it the other 50
percent can be paid 10 percent a year over five years. Even with that,
a lot of the development just isn't moving and a lot of those monies
aren't coming in. When and if they come in, they'll be part of our
revenue stream and we'll be able to respond to projects that we've
taken off of our capital improvement program in lieu of them being
available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you bond out the additional 50
percent you didn't get?
MR. FEDER: No, we did not. We did no bonding of our impact
fees. Transportation only bonded its gas tax.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the ad valorem revenues that
are needed to carry us when the impact fee revenue has been down, is
that considered a loan to your department, paid back possibly by these
revenues that come in from these --
MR. FEDER: No, it is not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- out of the impact fees that should
have been paid?
MR. FEDER: No, it is not. Again, we did not bond on our
impact fees, which is a lot of what the loans are, coming from ad
valorem to cover the debt services not being met today specifically.
And that's why I went through the explanation of that debt
service, we had a situation where we had a huge backlog, somewhat
created because we hadn't increased our impact fees from '93 to 2000.
Page 43
January 21, 20]0
Many other issues. But nonetheless, a huge backlog.
To then go at that consistent with growth pays for growth, we
had to show that that backlog was funded and is being funded before
we could then bring the impact fees up to the point of where we could
charge growth pays for growth, which of course changes over time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, and this is a five-year window
we're looking at in the ClE.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If within the five years I expect that we
are going to see some turnaround in those other 50 percent impact fees
that are out there. We're going to see some of that start to come back
in. If that was seen as a -- when it comes in as a pay-back to a loan
from the ad valorem to cover it while that was out --
MR. FEDER: Again--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be a different situation than
if we didn't look at it.
MR. FEDER: Again, you need to understand, the only ad
valorem that I'm getting that's addressing debt service is for gas tax for
what was a developed backlog. I cannot use impact fees to pay back
that loan or else I never covered the backlog and I used people's
impact fee to cover the backlog, and I can't do that legally.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the backlog that has been
created -- and I'm sorry if I -- the rest of you guys. If the backlog that
was created was created because you didn't have all the impact fees
you needed to to put the program in that the impact fees were
justifiably could have been spent for, for example, if you got 100
percent of the impact fee instead of 50 percent, you could have spent
the whole 100 percent for that item.
MR. FEDER: I can't go retroactively back. The fact that you
can set an impact fee not greater than what it actually costs you, but
areas do set it, unlike our area since 2000 has set it at what it cost
them. You can set the -- the board could set it at half of what the cost
Page 44
January 2],2010
was. They can't then go back later and say that was a bad decision so
I'm going to double it now and therefore cover what I didn't cover
during that time because I only got half the impact fees I should have.
Because then you're having impact fees for new growth that comes in
and pays it, paying for a backlog for prior decisions. You cannot do
that. Legally the law restricts it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You said you could not bond -- you did
not bond impact fees.
MR. FEDER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you bond impact fees if you had
wanted to in the past?
MR. FEDER: Yeah, as a matter of fact, I could have taken out a
$10 million general loan that didn't go against any of my funds, but we
decided not to do that, based on what you see right in front of you here
that says my income stream probably couldn't pay it back. So we tried
to be very fiscally responsible in the transportation budget.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is you could not have
bonded just based on impact fees alone, there would have had to have
been an ad valorem guarantee to them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where --
MR. FEDER: You couldn't bond for the backlog. Could you
bond impact fees is what I was answering --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- for new capacity construction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FEDER: Yes, you could. We have not and we are not
because right now that 13 million is tracking about eight or nine
million, based on the first quarter this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at the ad
valorem money that you use for new construction now that would
normally have been paid out of impact fees as a loan against those
future impact fees or like a bond that --
Page 45
January 21, 2010
MR. FEDER: Again--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the impact fees come back and
reimburse the general fund which helps keep our taxes down in the
long run?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, let me add a couple
things that -- in the equation. Because the impact fee is a complicated
item. You get credits in your impact fee calculation for gas tax and ad
valorem. When you start making some decisions or discussions or
recommendations you're making, that affects the impact fee rate. So
when you start saying you're going to get no ad valorem support
towards the road for the backlog, growth pays for growth, going
forward your impact fee would go even higher when you start pulling
ad valorem support out of the impact fee calculation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm saying not to pull it out,
maintain it at the level we have, and if that's been an acceptable level
or close to that based on the times. But any additional that has to be
put in to cover what would have normally been above and beyond for
impact fee, based on impact fee revenue being slacked off right now,
use that as a bond on a loan against the future impact fees so that when
they do come in we get it back into the general fund and we can keep
our taxes down.
MR. FEDER: Again--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would affect the rate, sir. That
would affect the rate, if you start doing it that way. It would --
MR. FEDER: It would, one, affect the rate. And two, if it's used
on anything that was backlogged as opposed to new growth, I can't do
that legally.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who sets -- you said it would affect the
rate. Who in the county deals with that rate the most? Is it Amy?
MR. FEDER: Our methodology, Amy. But what I can tell you
is what Nick just said is the case, you're required in an impact fee to
give a credit against other taxes that that new development will pay.
Page 46
January 2], 2010
So if you've got a gas tax, which we do, I have to give a credit for that.
In use ad valorem to construct projects, I have to give a credit for
that. And it's a credit based on what they would pay over time. So
your impact fee goes down.
When I was asked, how do I get my impact fee to go down, I said
pass a halfpenny sales tax. Because you've got Hillsborough standing
up there saying gee, we have low impact fees. Why? They have the
halfpenny sales tax, they have to lower their impact fees, because it's a
huge credit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, to add to that, your
impact fee is generalized throughout the county from the urban folks
who drive a certain distance to the rural folks who drive twice as far.
When we did the impact fee study, we did bring that up to the
commissioners that said folks east of 951 drive twice as far, therefore
they should be paying more in an impact fee, or that should raise the
overall impact fee in general. And one of the commissioners'
discussion was they want to have an average impact fee.
So you're partly subsidizing that need to build roads through the
ad valorem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand that, Nick.
Somehow the difference or the incremental piece that I'm trying to sort
to pull out of this mess isn't being made clear, and I may need to do
more research before I can discuss it further with you. Because what
you're saying -- I understand what you're saying. I don't think it's
hitting the point I'm trying to ask. And maybe I'm not clear enough,
because I don't understand the question.
MR. FEDER: I would say if you want to try and ask the question
again, because I'm trying to understand it. Otherwise, I assure you,
Chairman, I'd be happy to sit down with you and make sure at one
point or another both of us do get to understand it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've been very forthright in all of
our discussions, so I'll make a point to get with you. I can --
Page 47
January 2],2010
MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- belabor this thing for hours and it
probably won't get any clearer than it is right now, so --
MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, I apologize on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, did you--
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I understand your point. I mean, we do
this with other impact fees where from -- you call it bonding, but what
we're really doing is an internal accounting mechanism where we're
sort of internally loaning impact fees that aren't coming in against ad
valorems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and see--
MR. KLATZKOW: And that's what you're getting at. You're not
getting at going out there for true bonding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
MR. FEDER: No, but understand the point of the matter is, that
is done in other areas where they bonded their impact fee, their future
stream -- or committed, I won't say bonded.
MR. KLATZKOW: Committed.
MR. FEDER: Committed their future impact stream to do some
projects. We did not do that. And that's the point I'm trying to make,
that therefore I'm not paying back with ad valorem any impact fee
activity.
Now, I know you're looking at do I have a way to say when I
didn't collect full impact fees or is there a way to try to take some of
that against future impact fee revenue? And I'm telling you right now,
we have such low impact fee revenue, so volatile, that we're playing
very conservative on that. We didn't take the 10 million in
commercial paper loan because we didn't know how we'd pay that
back. And hopefully in subsequence, and that's why we do this every
year, obviously what we did in 11, we just flattened that out of cost.
Am I hoping -- in general we did. You got some minor modifications.
Page 48
January 21,2010
Am I hoping that there will be a recovery soon? But as we discussed,
I thought that maybe a year or two ago. Now I'm wondering if it's a
year or two out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, did you finish with what
you wanted to kind of get into with us so we can -- we should ask our
questions. How do you want to approach the rest of --
MR. FEDER: The only thing I'll tell you is go to your questions.
The different proposals and what projects moves and issues, basically
come off this. But what I need you to understand is the 11, 15 and 20
are coming off of the total ad valorem, whether it's general fund or
unincorporated, to the division.
And to the question you had as explanations where I have to --
after about 12 percent where I have to say that I don't have enough ad
valorem, unless it's debt service, to take it out of capital, I am then
taking out of my operation maintenance, taking gas taxes that were in
capital, moving it to operations and maintenance.
And the other thing I wanted to add is I know I brought to this
board for three successive AUIRs to the County Commissioners the
sort of sounding the alarm that we built all that, we've got to maintain
it, we built it, we've got to maintain it. Oh, my God, now it's getting
older, it has to be maintained today. I'm at that point on portions of
what we built in this expansion system.
So alls I'm saying is I've got to maintain operations of
maintenance at least at the same level. And that's going to mean that
I'm going to have an increasing backlog of deferred maintenance. But
if I lower it, I'm just going to extrapolate that to more deferred
maintenance. So I'm saying I've got to try to hold that one solid, even
at the expense of the capital program, not only ad valorem, but in this
case gas tax, which would be required to make these purge reductions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to take a
break here soon, but I want to finish up Page 1 of appendix A. And I
had a couple more questions.o
Page 49
January 21,20]0
You talk about in the second to the bottom paragraph the
expanded infrastructure for traffic operations and the advancing age of
our bridges. Further budget cuts to operation and maintenance would
not allow sufficient investment to safely maintain the capital inventory
that currently exists, nor address the increased demand for
maintenance.
I have two questions about that. Do you have a list of the
condition of all the bridges in the --
MR. FEDER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the county?
Can you send that to me?
MR. FEDER: Be happy to. And it--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would you mind --
MR. FEDER: -- gets updated every two years and some projects
annually. Actually, the state inspects all bridges, but I'd be happy to
provide it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once I get that list, at some point would
you mind if I contacted you about a couple particular bridges and went
to look at them? I wanted to understand what you think is a serious
maintenance defect so I understand how bad the bridges are.
MR. FEDER: By all means. And I can show you some pictures
that both of us probably don't want to see. But I'd be happy to do that,
and we go through any bridge and you'd have the condition ratings.
Again, the state does the process. We go out and inspect it ourselves
to reaffirm in cases we question it, ask the state to come back and
reevaluate. And then we do have a list. So it's not one that we just
wait for their list and take it carte blanche, but generally the inspection
process state-wide is done by the state.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you also note the increased
demand for maintenance.
We've had across-the-board reduction in traffic on our roads
because of the economy. You've acknowledged that in various
Page 50
January 2], 2010
documents that we've got in front of us. And we've also had new
roads open up where old roads had been over -- let's say overstressed.
That should prolong the maintenance time in some areas, because
you're reducing traffic on the roads.
How is that reflected percentage-wise in your operations and
maintenance funding?
MR. FEDER: Okay, first of all, I have a graphic, but I won't
make you see another graphic here. Looking at both resources of
employees and manpower, but also lane miles taken on, traffic ops,
new signals and issues taken on. On the balance.
While you do build a new road, and that's why, for about 10
years that I've been here -- not quite, but it feels like more -- that I've
been here, in actuality we were benefited by a very aggressive
construction program. Because while it's under construction, that
contractor is responsible for the operations and maintenance of that
corridor. And once they're finished with it, it's all brand new. Now,
the traffic ops demand quite often adding a new signal and issues
comes on right away, but it's also less of a maintenance issue initially.
The paving and some of the other issues take a little longer
because it's brand new. So paving, we did 400 lane miles. Of that,
about 140 were reconditioning or restructuring of existing miles, and
the other 160 was new miles added. So 140 miles I wasn't
maintaining. But I added 160 onto the system over the 10 years that's
starting to come forward. You've got some segments of Livingston
that are now over that basic seven years, and that's not a reason to do
it. We do pavement condition ratings and evaluate them on their
actual pavement condition.
But you look at it, and if you come driving down Livingston at
about Pine Ridge, if you've seen what's happening at that intersection
and in some of the other areas and also my pavement markers or rpm,
deflectors or delineators and some of the striping, those issues are
coming forward now.
Page 51
January 21,2010
So what I'm trying to point out is we added considerably. Take
landscape. I got the advantage of being given last year 1.8 million to
do three additional segments. They look beautiful. I did not get any
maintenance dollars. And that's why I said, do not give me the capital,
because I'm struggling on the maintenance I already have.
So what I'm telling you is I've got to get the focus to maintenance
and ops and commitment to the monies that we've expended in this
county, and we need to maintain it.
And I would like to build some more, but there's not going to be
a lot of that coming unless the revenue stream I just showed you
before changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think we had a rather
lengthy discussion of that during the AUIR process --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- about it. Because it was stated
somewhere that the roads are supposed to be repaved every eight
years, or whatever --
MR. FEDER: Not supposed to, it's --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and we asked at the time weren't
there differences, because we're here in Florida and we don't have the
same stresses as some national number. And Norm explained at the
time that we are stretching those even beyond. I mean, we're more
than doubled that to begin with, and we're stretching even beyond that.
MR. FEDER: We are. And again, that is just a rule of thumb,
just as an idea if you're trying to set up an asset management program.
But we don't do anything other than go through our inventories of
pavement condition, and we're not going to pave a road unless it needs
to be paved, and none before its time. Sometimes after its time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does this paper in front of us
represent all of the revenue stream coming into transportation?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it does.
Page 52
January 2], 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you put the red light --
MR. FEDER: Other than --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- payment on right turn on red?
MR. FEDER: Well, actually, I don't get anything out of red light
cameras.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right on red light cameras, I'm
wondering where all that money goes, besides the people in Arizona.
MR. FEDER: What I will tell you is most of it is paying for the
cameras and the operation of that. You've got 62.50 is your initial
ticket; 57 of that is going to the cameras, the equipment, the
processing and all the issues.
The balance is going into an account that the board is going to
have to decide how to use. Our recommendation was ambulances and
other issues related to the nature of the activity. But it wasn't a money
generator. There's a little bit of money accumulated when it's at 125.
The board wanted to make it clear that this was not a money issue but
a safety issue.
We can all debate it, right turn on red, gee, why are you doing it?
Specifically I'm trying to protect pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as the
motorist. And beyond that, it's the law. So we can go into that one for
a few hours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we could -- I could right write a
book on everything going --
MR. FEDER: But it is not a money generator. And what is
being generated is going into a fund which isn't growing rapidly
because it's so little difference between the two costs, the expenses
versus revenue. But eventually that will come, and I'm sure the public
will get input and the board will make a decision how to use those
funds. Hopefully on something productive here in the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when we get back, let's start on
Page 2 of the appendix, and we won't -- and I think roads will come
back up when we get into the supplemental sheet, so we'll be back at
Page 53
January 2],2010
10 after 10:00. Thank you.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from
break.
During the break I had a moment to talk to the County Attorney
about a possibility of today's outcome. We have a lot of data that's
being given to us this morning and a lot of responses to a lot of our
questions, and they will have an impact on how we interpret this
document. And it's all to the betterment. The more we understand it
and the clearer we understand it, the much better it will be to make a
better decision.
However, I think it would be helpful if we went through all of
our questions, got all the information we could out of staff today,
came back and then continued this meeting and a decision on the CIE
till Thursday morning of next week, prior to the beginning of our
discussion on the Land Development Code. And if we could do that,
that would give us a chance to digest everything that's been handed
out late today that we're being presented with today and the answers to
our questions. Because the outcome of this decision, even though it's
a recommendation, sometimes they carry weight when they go to the
Board of County Commissioners.
And with that in mind, I would rather see us understand this and
have time to think about the facts. So if anybody on the Planning
Commission doesn't have an objection to this, I would like to proceed
under that scenario.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, is there any problem from
your department's perspective?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Do you want to not take
action on the items that were not changed? Do you want to continue
those to the 28th as well too?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going -- I thought we'd take action
Page 54
January 21,20]0
on the entire CIE on --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- next Thursday morning at 8:30 in this
room. Bulk of the discussion, the bulk of the input, and thankfully
there's no more changes, because this is supposed to be the last day
anyway, are all in our hands and we've received them all this morning,
we can go back after what we've learned today, restudy this and come
back with a more concise, hopefully more accurate understanding of it
with a better decision next Thursday.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't see a problem if the County
Attorney doesn't have a problem. The only thing I would ask is
maybe by the end of today you have a feeling for what kind of staff
you want here, myself, if Mr. Feder or, you know, utilities, just so we
can let them know and be prepared to be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate that. I'm going to
try to ask everything I have today. I don't see why I won't get through
it.
And with that we left off on appendix A, number two. We had
finished with the first page, which was all roads and transportation. Is
there anything from the transpor -- well, anything on the second page
at all that anybody has a question on?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question on a Parks and Rec
issue, Barry. And you probably knew this was coming.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You talk about the scheduled project for
future improvements of an A TV park. That was one of the removed
items from your process. Why did you remove it?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure I follow your--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the second paragraph it says two
park and recreation projects were removed from the scheduled capital
improvements as follows: The scheduled project for future
Page 55
January 21, 2010
improvements of an A TV park and a scheduled project for future
purchases of land programming for park expansion for Bayview Park.
Now, I understand the Bayview Park one. That was discussed at
the AUIR. But what did you remove the future improvements for the
ATV park for, and what park was that that you removed them?
MR. WILLIAMS: I see that now. And where it says and
describes for future purchases, that wasn't based -- the plan is still in
our AUIR for recognizing 625 acres for the commitment South Florida
Water Management owes Collier County to provide them an A TV
park. So that commitment still stands.
My only comment may be, and I may need Corby to help with
that, is that is land -- that again was a land transfer. That wasn't going
to be any money out from Parks and Rec for that -- for the purchase.
So I don't know that's what that reference is or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, it doesn't say
that, it says the scheduled project for future, and it uses the words
improvements. Improvements are not land. So what improvements
that you have in that were taken out for the A TV park? And I'm just
wondering why you made that decision. I'm not criticizing it, I'm only
trying to understand why you made the decision.
MR. WILLIAMS: And again, for us, I mean, capital
improvement would refer to the purchase of land and would not
include facilities. So it may be that that was taken out as far as facility
improvements on the land itself. I really can't speak to that comment,
I really need Corby I guess to help me a little with this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Corby, what have you removed from
Parks and Rec's department's budget?
MR. WILLIAMS: Can I blame you all the time?
MR. SCHMIDT: Previously in the CIE it was those
improvements that were being funded. And the improvements
themselves are not being funded any longer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What improvements? Can you be more
Page 56
January 21, 2010
specific? To what part?
MR. SCHMIDT: Which would have been the improvements to
an A TV park at a somewhat vague location to myself. I'm not -- I
don't know specifically where that would have been.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the 625 acres had been secured,
there were improvements figured to go on the 625 acres. And since
it's not secured, you have not utilized -- that money's not being utilized
in the next five years; is that what you're trying to say?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. That was all I was
trying to get to.
And I'm assuming if in the -- that means you don't expect to find
the land for the A TV park in the next five years, so it's at least five
years out?
MR. WILLIAMS: I would tell you I'm familiar with South
Florida Water Management's attempts to find land. They still are
stipulating that the Lake Trafford site is viable, although there's still a
question about that. And there is litigation concerning that.
So as far as South Florida Water Management meeting the
commitment, we know that we've looked at a variety of properties
with them and haven't found a suitable site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's interesting the timing
of that issue dropping off the Parks and Rec budget. But the approval
of the GMPA for the ATV site from that -- that Miami's putting in out
at the old airstrip, so -- kind of predictable.
Anybody have other questions on Page 2? If not, we'll move to
Page 3.
Anybody have any -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, under potable water projects,
the Orangetree facility or the RO expansion, which is 2012 and which
is 2023? And I ask that because if you flip to Page 4 it looks like
Orangetree is coming on board in 2012, according to the last line. But
Page 57
January 2], 2010
I don't know if that's the entire thing or -- are we incorporating
Orangetree into county facilities in 2012 or 2023?
MR. SCHMIDT: I know that's being done, but I'll let them
answer the question as to the timing.
MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, Public Utilities.
That is correct, Orangetree is still projected to be taken over in
2012 for us to manage. And we will maintain it as a separate system
until it requires interconnection to maintain level of service.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But for that same facility, if
you look on Page 4, the very last line under sewer and wastewater
projects, it says certain water reclamation facilities were affected by
deferred demand so as not to require incorporation of Orangetree
facilities into the county system until fiscal year 2012. Right? So it is
'12 for everything, and it's the reverse osmosis that's not going to be
needed until 2023, right?
MR. BEALS: Correct. I believe that might be a typo from
Corby, but that is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Corby. Oh, boy, below the belt,
Corby. I'll tell you, he's going to get you good.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby, that's okay, it's just a
reversal.
MR. SCHMIDT: As I recall, this was cut and pasted directly
from someone.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So it just should be reversed, that's
all.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple.
Potable water projects. Do you keep a chart by month, by day,
by year, by whatever basis for the water pressures that you provide
Page 58
January 21,2010
through your system?
MR. GRAMA TGES: Commissioners, Phil Gramatges, Public
Utilities Engineering.
The operation departments do keep those records, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they on a spreadsheet, a electronic
format, something that I could take a look at?
MR. GRAMA TGES: I really couldn't tell you, at that point in
time. But anything that is data could be put on a spreadsheet. I would
communicate with them as to your interest.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm not asking them to create
something that takes time and manpower to do that. I'm trying to find
something already available. If there is something already available or
ifthere is not, would you e-mail me and let me know? And I'd like to
know where it's at so I can take a look at it.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. And specifically what are you
looking for, sir?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water pressures that we maintain
out of our -- as the supply out of our facilities, out of our potable water
facilities.
MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how they fluctuate in different
seasons of the year and things like that, if they do.
MR. GRAMATGES: They don't fluctuate. We keep a
continuous pressure, discharge pressure, from the high service pumps.
So we do not vary them by season or by time of the day or time of the
week. It's steady. So I do not know if that data is going to look very
interesting, if it does indeed exist.
But I will certainly talk to Mr. Mattausch, the director of potable
water, and ask him if that information is available and we'll forward --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can just stop by and take a look at it, if
you don't mind.
MR. GRAMATGES: Sure.
Page 59
January 21,20]0
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of what I look at is not very
interesting, so it wouldn't -- who knows, it might be the most
enlightening thing I've ever seen.
MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- and then I have question of
stormwater management. And Norm, there's two things. I know we
deferred the watershed study, but it's currently underway in CDES.
Who in CDES is doing the watershed study?
MR. FEDER: I'll defer to Nick, but Robert Wiley and--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mack Hatcher and Robert Wiley are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they coordinating that with
the FEMA study? Because the FEMA study, it would seem to me,
especially in the topography and the LIDAR and all the other elements
that were used there to show FEMA, while we did not have flowways,
would certainly help with the watershed study. Is that -- are they all
working together with the same data?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are working together with the
same data, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had on
that. I saw it as a -- make sure it was coordinated.
No other questions, we'll move to Page 4. Anybody have
questions on Page 4?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes care of the text of the
appendix. And we start getting into a series of charts, which certainly
spell out different ways of reducing monies here at the county.
MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. SCHMIDT: One item to mention. Because of the changes
that were recent, those that were handouts and e-mails yesterday, on
page -- or on the final page for solid waste disposal facilities the first
paragraph that begins with pursuant to the landfill operating
Page 60
January 21, 2010
agreement, that paragraph ends with a sentence which reads, landfill
cells previously scheduled to be constructed and so on, just strike that
last sentence. Those are the projects at landfill, solid waste that have
been rescheduled to match the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That goes on to the next page, right?
MR. SCHMIDT: It does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the way through the word
respectively, okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item up would be an 11
by 17 page that was folded up in our document. And it says CIE
changes from 2009 to 2010. And it's a road system -- I guess items
that would be impacted by the different percentages of change in the
reductions that are being considered.
Does anybody have any questions on that page?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, the most obvious question
to me, and it would come up on some of the pages afterwards: Your
choices of reductions in roads. The one, for example, you have 60168,
we don't need the Vanderbilt Beach -- well, we never needed the
Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor. You all have sold everybody that we
do. But we need it even less than we didn't need it before because Big
Cypress is on indefinite hold, the economy in the Estates like
everywhere else in the county has slowed down. We have a lot of
vacancies, and people aren't moving in as fast. Why do we need to
spend any money on that corridor now?
MR. FEDER: Okay, first of all, this is shown as a reduction, and
we are reducing what is only and has only been for the last couple of
years a right-of-way phase for the Vanderbilt Beach Road corridor.
We'll continue probably to disagree respectfully about the need for
that corridor, but nonetheless, we do agree that that has slowed down
in some of its demand with growth out in the Estates.
Page 61
January 21,20]0
Big Cypress wasn't the impetus to begin with. But nonetheless,
we are purchasing. We did a study. We needed to define a corridor,
rather than hold many people hostage. We defined a corridor. Then
folks know where it's going to end up in the future. The need for
another east-west was a concern. And we had some whole takes as
both of us unfortunately were facing.
Those 19 of the 21 have been acquired. Everybody that's worked
with us on a reasonable offer. And I think we've made people very
whole. We're working through the other two. Weare now buying
along the corridor, again, no condemnation, only on negotiated
settlements. And we told people, prices are down now, we'll offer you
a fair price based on current market. If you want to work with us and
have us acquire that partial take or whatever, we'll work with you on
it. If you want to wait, you can wait. And so we reduced the dollar
significantly for the right-of-way phase.
At one time a couple years back when that impact fee stream was
nation high, we had the construction out to Wilson. That's no longer
and hasn't been for the last couple of years in our program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm -- let's pretend it's not
necessarily Vanderbilt Beach Road in the location that I personally
disagree with. Let's just say it's any new road. Let's say it's one
through the middle of Pelican Bay.
MR. FEDER: My right-of-way costs are the lowest they're ever
going to be right now. I don't have pending construction, so I'm not
going into condemnation and forcing people at a low time, but where I
can negotiate settlements on any of the corridors that I need
right-of-way.
Additionally, the nature of the process is about eight years. What
you do not want to do that I faced when I came here, is to take and not
put anything in the pipelines when you go to turn on the spigot when
actual monies come and demand is here and everybody agrees with
that, that a project can come out, but rather has to wait five, six, seven
Page 62
January 21,2010
years after that demand is identified to actually do a project.
So what we did is we had a program, comes out for our
long-range transportation plan, approved by the MPO, by the board,
through all the committees, and we've pared that down over time as
the revenue stream has been pared down. I didn't say as the needs got
pared down, but as the revenue stream got pared down, and to a
degree the needs more recently as well.
So in answer to your question, this is a reduction in the
right-of-way. The right-of-way is the only phase we have in there,
and the right-of-way is on negotiated settlements, not on
condemnation. As is true on Golden Gate Boulevard, which I wish I
had the construction in. I already have a deficiency there, but I don't
because of funding and others of like yolk.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purchases you're making on
Vanderbilt Beach Road, since that is the one that's in the budget, you
could make those at any time in the future.
MR. FEDER: Again, if we don't have a negotiated settlement,
people coming to us and asking that we settle with them, then we will
be doing it in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason, Norm, in a personal
budget at your home when you run up against a decrease in income,
you simply can't spend on things that aren't absolute necessities. And
it would seem to me that the roads that are in place that need to be
maintained, that need to be improved, that are deficient in a level of
service are -- should take priority over ones far down in the future.
MR. FEDER: Oh, I agree. And we tried to do that. But when
that one's a necessity, let's take construction of Golden Gate
Boulevard, at some $40 million, it's hard to address that necessity in
lieu of one million here or two million there on items that you're
mentioning.
I think the other analogy, as you said with your home, I've got a
leak in my roof. I can either attend to it now or I can wait until it gets
Page 63
January 2], 2010
bigger, or I could wait until eventually I'm going to replace the whole
roof.
So again, we're only doing it on where we can negotiate, and
we're trying to negotiate in good faith. There's no condemnation, and
the dollars are reduced, acknowledging that now that I'm in a lower
market, although it's a great time to get the right-of-way, less people
are coming forward to negotiate, because they realize the market's
down. But some are, because they need to move out, they need to
resolve issues, whatever their reasons be. And those we are trying to
provide some funding to be able to work with them. They didn't ask to
be taken, as you point out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The leak in an existing roof is
maintenance.
Anyway, under -- go ahead, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just to that. Then if you look
at this chart, if you're looking at reducing your AUIR by 11 percent so
that just for that line item the Vanderbilt ROW is I8-nine. If you
reduce your budget by 15 percent, why are you still keeping it at 18.9,
and why, if you're going all the way down to 20, does it demand 20
million?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, let me add to this. I
was part of that project.
First of all, for the record, you absolutely need that facility in
your long-range transportation plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what I'm asking.
MR. FEDER: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But I'll put that on the record, because
Commissioner Strain put that on the record that you don't need a long
parameter, that you do need it. For the record.
Second is your GMP says you will acquire right-of-way and plan
for future roadways.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not what I'm asking either.
Page 64
January 2],2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But you're asking -- we've reduced it.
And right now what the plan is is to lower the budget to acquire that
right-of-way but to still maintain some level of advanced right-of-way.
And that's a project that's shown as a need. So you're asking should
we reduce it proportionately per each one of those reductions, in other
words, reduce it further.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Caron, what you're asking, the
answer to that is the difference, the major difference between the 11
and 15 is that Santa Barbara, which was in the fifth year, an 11 percent
reduction, goes out of the program. That's the section north of where
we just recently built, from basically just north of Golden Gate or
Copper Leaf up to Green Boulevard, that goes out. What you had in
the program at 11 percent was some savings of dollars where there's
nothing in anyone of these three scenarios. It wasn't before in years
two and three. There were some dollars saved up in two, three and
four to be able to do work in five. In this case our four goes out to
five, as you'll see at the end, and the fifth year project, which is Santa
Barbara, goes out.
So the answer to your question is, I reduced what was the carry-
forward to be able to keep Santa Barbara in, because I can't afford to
keep it in as I reduce my percentages greater. So I've reduced the
right-of-way there on Vanderbilt, but the real difference between my
11 and 15 is what you don't see is the dollars that gets carried forward
to the next year and then gets carried to the next year to be able to
have had in my 11 percent reduction Santa Barbara in the fifth year
and lost it unfortunately in the 15 percent reduction.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What is in the current AUIR for
right-of-way purchase on Vanderbilt Beach, Collier to Wilson?
Amount of money.
MR. FEDER: You have out of a total right now, I'd have to get
the exact number, because I don't want to mislead you, but I think
you're about over the five years about seven or eight million.
Page 65
January 21, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven or eight.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. And I'll see if I can get that number for you
before we leave this discussion.
Actually, if you look at -- let me go and bring your attention to
the item on -- they've changed pages on me, but on CIE 16-11. As
you look on Vanderbilt Beach Road, Collier to Wilson, 12 million,
seven. And that goes down in the other, but it's 12 million, seven,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So if currently it's 12 million and
you're going to reduce it by 11 percent --
MR. FEDER: Only the ad valorem portion. Now, remember,
when I'm doing my capital I'm keeping all my impact fees, because I
can only use it on capital. And I'm keeping some of my gas tax.
Some of it I'm moving over to operating.
So this is only a reduction in the ad valorem. Or in essence in the
capital, a little bit of reduction in gas tax as well. So I think that may
be part of your question as well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we sort of need to know that
breakout. I mean, otherwise again math doesn't work.
MR. FEDER: I gave you the breakout in the chart.
Can you pull this back up again?
For the 11 percent, it's all ad valorem. When it comes to the 15
percent, it is all of that ad valorem plus about 800, which was
mentioned before, thousand, of gas taxes. And then of course it
becomes the difference between that -- I'm not looking in front of me
now, but 3.9 and six, four, if! remember correctly, on the 20 percent
is gas tax. So you have that information, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, the -- you're saying under say the
11 percent and it carries over to the 15 and then it increases even more
on the 20 percent. But in that corridor you're taking out right-of-way
of 18,900,000 in purchases. But I thought you just said there's only 12
million to begin with. How did you get to the additional six?
Page 66
January 2],20]0
MR. FEDER: That's not 18 million. Trees? What's that
number? On the reduction on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those better not be in thousands.
That's -- I mean, on our sheet? 18,900? But I mean, I'm assuming --
MR. FEDER: You're going off of -- not this sheet, you're going
off of the original AUIR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going offwhat's in our CIE.
MR. FEDER: No, you're going off of what was in the budget in
the AUIR on that reduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's included in our CIE, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. From last year's CIE to this year's CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Wait a minute, now we don't have the
right document in the CIE?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're asking the question from CIE
to AUIR or CIE to CIE?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm asking on this 11 by 17 foldout
MR. FEDER: CIE to CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- under 11 percent under the 60168
category, you say right-of-way, FY '10 to '14, reduced by -- and it says
18,900. Although I thought it was in millions.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in millions.
MR. FEDER: It's in millions, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifit's 18 million, say $19 million
but we're only needing 12 million, how do you reduce it by 19? That's
what I'm asking.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And what I --
MR. FEDER: No, 12 million is what is left in the 11 percent
reduction. You had at one time over 30 million in right-of-way in the
full corridor.
Page 67
January 21,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was her question, what was
the corridor's right-of-way.
MR. FEDER: I'm sorry, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the full --
MR. FEDER: 30 million was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the full right-of-way of that --
MR. FEDER: Full right-of-way--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- corridor.
MR. FEDER: -- previously in the corridor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Cherie'.
Norm, you and I got to break when we talk, because she can't
type when both of us talk.
So in the total corridor you have 30 million, and of the 30 million
you're taking out 18-nine, leaving about 12 million.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're still going to make 12 million
in purchases.
How do you decide which purchase ofthe 12 million you make?
MR. FEDER: Again, that's 12 million over five years. And the
answer to that one right now, as I told you, is as people come forward.
Now, the only thing we emphasized, and still only by agreement
or negotiation, were the whole takes. None of it is anticipated here in
this money as condemnation. And you'll see the monies over five
years working with people on negotiated settlements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why did you decide 12 million was
the magic number and not five million?
MR. FEDER: Well, we have an overall need for 30 to acquire
the full right-of-way in the corridors, the estimate. And again, a
right-of-way estimate at one time or another. But it had gone down a
little bit.
And again, the requirements to cut to 11 percent, we made a
major emphasis to cut it out of right-of-way. We cut more than half of
Page 68
January 2],20]0
it out ofthat project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have appraisals or land purchase
estimates by your department reflecting the 30 million?
MR. FEDER: We have estimates, and that's what came to the 30
million. But again, of course we work with the property owners, they
get a chance for an appraisal and we work through the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you know the date of that 30
million estimate?
MR. FEDER: I can get it for you, but I believe that that was
when we moved on the corridor, and it's been adjusted since, based on
general property values in the area, which have gone down, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the reduction from 30 million to 12
million really reflects a reduction in the market price.
MR. FEDER: No, it's beyond the market price drop, but there
has been a huge drop in the market. Because that 30 million was
recent, too. The market hasn't dropped just this last six months or last
year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you can get me that breakdown?
MR. FEDER: I will. And I'll get Kevin Hendricks, when you
come over, we'll have that information for you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To add to that, the CIE from last year,
the four years, were approximately $30 million. The reduction is from
CIE to CIE of 18.9 million.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I'm trying to understand how
the reduction occurred. It didn't come out of the fact that we're just
not going to purchase the property --
MR. FEDER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but come out of the fact the market's
reduced, just like your budget's for lane miles reduced. So you really
didn't make a reduction --
Page 69
January 2],2010
MR. FEDER: But we'll give you the specific information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The market option -- we're talking over
one another again. Please wait until I finish so she can keep it straight
for us, Norm.
What I'm seeing is that because the market dropped in value, you
simply dropped your numbers in value, which is what we should have
expected done from the get-go. Now I'm wondering how much meat
you're really taking off the bone here. And that's why I want to know
when your appraisals or market studies were done and then what the
current assessed values of those properties are, by example, the tax
assessor, now. And that will tell us how we got to this number and see
if you really did take any meat off the bone, more or less.
MR. FEDER: And we'll be happy to do that, Commissioner.
And I point out to you that if you look back at prior AUIRs and
CIGMs, I think you'll see when we originally came in this corridor
was almost 60 million plus in right-of-way as the estimate. It came
down as property values came down, and now it's coming down based
on cuts.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing. What seems
unfair, because I think what Norm is saying, at least what I'm hearing,
is that he wants to keep some money in the budget to A, take
advantage of anybody that wants to sell, because the values are low he
can get it while he can get it cheaper.
And second, there are people that know this is coming that don't
want to wait around till Norm has money, they want to actually cash
out as soon as they can to move on with their life from that property.
So is there something that's unfair about this or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not even the subject. That's
not where I was going. Where I was trying to go is that we're told that
we're going to reduce the right-of-way expenditures by 18-nine
Page 70
January 21,2010
because we're just not going to make so many over these years, but in
reality we're not going to reduce it, the markets reduced it. And so
there is no -- there has been no reduction really from a hard cost factor
of deferring anything. It's been reduced by the price to purchase.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what I heard is that he's
reducing the amount of money he wants in these early years, because
he doesn't want to buyout the whole corridor right now, but he does
want funds to take advantage of A, good price, and B, help people
move on.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll get that data. But point of
interest, from last year's CIE to this year's CIE, that reduction of
18-nine is much more than the reduction in the market price. And
we'll get you that data to prove that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to see the data and then that's
fine. That's what I --
MR. FEDER: And we'll show you the original estimates, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the
11 by 17 sheet?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your pathways under funded, what do
those lines mean under operation improvements? Does that mean
you've done that or -- because you've run it across the board, so --
MR. FEDER: Again, it's just a note to you. Because while it's
not part of the Capital Improvement Element itself, we have other
activities and other programs we're trying to tell you the impacts have
been there. In the case of resurfacing, we actually added a little bit of
money because of what's coming on to us. We pulled some money out
of the pathways, along with our capital program, and it's just giving
you the true picture, full picture. Because not everything is captured
under major capital projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no questions further on
Page 71
January 21, 20]0
that page, we can start moving into the tables.
Let's just take the first three tables of the road projects that
Norm's up there for, and we'll get rid of those to begin with. And that
is the 11 percent, the 15 percent and the 20 percent. Are there any
questions from those tables by the members of the Planning
Commission?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, your contingency
figure?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Under the 11 percent reduction,
the total is four million. Under the 15, it jumps to 11 million. And to
13 million under the 20 percent. Why are these figures going up as
opposed to going down? Because the goal here is to reduce the
amount of expenditure.
MR. FEDER: Understood. What I'll tell you, first of all, it's a
percentage. And you've got a reduced item. But the dollars are going
up because the first year you're funded only at about a 1.2 percent
revenue, and the provision is typically to be at five percent. Now,
we're not there as a county. And I think you're going to hear an awful
lot in the budget discussions of concern about how low we are on
revenues.
Additionally, I'll tell you I've got -- let me make sure I got the
right figure said. But I've got some significant dollars out in -- close
off of litigation on projects, which right now we feel very comfortable
in our position, but nonetheless we have to litigate that situation
because we've had those lawsuits.
And we have to provide at least about 10 percent of the figure to
be able to hire the counsel and the expert witnesses required. And so
we're looking at that and any potential settlements out of that, that
we've got to have some level of reserves. And I can tell you right
now, that barely would hit one of the four. But we're positioning
Page 72
January 21, 20]0
ourselves with what is a normal -- or trying to go to a normal level of
reserves in a bit of a normal situation where I have contention out
there for litigation on three projects and one developer contribution
agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norm, and this is going to be on
the revenue source, the developer contributions. First of all, it shows
nothing in the latter two years. So of all the contributions that we've
arranged, there is nothing due past a three-year period; is that right?
MR. FEDER: As it stands right now, again, those are the only
ones we've got, and we've got committed. We didn't want to put
anything -- obviously we've done some over the years, but I hope that
that generally would continue, yes. But if I don't have it set up, I don't
have it in here. Same with grants.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And have we been moving
some of these dates? I mean, as the economy got slower, are we
allowing people later and later dates for these commitments?
MR. FEDER: No, all these are structured on commitments. The
main one you have in here is 41/951, which as you're aware took a
number of times to get it to the right size to move. But it's moving.
And some of the dollars are here and the others are committed, along
with some additional SIGP from the state and some resurfacing for
951 south in the state.
But these are commitments that we feel are in hand and are solid
and that's why we put them in here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on those three pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, I need to go back and figure out
where you started from. Under your adopted version, 11 percent, you
have a total road expenditure -- road project totals of 329,000. And
that reflects an 11 percent reduction from what number?
Page 73
January 2l, 2010
MR. FEDER: From today's FY '10 approved budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that relate to the AUIR?
MR. FEDER: It relates to the AUIR which is generally just in
capacity, and the CIE, which is in capacity, just as I note on the table.
Weare working with an ad valorem reduction. We also had to reduce
our program and consistently reduce it on impact fees, as volatile as
they've been in going down. And somewhat on gas tax, but that's been
more stable.
So in answer to your question, what we did is we took our FY '10
budget, I look at my impact fees in that best estimate, so that's how I
build it every time. And it's changed, even from last AUIR a little bit.
Because you remember we had reduced it. Now you see it a little bit
further reduced. And I may not make that this year, okay.
And we said that what we're really dealing with in the 11, 15 and
20 is the ad valorem. And the request to us was to reduce the ad
valorem coming to transportation, not simply to capital. If you only
wanted to make it capital, although that was defined in some of the
discussions, I have only 3.9 other than the debt service to provide.
That would only meet the 11, not the 15 and 20.
So in answer to your question, it comes from the revenue stream
estimates from the prior CIE as well. The base for the 11, 15 and 20 is
the ad valorem that's in my FY '10 budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I've got a question, since you
were the one who put the CIE together, and your comprehensive
planning department I guess has certain standards in the way these
documents get assembled.
Are we supposed to have any ability to track from the AUIR to
the CIE? The reason -- some of the departments and utilities did it
with their corrected sheets, which I had caught earlier this week. They
went back and used the AUIR values where they had used a
duplicative value from potable water to sewer, they came back and
corrected that in their changes. Now they meet their values in the
January 21, 20]0
AUIR, as do I believe some of the other departments.
But if you go back to the AUIR and try to correlate what
transportation's numbers are, I can't get there. How is that possible?
How is that -- is that how the CIE is supposed to be formatted?
MR. SCHMIDT: Part of that answer is in a previous year we did
some comparisons from the CIE back to the AUIR. Not only is it
more confusing and less useful, but we did not provide a CIE to CIE
comparison, we stuck to that only this year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But see, here's the problem I
have. They're looking at 11 percent reduction to get to 329. I can't get
to the number unless I back into it from a doc -- I can't get to a number
from an approved document that went through the land planning
agency as we're called.
MR. FEDER: That--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gets us -- wait a minute, Norm.
That gets us to a number that 11 percent less of is 329. Because that
number would have to be 370,260,000. I can't find it anywhere in the
land planning reviews that we did.
So I'm wondering what I missed or if I have a document that we
changed and I just don't know it.
MR. FEDER: And understood. To try and provide some
clarification, first of all, from AUIR to CIE we've changed the impact
fees and we've reduced them further. We reduced them in the AUIR.
Also in the AUIR the reason I'm standing here before you with
11, 15 and 20, as opposed to a CIE that looks an awful lot like my
AUIR, is this board, along with the Planning Commission (sic) and
then concurred by the board, they wanted to see options for further
reduction in ad valorem coming to transportation.
The inference was that I could get it all out of capital. What I'm
telling you, I can, but I was asked to look at that. So I'm honestly
trying to give an 11, 15 and 20 and what it would do to the overall
transportation division to reduce that much of one of my revenue
Page 75
January 21, 2010
streams. And that's the difficulty, because the number isn't simply 11
percent, 15 and 20, because my impact fees have been reduced
whether I'm going 11 percent, 15 or 20 reduction in ad valorem. And
my gas tax has been generally stable.
So in answer to your question, I'd look more like my AUIR in
wasn't coming in with these alternatives from modification to ad
valorem stream. But I am, and that's fine. But I understand your
concern. That's why we went back to the CIE, so that they could see
exactly what they're changing. And so you've got three income
streams, one stable, one's reduced because of what we're experiencing,
which are the impact fees, and the other one that's given up as three
different options as to how it might go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this board and the Productivity
Committee and then eventually the BCC spends a lot of time on the
AUIR.
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifit has no meaning because
afterwards at any point the values in the AUIR could be just
reestablished and the CIE is built off whatever numbers are -- come up
with after that point, I'm wondering how we show the coordination
that it's been through the right processes that statute requires and that
we as the LPA are supposed to review.
Because the last document I reviewed, and I pull up on line what
you currently have in the AUIR, it doesn't get to a number that if you'd
pull 11 percent off of comes to your number and then the subsequent
numbers you provide.
That's important because I'd like to know where you're really
starting your 11 percent from. What -- where did you start? Did you
start at a higher number, lower number than was approved? I can't
find that.
MR. FEDER: Okay, the 11, 15 and 20 is (sic) on ad valorem is
simply from my FY '10 ad valorem budget and carrying that out.
Page 76
January 21,2010
The impacts fees in my AUIR was a best shot in time of where
my impact fees are likely to be, which was a definite decrease. And
guess what? It's further decreased even the CIE a little bit further.
Because I said I may not make eight or nine this year, okay? So -- but
I'm a little bit higher than what I assumed here, because this has got
printed a while ago. So there is a change.
I think the key to what you're asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the
AUIR is meant to look at -- you said you were going to maintain a
certain level of service with what you're providing for infrastructure in
the county. Did you do that? And the AUIR is a judgment of that and
saying if you didn't do it in areas, how are you going to make that
happen or where are you going to emphasize when you go in your
next Capital Improvement Element to make it happen?
Generally we came to you and said we have. And what I'm
telling you is and what we're doing with further cuts generally keeps
us still in compliant (sic) with concurrency relative to DCA, and that's
the role of the AUIR. It is not necessarily the Capital Improvement
Element nor the budget relative to the fiscal numbers, but it is
intended with the revenue streams I have, have I met and am I likely
to stay meeting my concurrency. And that's what the role ofthat was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you actually improved upon the
expenditures you were going to do in the AUIR. I'm not saying at all
that's a bad thing. It's fine, it's great. I'm just wondering from a
methodology process, especially when I thought and I'm sure others
thought that the AUIR was a prelude to the budget process. And if
such, maybe I need a document that I can tie your beginning number
to and I don't have it now because this board didn't review it.
MR. FEDER: And I understand your concern. Because
remember what I told you in the first place, I'm not taking it all out of
(sic). I expected some level of reduction in ad valorem as well as
impact fees, which are further reduced again now here. But what I am
doing now is I'm saying I'm going to pull -- I have to pull some of that
Page 77
January 21, 2010
out of my operating budget for the ad valorem, so I'm doing that to
keep my operating level.
But again, the answer to your question, as best I can give it to
you is obviously we use the AUIR. That is an emphasis, a part in time
in how we look at it.
That was looked at, we looked at the revenue streams we did on
that basis of saying have we met, can we meet concurrency. We had
to modify the impact fees down a little bit based on what's occurring.
And then I got asked as part of that process, you've got to try to come
up with some further scenarios beyond what you might have expected
as a little bit of reduction in your capital ad valorem to come up with
potentially the 11, but not only that, 15 and 20, and that's what we're
trying to do. And the 11 is even beyond I think what we're expecting
at this time. But--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you could -- and in the array of
things I've asked for, if you could also provide me with --
MR. FEDER: With all those numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- whatever was the adopted or
approved version of the document that you started with in order to get
your 11 percent beginning, that --
MR. FEDER: The way the adjustments were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would solve my concern and give me
the document I need to sink my teeth into.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's--
MR. FEDER: But they're never going to be totally in synch.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's really important, because
you need -- we need to be able to do the math. I did the same thing
apparently that Commissioner Strain did in trying to back into these
numbers and find out where they came from. And I went back to last
Page 78
January 21, 2010
year's CIE, I went back to the AUIR, both versions of the AUIR this
year, because we knew it had been -- so somehow we've got to have a
basis.
And a couple of years ago we had to footnote some things on the
AUIR because it was impossible to get to where you needed to do the
math. And maybe it just needs to be footnoted here as to what you're
starting with, I don't know. But something needs --
MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to try to do that. There's a couple
of other things, just to help on this, and I think you're asking us to do
that and we will.
Is first of all before when we discussed this with you under the
AUIR we were looking at the ad valorem coming to us before the
decision was made on the interest. And that interest comes back with
impact fees that no longer could I work with in that manner, so there's
a change there.
Unfortunately what you're asking for is a stagnant situation. But
I think you're also asking me in a non-stagnant at the very least to
show you where the changes and why they're occurring, and we'll be
happy to try to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, you have to -- you had to
have a stagnant number to begin with. That's all I'm saying. And I
think Commissioner Caron -- I tried to get to the AUIR number. And
when I realized you didn't use that number, that left a big hole in my
analysis, which is another reason I wanted to delay final approval for a
week so I could go back and run the numbers that you will now
provide. And I'm sure others will want to do that, so --
MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to. As I said, the gas tax is about
the same. The impact fees assume down some. And the ad valorem is
changed, both by the scenarios and by the fact that now it's coming to
me as interest return, a major portion of it rather than gas tax.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Norm, I understand the
moving target here and that things change on a daily basis, if not more
Page 79
January 21, 2010
frequently. But A, there does have to be some starting point. And B,
even if it's changed from one month to the next, it's sort of ballpark. I
mean, if I had come to any number that I could have backtracked to
and come close to where you were coming, I would have said okay,
this is changing just because we know it's a moving target. But that
was not at all the case.
MR. FEDER: We will take a couple in succession and go
through and look at the changes and then tell you --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good.
MR. FEDER: -- why in the basis both budget AUIR and CIE.
But I would venture to say, you take that in most areas you're
going to see it, but probably transportation's a little more volatile in
the way of how those numbers have been changing on us.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, did you want to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because you looked like you're
anxious to say something.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can provide a little clarification as to
what happens. When you have your AUIR, it's that planning tool, that
snapshot in time. As you develop from your AUIR to CIE, you
solidify a little bit more. Then what happens, you go into the budget
cycle. And then that budget cycle resets everything. It almost truths
everything up.
So we had this discussion last year, whether you wanted to see a
CIE to CIE comparison, a CIE to AUIR comparison. The truth is,
what you really need to understand is it really needs to be a CIE to
budget comparison. And if we have those documents -- because it's
all -- these are all proposed numbers until the board makes the final
budget decision. And then we prepare the documents next year, we're
working off those solid numbers but now going into planning again
for the following year.
Page 80
January 2], 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not often we have to have
multiple tables provided showing incremental reductions. And this is
one of those odd years. So in order for us to understand better how the
arithmetic was handled, it helps to have a starting point. And that was
the messing key here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
MR. FEDER: And we'd be happy to do that.
The other thing I'll point out is FY '10 doesn't change because it's
budgeted. So really those changes in numbers are occurring over a
four-year period. But we'll work that all out with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next chart is on Page 17, it's
000 everything. And I don't know if we have a question about all
those zeros. Barry, that's the easiest chart I think of the whole
package.
So -- and the next page is Page 18, it's another chart for the
stormwater. By the way, these charts are all summarized on the
summary page we'll eventually get to. That may be easier to ask
questions from for all of us too, so -- and then the next one is --
MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: Regarding your Pages 1811.R and 1811, I
believe in the staff report staff made a statement that the decision to
reduce those -- or that millage rate from .15 to .10 was a matter of fact.
It is not. That decision has not yet been made. And it is yet to be
made during budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Corby.
By the way, on Page 18, and I found this in another part of the
document, you've got the Freedom Park in there, water quality
monitoring and exotic vegetation control. You're going to spend a
half million dollars on that. Does that have to be -- is that a
requirement or is that just a nice thing to have? Exotic vegetation has
probably been there forever. But is this a maintenance of something
Page 81
January 21, 2010
that's already been removed so it won't come back or is it removing
new exotics?
MR. FEDER: It's a maintenance, monitoring and documentation.
It's required, particularly because we got the Florida Communities
Trust grant to help pay right-of-way and construction of the Freedom
Park itself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on then, ifnobody
has any other questions, with Pages 18.11 and Page 19. Any questions
there?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 20 is one of the pages that I
believe changed in the yellow.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess this is a solid waste question.
The Waste Management has a contract with us to build the cells
as needed in exchange for the tipping fees. Why do we carry numbers
on our books for the cell construction then?
MR. SCHMIDT: Just a moment.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities.
I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I can research it
and give it to you later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had one question.
Yeah, you recently approved the -- and the commission approved
the reclamation center.
MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should that be showing up here
Page 82
January 2],2010
somewhere?
MR. GRAMATGES: No, that's not being shown in here. That is
going to be a process that is likely going to take longer than this
period that you have here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we won't be spending
any money for five years on that.
MR. GRAMA TGES: That's the expectation. And then of course
as you know we update this every year. It may change. But at this
point in time that's the way it's being seen.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Phil, the latest document you
passed out, or Corby passed out on your behalf this morning increased
the number that is in the original document I just read off, from 3.4 to
6.8. So when you respond to me, if you use that most recent one, that
will be more effective.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, doesn't the chart just show
that the $6.82 million is going toward the various cells, but it's coming
from the tipping fees below, so it's just a -- it's more of a paperwork
thing, not a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's part of -- the way the preface in
the staff report read, that the cell construction was part of the W --
Waste Management contract, and they obtain the tipping fees.
Does that go through our books or does that -- or they handle
that? And so if they handle it, then why are we showing it on our
books? That was my question.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, and unfortunately I can't give you a
straight answer --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was just responding to Ms. Caron
as to -- she wondered why I asked the question.
Page 83
January 2], 2010
MR. GRAMATGES: But we certainly keep track of those
numbers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. GRAMATGES: Those tipping fees pay Waste
Management and Waste Management takes care of the upkeep and
any development within the landfill.
As to why they're shown in here, I can't really tell you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you don't know whether the
dollars come through the county first and --
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we collect the tipping fees at the
scale.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, there you go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that, but the construction
is done by Waste Management.
MR. GRAMATGES: It's done by Waste Management with
tipping fee funds.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I don't know why we show
a construction cost when we don't know what that is, because Waste
Management does it.
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we do know what the construction
cost is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they just have --
MR. GRAMATGES: Because we need to approve that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we know they're going to be
equal to the tipping fees we're going to collect in 2012.
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, for the purpose of this document, all
we're showing is that we have enough tipping fees to pay for the cost
of the development. And that's the reason why the numbers match.
The tipping fees and the cost of the project is not necessarily the
same year to year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes.
Page 84
January 21,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you're showing the tipping fees to
cover that one project, then why aren't we showing the tipping fees for
every year in covering -- then they cover whatever projects occur, like
the operations in the landfill. You just -- you singled out one
operation of the Waste Management contract to show a cost and
revenue stream here for, and I wonder why you didn't do it for all of
them, because we have tipping fees every year for five years.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Sure. Typically what we do is we choose
larger projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do have your tipping fee
schedules to show us --
MR. GRAMA TGES: Yeah, the answer mayor may not answer
your question is that this is simply capital improvements, and part of
the tipping fees go for the operation of the landfill as well. So the
numbers, I mean, the numbers change from time to time, depending on
the tipping fees coming in.
And once again, what we're trying to do here is balance the cost
of the capital improvements with the funds that are available to pay
for that cost. And that's the reason why they net out.
But you're right, I mean, I don't have a direct answer to you as to
why the numbers are not prepared in any different way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And can you supply with me -- or if
everybody else wants it too, a copy of the tipping fee revenue stream
that has occurred over the last few years, and what you're projecting
for the future?
MR. GRAMATGES: I will have to talk to our operative -- the
operations director and propose that, yes, indeed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should be just a number where you
say in 2007 we collected this much to '08. And that --
MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'd just like to see how we're
handling that money because -- and what size stream it is. Thank you.
Page 85
January 2],2010
MR. GRAMA TGES: I certainly will carry that through.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we left off on -- Page 21 is where
we'd be next.
Anybody have any questions on Page 21 ?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the summary page is Page 22,
Exhibit A. Anybody have any questions on Page 22?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that we get into a series of tables
going for the five years beyond the first five years.
And Corby, can you explain why those were in this CIE? I
thought the CIE was a five-year window.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is, but one of the appendices that are
included in the Capital Improvement Elements each year are the
out-years or the second five-year schedule of improvements. That is
not a financially feasible schedule. Those are not committed --
necessarily funding. They can be projected or uncommitted. It's just a
general projection of projects in out years that are scheduled.
The full 10 years is a requirement of statute. If you do not have
long-term concurrency, and we do not, we must provide a five-year
schedule and we also must provide a second five years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't see it as a bad thing. I was
just curious as to -- because basically the CIE is done every year, and
so a lO-year -- the second five years is probably the most subject to
change as we solidify every year as we go on. So from my
perspective I didn't see a need to spend a lot of time on that one, and I
had not.
MR. SCHMIDT: And there is none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Are there any further questions of the Planning Commission on
the overall CIE at this point before we continue to the next meeting to
finish our decisions on it after we had time to adjust to the information
Page 86
January 21, 2010
that was passed out today and responded to today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, is that a request for a question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my support.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your support, okay.
Well, with that, I think -- Corby, unless you have some other
comments, I believe we've finished up with our review and questions
at this time until we continue.
MR. SCHMIDT: I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then make sure we have no
other business. I don't believe there is any.
With none being heard, is there a motion to continue this to 8:30
in the morning at this location next Thursday, which is the 28th?
MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, I do have one more item, Mr.
Chairman.
Some direction as to what staff you would prefer to be here in a
week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation for sure. I can't -- and at
least someone from utilities. Other than that, my questions, if I have
any, will be in response to the information those two departments
provide. So there may be minor questions, but that's the only thing I
could think of at this point. It shouldn't be a very lengthy discussion.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody else fine with that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, do you want to make
sure you clarify any questions you have? I know you want a
right-of-way comparison towards -- for Vanderbilt, the bridge
information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a -- I'd like to see a bridge
report. I'd ask for a water -- access to the water pressure tested reports
for the -- or exit pressures. The breakdown from -- or how we got to
the 30 million estimated right-of-way acquisition to Vanderbilt Beach
Page 87
January 21, 2010
extension. And where that lies today, taking into consideration the
current values, assessed values of the properties.
The -- how the transportation department -- where they started
with in their numbers. We had a lengthy discussion about we don't
have anything to tie the 11 percent to.
And then the last thing is the cell -- the tipping fee schedule, the
revenue stream for at least a few years back and where it is projected
to go in the future. I would suggest say for 2005 on. That way we see
how the economy has affected the tipping fees and then how that fits
with the projections in the future.
Those are the five things that I think need to be sent to us in time
for us to have reviewed by next Thursday's morning. And we should
be able to finish this up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that may help too, I know we
talked -- you have provided all the data for the reductions in
transportation. Is transportation recommending anyone of those,
other than just the obvious, that you'd rather spend -- you want to
spend as much as you possibly can. Not necessarily bad, but that's --
most departments want to spend their entire budgets, if they can. But
your level of comfort with those percentages would be important to
know.
MR. FEDER: Again, I need to follow which is being developed
to the board direction on budget guidance and policy. There is an
emphasis to one, try to maintain operations and maintenance, even as
capital goes down. This responds to that.
Two, across the board I believe five percent, so therefore there's
going to have to be an effort to pull additional budget to allow that to
happen. So I believe that part of my response in 15 and 20 is going to
be a way to be responsive to that.
And so what I'm telling you is I'm not recommending, I'm
working with everybody to see how we get the budget done.
Page 88
January 21, 20]0
Obviously I don't feel I'm fully funded in operation and maintenance
today. And the capital is going to have some significant reductions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Anybody else? If not, Mr. Vigliotti, did you still make a motion
to continue to next week like we discussed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I have one other item,
just before you close.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like this commission to start to
consider if you could over the break, before we meet next week, if
you'd like the staff to pursue providing you some information on
combining the AUIR and the CIE into one document that you can
review. It's a level of service document and a capital improvement
document. If that's something you'd like to get some background
information on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comeback on that is what has
just occurred. If the AUIR is not the static -- is not the fixed document
that's going to be dependent upon the CIE's budget, then you cannot
do that, because in the case ofthe AUIR versus transportation that
we've seen today, Norm couldn't have done what you're now
suggesting, because his number would have been inaccurate in the
adoption process of the CIE because they wouldn't have had it by
then, right?
MR. FEDER: It all matters issue in time. What's being proposed
is if we're going to try and work with the AUIR as a budgeting
document, which is mainly the CIE and then the real one is the budget
where it gets chewed up, then putting the two together makes a lot of
sense. The question is when in time. Because then you're going to
ask me why does my CIE/AUIR look so different than my budget.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, I don't think we're objecting
necessarily, Norm, to --
MR. FEDER: No, you need to know the basis for the changes.
Page 89
January 21,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- their being different. We've just got
to understand where to start from in order to figure out how you got
there.
MR. FEDER: Understood. And I'm going to try to provide that
to you. But joining the two, it depends when we're doing it. It might
make a lot of sense rather than having three where the numbers are
changing for issues over time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as we have the most
accurate, I think that's the way we ought to be looking at it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we'll discuss it next week and -- as
part of follow up.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it would be a matter
of moving the timing for it. Because we did the AUIR back in the fall.
The budget comes in between. The ClE comes after that. It just -- you
know, we'd have to coordinate a time that would make sense if you're
going to combine.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We give you a -- my idea of asking
you this question is to say if you're interested in us providing you
some analysis in what the pitfalls would be and giving you some
ideas, we can do that.
Your AUIR is supposed to be a snapshot of level of service. And
your ClE drives your budget. So if we combine those two together
and the time is appropriate, I think it might save you all a lot of
questions and staff a lot of time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing is, Nick, every time
that you and your department have to respond to a question of analysis
for us, someone in your department's going to have to take the time to
do it, and you're extremely shorthanded right now.
From my personal review, as long as I know where you start, I
don't care when you come out with the ClE. As long as when you do,g
Page 90
January 2],2010
saying okay, we had the AUIR but here's where we're starting for
purposes of the CIE. Then I wouldn't have even got into the issue of
comparison, because it would have been known ahead of time.
So I don't need you to spend more time on anything like you're
suggesting when we don't have the resources, or we may not have.
But if everybody -- unless someone here wants you to, I don't know if
we need to go forward with that analysis.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, any more items for discussion
today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, do you still have that
motion kind of handy in your back pocket?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I was going to say no,
but let's go home.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion to continue by
Commissioner Vigliotti. Is it seconded by someone?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We carry. See you next Thursday, 8:30.
Page 91
January 21, 2010
******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :36 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 92