Loading...
MPO Minutes 12/10/2010 COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10,2010 December 10,2010 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION RE: 2030 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN NAPLES, FLORIDA December 10,2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 a.m., in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William D. Trotter Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Georgia Hiller Tom Henning Sam J. Saad, Jr. Dee Sulick ALSO PRESENT: Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Admin., Growth Management Division Lorraine Lantz, MPO Principal Planner, Transportation Sue Faulkner, MPO Principal Planner, Transportation Tamika Seaton, MPO Planning Technician, Transportation Page 1 COLLIER Metropolitan Planning Organization AGENDA MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization Board of County Commissioners Chambers 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples December 10, 2010 10:00 a.m. This meeting of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is open to the public and citizen input is encouraged. Any person wishing to speak on any scheduled item may do so upon recognition of the Chairperson. Any person desiring to have an item placed on the agenda shall make a request in writing with a description and summary of the item, to the MPO Director or MPO Chairman 14 days prior to the date of the next scheduled meeting of the MPO. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization 72 hours prior to the meeting by calling (239) 252-8192. The MPO's planning process is conducted in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes. Any person or beneficiary who believes they have been discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, or familial status may file a complaint with the Florida Department of Transportation District One Title VI Coordinator Robin Parrish at (863) 519-2675 or by writing her at P.O. Box 1249, Bartow, Florida 33831. 1. Call to OrderIRoll Call 2. Pled2e of Alle2iance 3. Open to the Public for Comment on Items not on the A2enda 4. Approval of A2enda 5. Committee Chairman's Report A. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Report B. Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Report C. Pathway Advisory Committee (PAC) Report D. Local Coordinating Board (LCB) Report E. Congestion Management System / Intelligent Transportation System Stakeholders Committee (CMS/ITS) Report 6. Consent Section A. November 12,2010 Meeting Minutes 7. Public Hearinl! Items A. Review and Approval of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Cost Feasible Plan and Adoption of the 2035 LRTP 8. Board Action Items A. Appointment of MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC) Governing Board Representative for 2011 B. Endorsement of the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) Section 5310 and 5311 Grant Applications C. Endorsement of the FTA Section 5307 Grant Application D. Endorsement of the FTA Section 5316 and 5317 Grant Applications E. Ratification of the Medicaid Grievance Procedure 9. Reports and Presentations (Mav Require Board Action) A. Review and Discussion of FDOT's FY201112012 - 2015/2016 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program and FDOT's Endorsement Request B. FDOT Update 10. Director's Report (Mav Require Board Action) A. Follow-Up Discussion of MPO Director Position 11. Member Comments 12. Next Meetin!! Dates Special Meeting: January 7, 2011 Regular Meeting: February 11, 2011 13. Adiournment December 10,2010 MS. LANTZ: Chairman, it is 10 o'clock, and you have a quorum and you have live mikes. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Call the meeting to order. MS. SEATON: Yes. Councilman Sulick? COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Here. MS. SEATON: Councilman Saad? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Here. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Present. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Henning? (No response.) MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here. MS. SEATON: Welcome. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here. MS. SEATON: Councilman Trotter? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Here. MS. SEATON: Mayor Hamilton? (No response.) MS. SEATON: Secretary Cann? MR. CANN: Here. MS. SEATON: And Johnny Limbaugh? MR. LIMBAUGH: Here. MS. SEATON: We do have a quorum. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: All right. Next item on the agenda, Page 2 December 10, 2010 I'd like to open for public comment on items not on the agenda. Do we have any speakers? MS. LANTZ: My understanding was we were going to have a speaker from the Naples Airport Authority. MR. SOLIDAY: I think I had indicated an item on the agenda. MS. LANTZ: Oh, I apologize. That speaker will -- is registered now for item number 9A. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Thank you. No one to speak on items not on the agenda. Next item, approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Second. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion and second. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. On to the committee chairman's report. First the T AC. MS. LANTZ: Yes. We have TAC Chairman Chuck Mohlke here to give the report. MR. MOHLKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning members of the MPO. The Technical Advisory Committee of the MPO met on November 29th. And after a quorum was determined, the Technical Page 3 December 10,2010 Advisory Committee, or the T AC, had a very extensive discussion of the items on its agenda, and the committee acted as follows: It endorsed the 2035 long-range transportation plan, or LRTP, and its cost feasible plan draft, and its overall draft with the understanding that alterations will be made to these draft documents before presentation to the MPO incorporating changes likely in the form of an errata sheet that will be incorporated in your agenda. County Transportation Service Administration, FDOT representatives, and members of the committee commented extensively on the agenda, particularly the cost feasible plan and the LRTP. By general agreement, these two plan drafts will also incorporate any new features of FDOT District 1 draft tentative work program as endorsed later in the agenda of the November 29th TAC meeting. MPO staff will prepare an errata sheet with changes and provide it to the MPO board for its consideration before your meeting this . mornIng. The committee also endorsed amendments to the District 1 transportation improvement program, or TIP, for fiscal year 2010/11 through 2014/15 and the fiscal year 2011/12 through 2015/16 draft of the tentative five-year work program, again, with the understanding that committee comments regarding some project scopes, project timing, and funding issues in the proposed work program will be addressed further by FDOT and the MPO board before adoption. FDOT representatives indicated that the committee's concerns would be subject to further discussion prior to the final adoption of the work program. In respect to transit MPO members and related matters, the committee endorsed the Federal Transit Administration applications for Section 5310 and 5111, Section 5307 and 5316 and -17 grant applications. As its final agenda matter, the committee reviewed the pathways Page 4 December 10, 2010 box funding priority list of projects for fiscal year 2015/16 and offered suggestions for further consideration by the Pathways Advisory Committee. In an abundance of caution, the committee agreed that it would be available for a joint meeting of all the MPO's advisory committees, the Technical Advisory Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the Pathways Advisory Committee tentatively for January 5th, depending upon the outcome of this meeting. And if the MPO board does not approve finally the 2015 LR TP today, the joint advisory committees will meet on that date, January 15th -- or January 5th, pardon me, and will take whatever further action is necessary by the advisory committees before a January meeting adoption of the LRTP during its January meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee will be held on January 31 st of 20 11. That's my report, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Any comments or questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Next we have the CAC. MS. LANTZ: Yes. We have CAC chairman, Tim Nance, here. MR. NANCE: Good morning, Board Members. Tim Nance. Your Citizens Advisory Committee met on November 29th last with a quorum. The committee endorsed the 2035 long-range transportation plan draft cost feasible plan and the draft 2035 LRTP with the understanding that changes would be made to the document based on comments received and that the plan would also be coordinated together with FDOT's draft tentative five-year work plan program, which we also had recommendations from staff that there could be some funding amounts in funding years that could perhaps be worked out in a better manner. We also endorsed amendments to the -- for year 2010/11 through Page 5 December 10,2010 2014/15 transportation improvement program, FDOT's draft tentative five-year work program, which was from 2011/12 through 2015/16, and encouraged the staff to work with FDOT to resolve issues maybe in a little -- a better resolution to some of the opportunities that MPO may have available. We approved the Federal Transit Administration grant applications from Sections 5310,5311,5307,5316, and 5317. Like the TAC, we will join them ifnecessary on a meeting on January 5th if it's necessary to continue to work on the 2030 LRTP and meet your deadline of January the 12th. Our next regularly scheduled meeting after that will be on January 31 st. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Any board questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: No? Next the PAC. MS. LANTZ: Yes. We have Chairman Joe Bonness here to speak. MR. BONNESS: Good morning. Joe Bonness, chairman of the PAC. Our committee met on December 3rd, and we had a quorum. The committee endorsed the 2035 long-range transportation plan draft, cost feasible plan, and the draft 2035 long-range transportation plan with the understanding that changes would be made to the document based upon comments that were going to be received from the FDOT and various committees on the draft tentative five-year work program. MPO staff will prepare the errata sheets and the changes provided for the MPO board. The -- we approved the amendments to the 2010/2011 to the 2014/15 transportation improvement program. We really saw that the changes to the Highway 41 guardrail project would really help to Page 6 December 10,2010 reduce the run-off-the-road crashes, and it is a definite safety improvement over the project that was scheduled before. We approved the FDOT's 2011 to 2016 draft tentative five-year work program. The PAC recommended the endorsement of the work program based on pathways funded in the program. We endorsed the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 and 5311 grant applications, and we endorsed the FT A Section 5307 grant applications, as well as the FT A 5316 and 5317 grant application. We had reports and presentations. The committee discussed the pathway priority box funds that are out there for the 2015/2016. We moved those ahead to be able to be processed by the other -- by the TAC and the FDOT to check with the buildability of those particular projects, and we show that there's some further analysis that will have to go on with those. Our next meeting date, of course, is going to be, as mentioned earlier, possible January 5th if we did not come to a conclusion on the long-range transportation plan at this meeting; otherwise, our next regularly scheduled meeting will be January 28th. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Any board questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do have a question. Joe, you mentioned the guardrail as it -- as it had been written and now how you feel it's been improved, but I don't know anything about that. Would you tell me about it? (Commissioner Henning entered the boardroom.) MR. BONNESS: Yeah. Basically what the -- it was purely a guardrail proj ect before where they were going to pull out the guardrail and replace the guardrail. I believe that they're probably changing the posting that's on there to bring that into today's standards for that. And while they're doing that, they're going to put a four-foote Page 7 December 10,2010 shoulder on both sides of the road that will reduce run-off accidents, also provides for proper access alongside the road. It probably helps with wildlife as to -- now that you have a better clear zone and better visibility, as well as drainage -- having a wide shoulder -- wider shoulder helps with puddling on the roads, that you don't run into hydroplaning. One of the big problems that you've had with Highway 41 out in that section from Highway 29 out to the Dade County line is the accumulation of water when the grass grows high on the side of the road, so during a rainy event you might have puddling that goes on and hydroplaning. So a wider shoulder will definitely help that. And so it's a definite safety improvement to that road that's probably much, much needed there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for explaining that. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you very much. Next, the LCB. MS. LANTZ: Yes. The Local Coordinating Board met on December 8th. They did attain a quorum. They approved the Medicaid Grievance Procedures, which are in your packet today, as well as the FTA grants for Section 5310,5311,5307,5316, and 5317. They approved the transportation riders list, which is part of their required documentation for approval, and they approved and endorsed the mobility management plan, which will come to you at a later date. They also receive reports and presentations from the Alternative Transportation Modes Department in regards to the paratransit, how things are moving forward and progressing as a quarterly report. Their next meeting date will be March 7th, and that will be a public meeting. Page 8 December 10,2010 CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Any board comments, questions? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make a comment on that. I'm chairman of this particular committee. And we've been getting some great comments, and I really appreciated hearing that our paratransit system has -- is working well, and we're actually getting good comments. I'm also feeling very good about the fact that our CAT system continues to increase its -- not only its routes, but its ridership, and we continue to grow. And I guess that's why we seem to be getting some of these grants in place to even extend that further. So thank you very much. And we're now connecting -- we're not connecting, but Lee County is now connecting to us; is that correct? MS. LANTZ: I -- I believe they would be connecting in the future. I believe it would be the spring. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the spring. Okay. I'm so sorry. Because I know we talked about that too, and I forgot that it was the spring, but they're going to be connecting at Creekside, right? MS. LANTZ: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. On to the CMS/ITS. MS. LANTZ: Yes. CMS/ITS Chairman George Archibald is here for the discussion. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Board Members. On behalf of your CMS/ITS Committee, they had a meeting on November the 17th; a quorum was had. The agenda of the meeting was pretty much a workshop in terms of the items we discussed, and I'll just briefly just walk through some of our discussions. We started out the meeting by discussing the box funding as Page 9 December 10,2010 approved by this board. There's over $4.6 million allocated in the latter part of the FDOT work plan for CMS projects. And obviously, the board has approved and adopted a project listing that consists of about 28 projects which your committee is tracking and attempting to continue to reflect any changes in the scope or quantity or cost of those projects as we work towards scheduling those on the FDOT five-year work plan and as we proceed with implementation. The projects that are currently funded in the FDOT plan are what was included in your group one and group two, a total of about 12 projects. There's additional projects that are on your list that are funded, but they're not identified yet in the five-year plan. They will be, I would expect, in the upcoming year. Those discussions were fruitful relative to being able to relate the allocations that you have made, the list that you have approved, and how those lists fall out in the five-year plan. And the state has done, I think, a good job of identifying those, scrutinizing those projects, and working them into their five-year plan, as you will see in your agenda. The last item we discussed dealt with the congestion management tech memo that's from your LR TP . Your committee obviously is looking for results from CMS projects, results in terms of reduced delays or maintaining average travel speeds, and what we refer to as time of travel. Obviously, as you look back five years and take a look at what our time of travel is from point A to point B and project that into the future, our goal is for that time and travel to remain pretty consistent. That's typically very, very difficult as volumes increase. And as you take a look at your LR TP, you'll notice a few tables within that document that give good credence to the results of the plan. Not only what's been built, but in comparing the 2030 to the 2035, we noted that the actual delays in comparison of those two plans on our network in terms of vehicle miles traveled per day is not much Page 10 December 10, 2010 of an increase in comparison to 2007, and in comparison to the old 2030 plan was actually a decrease. What that all means is that the network and the improvements to the network that we're seeing out there are allowing us to maintain decent times of travel. Not everyone will agree with that. We concluded our meeting by a discussion of grants. And our next meeting is January the 9th, and our meetings are held at the Naples City Hall at 1 :30. With that, I'll open to any questions. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Any questions or comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Thank you very much. All right. On to the consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Opposed? (No response.) Page 11 December 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion carries unanimously. Item #7 A REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) COST FEASIBLE PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE 2035 LRTP - APPROVED CHAIRMAN TROTTER: And we're now on 7 A, which is a public hearing. I'd like to open the public hearing regarding review and approval of the 2035 LR TP cost feasible plan and adoption of the 2035 LRTP. Ms. Lantz? MS. LANTZ: Yes. I'm going to introduce Susan Falkner, our principal planner, to introduce this item. She's been working very hard, and the document before you shows all of her hard work. Thank you. MS. FALKNER: Good morning. Well, we've almost made it to the finish line of this project. I hope that you're as pleased as I am to be able to look and see the fruits of all of this work that we've been doing together over the last two years. As you know, I've been in front of you many times with different portions of this plan. And you have approved individual sections of this previously, and they are unchanged, and they remain in front of you today as an entity for the entire document for your final adoption of this plan. The plan looks a little overwhelming with 1,150 pages of it, but if you take a second glance at it, what you'll see is that the plan itself is about 200 pages, and the support technical documentation that follows it is the remainder 950 pages of it. You have heard the committee chairman mention to you that there have been comments that we received as late as Friday evening Page 12 December 10,2010 from FDOT, and we are responding to all comments. MS. LANTZ: They have it. MS. FALKNER: You do have a sheet in front of you that lists every one of those comments that we were not able to incorporate into your document. So if you browse through that, I think you'll see that the majority of those are not substantive in nature, that they are small changes for text descriptions and limits of projects that are incorrectly listed, but the maj ority of them are easily dealt with and will be in the finalized document following your approval. So with that being said, I know it's a little overwhelming to look at all of those pages, but I can point out to you that the most important chapters within that 200 pages, in the front section of that document, are the needs plan in Chapter 10 which identifies all of the needs that might be present in 2035, the financial plan in Chapter 11 which discusses what our projections for revenues might be, and Chapter 12, the actual cost feasible plan. This was brought before you in November, so even this section, Chapter 12, which is the last -- you know, chapter of the document, has been before you previously. I think you heard the T AC, CAC, and the PAC all did endorse this for your approvals. We would like there to be two actions. The first action to actually approve the cost feasible plan, which is that Chapter 11 and 12, and then to, if you're comfortable with that, adopting the entire document and letting us finalize the changes that are before you and the errata sheets. With that being said, we do have consultants here to answer questions. And before that, we would like to introduce a spokesperson for the consultant team to kind of go into some of the details of this plan. Her name is Dawn Wolfe. Some of you may be familiar with her. She is with DRW Consulting, and she is a subconsultant to the Page 13 December 10,2010 lead on this project, Dyer, Riddle, Mills, and Precourt, who have been the consultants throughout the last two years on this project. And she will be presenting to you kind of the details of the plan. And with that -- MS. WOLFE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dawn Wolfe. I'm with DRW Consulting working in cooperation with DRMP, the primary consultant, for your long-range transportation plan update, as well as in support services to the MPO. What we'd like to do is just do a brief overview through the program and hit the highlights, the bottom-line numbers in regards to your overall long-range plan, and then in hopes that we will be seeking an approval from an adoption of -- from this board for your long-range plan. This is a necessary item that you go through every five years at a minimum to ensure that you maintain your opportunity to have federal funding as well as state fundings on your projects and programs, because you are the primary authority which helps establish where those dollars go to in your transportation program. So this document itself: this is the document that helps you guide where those dollars will be spent. We are trying to look at a 20- -- a minimum of a 20-year period. In this case we're looking from the period of2016 through 2035. It looks at all components of transportation. It looks at the safety, the freight, the movement of people. Weare looking at our aviation, we look at rail, pathways, as well as your general roadway capacity. The process which you've been going through is, you identify your goals and objectives, you obtain and analyze all of your data, looking at where your current population is and then identifying, what is your projected population. Then we go through a process of using in -- for both the transit as well as the highway side, a travel demand model, and we create it for the base year, and then we apply the future year population and employment numbers and try to gain a glimpse as Page 14 December 10,2010 to, where will those roadway and transit as well as off-system impacts be. It incorporates today your sidewalk connectors, park-and-ride facilities as you evaluate your transit, in addition to your highway, which is an improvement over your last long-range plan where your tool only looked at the highway side. So we got a better picture this time of where those potential needs are, but these were just our tools in looking at and coming up with our recommendation. Then we worked with the state, with the county, with the cities, in looking at where these priorities should be, which projects come to the top of the list for the funding that we have available. Then we also looked at our overall needs and looked at the goals and objectives that you originally set at the onset of this project and said, how do these projects in this overall list fair against meeting your goals and objectives, how are the impacts being handled? How much environmental issues, social issues? How much benefit do you gain from certain improvements, one versus another? And from that we garnered a recommended plan. We've gone through and said, here's our cost, here's our money, here's what we can do maintaining certain priorities as established previously by this MPO board. And now we're coming before you today with the results of that and a final conclusion, bringing forward a little bit of an update of the summary that you saw last month in regards to your cost feasible. As I said, we have your main components, your objectives. These are development, your needs, your cost feasible, and now the final document. What's changed from last month to this month? Well, this month instead of that nice, small document you have, you now have the 1,200-plus pages. It incorporates everything that's been through the process, been approved; your congestion management process, your freight, your Page 15 December 10,2010 transit, all of the analysis that has gone into producing it. It incorporates your pathways, evaluations and thoughts on your rail and your aviation. It looks at making sure that the regional component is also included in your full documentation. As indicated, we've had comments since that meeting during the TAC meeting and subsequent to it from Florida Department of Transportation as well as others, and we have endeavored in part to incorporate those into the document you have before you. The comments that were provided during the T AC and CAC meeting actually were able to be incorporated in the document that you see before you today. Additional comments that were received as -- at the end of last week is the sheet you have before you with the summary. Nothing in those comments will be -- cause a substantial change in the content. Most of them are issues of clarification in addressing. None of the information in regards to, what does the plan mean, will be changed based on the comments that we've received to date. And we believe we can fully incorporate all of those comments into the final documentation for this LR TP. It includes updates to our revenues and our costs, some of which came out of the T AC meeting and some follow-ups that have come in as late as last week in regards to some costs in regards to right-of-way and impacts in mitigation. So what are the specific changes? In the document you have before you today, what happened because of identification of right-of-way costs specifically to U.S. 41, the widenings that will occur from Collier Boulevard over to 6L Farm, we had an identification of additional off-site retention and stormwater attenuation that we were going to need to take into account. We also looked at additional costs for the 1-75 Everglades potential costs in regards to mitigation. Well, looking at the primary location being the existing overpass, there would appear to be limited Page 16 December 10, 2010 adjacent right-of-way that would be required; however, we do know we are in an area of high environmental sensitivity. It can be strand as well as the areas in regards to other habitats that would have to be taken into account. Well, we don't have the specifics yet. We have an ongoing interchange justification; you have the overall assessment that is ongoing with FDOT's project that we don't have the details of exactly how much mitigation will be required, what that actual acreage, what that cost will be. We did a best-estimate case on it looking at a larger coverage area in regards to right-of-way and incorporated approximately 110 acres of potential impact on that area and updated the right-of-way costs for that. What that ended up causing was initially, in order to balance the program, the deletion of two bridge projects, which were the 8th Street and 16th Street Northeast projects; the deletion of the Green Boulevard extension corridor study; and the deletion of three phases, the PD&E design and right-of-way for two critical intersections identified as Immokalee at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee at Randall. Further conversation and discussion with county and MPO staff: we had been holding in reserve in regards to gas tax revenues that would be available after the year 2025, because until that point, those revenues are going to be primarily addressing debt service. But after 2025, they would have an open opportunity for application. Initial thoughts were, those would be applying more to the maintenance and operation. But since bridge rehabilitation and replacement is part of those maintenance and operations, it was determined we could apply those dollars back into your cost feasible component in order to add the 8th and 16th bridges back into the program as well as to bring forward a PD&E phase at least for the intersection of Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard. Page 1 7 December 10,2010 Those are not in the document before you today; however, we are able to not change any of the revenues, but to still maintain basically a balanced program with bringing those three projects back into the cost feasible plan. Now, the big picture, your overall needs plan costs. This includes everything, your operation and maintenance in roadways, your stormwater, your pathways, your transit operations, as well as capital, your congestion management, as well as your capacity. In present-day cost value, your overall program between 2016 and 2035 is nearly $6.1 billion. As you can see on this graphic, which has been -- is from your actual documentation, these are the improvement -- these are -- this is your roadway network system that reflects your needed program for your highway. This is also from your LR TP document that you have, and this is your transit needs. This includes the system, including the incorporation of the bus rapid transit system that would interconnect with Lee County. This is part of the program, as well as multiple extensions and expansions of current systems for the future. In overall revenues, when comparing this to our needs, your 2016 to 2035 revenues are coming in at $1.4 billion. That's almost a billion dollars of that being local revenues and with just under half a billion coming from state and federal. When we take and balance those needs against what the revenues are available, with maintaining at least a minimum standard of what you have today with your maintenance and operations, maintaining and providing some level of improvement consistent with your transit development plans and your paratransit plan, what you have identified for minimum programs for your congestion management system and pathways, as well as what's available for capacity improvements, we are at approximately $1.425 billion for your cost feasible plan. The highlighted components on this map indicate those projects. Page 18 December 10, 2010 It's not a lot. 1.4 billion, when it comes to -- once you take off all of your maintenance, your CMS, and you're looking at your hard-capacity projects, yes, the dollars don't stretch very far. And the same is true of your transit. Although we do have an enhanced program, it's not as extensive, it doesn't include things such as the bus rapid transit connectivity into Lee County, but it is an enhancement in at least maintaining and trying to improve service that you have today. Where this brings us to as far as balancing our program is a differential of about $15 million overall. And when you're looking at a $1.4 billion program, that equates to approximately 1 percent of the total revenues. So basically we're saying, we're there; we're balanced with our program. What this means as far as unfunded needs. We are now looking at, when we compare with present-day cost dollar, we are looking at a -- at not meeting our needs by over $5.2 billion. Part of the federal requirements were that we look at things in terms of year of expenditure, when these dollars actually get spent out. Our revenues are in year of expenditure. We did our cost as well as what year in time frame they came in and year of expenditure. So when we look at, for those unfunded projects, those that would be funded after 2035, our unfunded needs in terms of year of expenditure is nearly $12 billion. That's a lot to swallow. You know, we're looking at reduced revenues and still approximately the same level of needs. Although we have come down in regards to our population forecast, we still have goals and needs that are going to be exceeding our revenues available. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'm sorry. Quickly go back to that slide. I didn't quite understand, why does is say it's 5 billion, then you said II? Explain that difference again. MS. WOLFE: The 5.2 is in present-day cost. That's in $2010 values. When we initially cost out everything, we did it based on costs Page 19 December 10,2010 values for today. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Okay. MS. WOLFE: Federal requirements in regards to looking at your long-range plans requires you to look at in five-year blocks at a minimum, year of expenditure. So we've had to project -- the revenues we have are projected out to year of expenditures, as well as our cost for year of expenditure. So a project that is looking in the time frame of 2021 to 2025, is in an average value for that five-year period. The revenues available for that same time frame have also come in and been provided to us at that value for 2021 to 2025, so -- COUNCILMAN SAAD: And do all these numbers take into account things like inflation and -- MS. WOLFE: That's exactly what they take into account. And we've worked with and followed the criteria provided by the Florida Department of Transportation in regards to our revenue projections as well as the costs of proj ects overall. COUNCILMAN SAAD: What -- FDOT provided you the assumptions to use; is that what you -- MS. WOLFE: Yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Where can I find those? MR. LIMBAUGH: There's a tech memo, I think, included in that document which outlines all the revenue forecasts. MS. WOLFE: In general, it's generally approximately -- when we're looking -- in our first -- our first year of inflationary was a 4 percent factor to a 3.5 percent factor, I believe, down to a -- the third and following year goes to a 3 percent factor on costs in regards to all of the following years as it goes out. A similar formular was applied by DOT and the feds when they gave us our revenues, and we applied similar formulas to the local revenues so that we would be consistently looking at apples to apples in regards to it; however, one of the things that we've had to do is, Page 20 December 10,2010 going back and forth to be able to show you, this is what our differences are, as our numbers come out as year of expenditure costs on one end, and we want to try and give you a comparison to, you know, present-day costs. That's why we're showing you both of these values. It does get a little bit confusing. But, you know, this is where we are in terms of what we've got. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Coyle, you had a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you be a little more specific concerning the revenue sources you have anticipated and what assumptions you have made about those over the ten-year period. MS. WOLFE: We were given specific revenue sources from Florida Department of Transportation in regards to our state and federal. It's other arterials and right-of-way funding as well as transportation management area funding. That is specific. Those are state and federal dollars that we use. We also are provided with a specific transit in regards to state and federal revenues. In regards to local revenues, the guidance that we received from the county was we were -- for capacity improvements, we were looking solely at impact fees, that gas taxes at this point in time are relegated for the use of our debt service and that General Fund ad valorem was the primary application for our maintenance and operations, and we applied similar inflationary projection factors to calculate those revenues that we were given for the current five-year time period, and we were given -- here's where we're at and basically maintaining a flat rate of increase on it and proj ected those out according to the criteria provided to us by the FDOT. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, to what extent does the shortage of federal and state funding account for most of this shortage? MS. WOLFE: As a direct comparison to, say, the 2030? I'd Page 21 December 10,2010 have to pull up those numbers. I can't give you an exact answer on that one. I don't have it in my hip pocket on that one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are numerous components that bring you to this particular conclusion. One is, let's start with the needs plan. The parameters that are used for establishing the cost of the needs plan are certainly subject to substantial interpretation. The revenues that we're likely to recognize over the next ten years from the standpoint of not only General Fund revenues but increases in gasoline tax revenue can be significant. If -- just to give you an example, there was a time when Collier County was providing up to 40 to 50 percent of capital improvement costs for transportation out of General Fund money, and it has only been recent that we -- recently that we have not been able to allocate that. So the assumptions that go behind these particular calculations of cost are very, very important. And if we're going to make any serious decisions based upon a deficit in funding, we need to take a hard look at those -- at the assumption which resulted in the calculations of the costs. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Dawn, it's good to see you . agaIn. MS. WOLFE: It's nice to be back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some -- several questions. But just based upon your statement about the allocation and what they're for, you know, debt service, sales tax, gas taxes, I mean, so on and so forth -- so we have an expanded needs program based upon growth and where that growth is proj ected, and those are -- used the calculation of impact fees. The previous MPO board meeting we asked for information of, okay, that growth, that 200,000 growth of projected residents till 2035 and the added capacity needed for that growth, what would be the cost either per household or per person? Did anybody ever do that Page 22 December 10,2010 calculation? Okay. You got that? And then I have several other questions. MS. FALKNER: The cost would average about $10,000 per person over the 25 years of the plan. So per year, you could divide that again by 25 if you were to get an actual annual cost per person. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And-- MS. FALKNER: And that's based on the 5 billion needs cost which was what the dollar amount was at the time that I was looking at this, and that's dividing by the 150,000 that the population would increase during this time period. Now, that's a little conservative on the population. It's actually going to increase a little more than that most likely and so, therefore, it would be even less per person per year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Based upon what you said, if you average two-and-a-half people per household, that's $25,000 per household. That's what we average when we calculate impact fees. MS. FALKNER: The other part of that would be that that -- part of that monies would come from sources that would not be them, and so you would pretty much, you know, have to reduce that total cost by developer involvement and any impact fees and other sources of monies that would not be true costs to the individual resident. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I think it's important that we study where all these fees are coming from, because $25,000 per household is scary . We know that we're not going to raise impact fees to $25,000 for transportation. So we need to understand where all these -- where all the other money is coming from. The -- on table 8-7, which is the transit needs, you have a cost projected for park and ride of $36 million? How many park and rides are those and what does that entail of that facility? MS. WOLFE: I'd like to allow Richard Clarendon with URS to come forward. He has been the primary individual leading the efforts Page 23 December 10, 2010 on the multimodal component. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then I have a follow-up question for you. MR. CLARENDON: Hi. Good morning, members of the board. Rich Clarendon. The cost that was calculated for park-and-ride lots includes not only the construction, but also acquisition of the right-of-way or the land to build them. And we're assuming -- obviously we haven't gone out and done any -- you know, surveyed any sites, but we're assuming .. you're needing three acres, four acres per site, and there's, I believe, three park-and-ride locations that are -- that are required. And cost basically is calculated by factors of -- that come out of a tool basically that's provided through FDOT that allows us to do that year of expenditure calculation that Dawn was talking about. But essentially it looks at a number of things such as, you know, where is the property located, is it in an urbanized area, rural, transitioning, and applies right-of-way factors for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that $36 million represents three sites; is that correct? MR. CLARENDON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- and including in that, what are you looking -- what kind of amenities? There's a park -_ park and ride -- shelters or buildings? MR. CLARENDON: No buildings, sir. It's basically the cost of constructing the lot with access to and from and access -- you know, driveway, basically, cost of lighting. Essentially you're building a-- what is equivalent, I guess, to a commercial parking lot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is any of those in the cost feasible plan; do you remember? MR. CLARENDON: Hold on just a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Man, I wish I was in the real estate -- Page 24 December 10, 2010 MR. CLARENDON: Yes, sir. There are three park-and-ride lights in the cost feasible plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three. So that $36 million is in the cost feasible? MR. CLARENDON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I have -- and by the way, I really appreciate the CD that was provided, because it was -- you know, I did most of my work off that. I did print some off. I seen critical needs intersection, Immokalee Road and Tamiami Trail East. I'm not sure where that is. MS. WOLFE: That's one of those various errors and omissions that's being corrected. That should be north. COMMISSIONER HENNING: North. MS. WOLFE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And by the way, on another one I seen -- on some of the needs I seen Logan Boulevard improvements twice, and I think -- I don't know -- hopefully that wasn't a calculation. That was just a, putting the package together as an error. MS. WOLFE: We've noticed a few variations, and sometimes where there may have been an occurrence of the double listing on a roadway, it was actually for the purposes so that we could actually -- we had to individually calculate the cost for either sidewalks or pathways and bike lanes separately, the cost calculation separate, so we had to do separate line items for them, but then we did aggregate the cost, but we didn't double count them. We just needed to make sure that we didn't leave the blank lines in there. So that's just -- that's part of our cleanup. That was some of the comments that we did receive. But we are going back and rechecking and verifying. We've already rechecked and reverified that we didn't double count anything. It's just there may be some extra lines showing in there that were duplicative. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I -- there's one page on Page 25 December 10,2010 here, additions from 2030 and modifications from 2030. MS. WOLFE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Immokalee Road extension. It's not extending Immokalee Road. It's actually a widening. And it's from --limited from Camp Keais Road to State Road 29. MS. WOLFE: That is actually a new road that doesn't exist today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. MS. WOLFE: It will be a new road. COMMISSIONER HENNING: From? MS. WOLFE: From basically where you have the turn to the north and Camp Keais ties in, it would be an east/west extension of where it curves to go north. Basically it would be at the intersection of Camp Keais and Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. WOLFE: From there over to State Road 29 is what that location is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Okay. Now, explain to me what -- the modifications from 2030. What does that mean? Because I'm looking at White Boulevard from Collier Boulevard, CR951, to 31 st Street. MS. WOLFE: In that case of that particular one, it was only shown as a two-lane road in 2030 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. WOLFE: -- in 2035, and in the 2035 we are showing it as four-lane for that section. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's that intersection -- going out that intersection. MS. WOLFE: That's basically the extended improvement that will tie into the bridge widening that's already planned and programmed so that you get some better flow in there, basically a very Page 26 December 10, 2010 long intersection improvement, but it covers that area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then you have a -- the TAZ population for 2007 through 2035. Is that a -- just an estimate? Because we're looking at 51 -- up to 51,000 new residents between Ave Maria and the Big Cypress -- MS. WOLFE: Population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Stewardship Area. Is that based upon land use? MS. WOLFE: That is based upon what are in the currently approved plans or pending plans. In regards -- and that's for full 2035 population. We did follow some direction from FDOT that up through 2030 we had to restrict ourselves to what was absolutely approved in DRIs and land uses. So up until the 2030, we looked at a snapshot of that time frame. You would -- the Big Town Cypress (sic) basically would not be there at all; basically it is a pending and processing DRI. So we weren't able to actually put that population block in until the period from 2030 to 2035. But yes, it does take into account a portion of the Town of Big Cypress DRI as well as the approved level of development for Ave Maria based on their DRI. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- where the bend is, the big bend on Immokalee Road, you have two tan-colored developments. Are those in the -- are those in the hopper? MS. WOLFE: Those are also ones that, as we looked -- we coordinated with the growth management division -- department in regards to the interactive growth model, which was for the build-out study as to where those potentials were, so some of those -- those were some of those areas of where there has been discussion in regards to -- these are potential locations where development could occur. So we were trying to be consistent in regards to the land -- where the land use went to be consistent with those efforts, although we Page 27 December 10,2010 capped those at control total for 2035 obviously not to build-out totals. But we did follow those growth patterns and the directions for -- that were applied with your interactive growth model that the county approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, I see Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to DeSoto Boulevard being pushed off for a number of years and other proj ects coming in. And we've had a pattern -- instead of doing construction, we've been acquiring property such as for Vanderbilt Beach extension, Golden Gate Boulevard, acquiring that property to do the construction, and it appears to me what we're doing is acquiring a lot of property, and acquiring a lot of property but not going under construction. That is a real concern of . mIne. Ifwe start acquiring property, wouldn't it be best to, you know, acquire enough monies to actually do the construction so we could really feel the improvements? MS. WOLFE: In the realities, yes. In how we actually have to look at and apply what we've got here, basically we're having to accumulate our money. And when we start -- unfortunately, I guess I have -- try not to make this confusing. When we're having to look at those year of expenditures, our costs keep on increasing, unfortunately, out there, and so we have to wait to accumulate that. But in regard to how quickly we're going to get there -- once again, this is -- like this is your guiding tool. If a program or a plan comes into place whereby we can bring that accumulated amount of dollars forth sooner, then we could -- then of course you can bring that proj ect forward. But in regards to how the money is flowing in, this is basically how far we can get, and unfortunately where the dollars show up is pushing those projects out. And Mr. Casalanguida has something to add. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I still have some Page 28 December 10, 2010 follow-up. I apologize, and I appreciate your patience. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good question, Commissioner. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with the Growth Management Division. Part of our issue is Golden Gate Boulevard shows up in our AUIR as deficient. One of the items we've done is, we've been kind of working with DCA as we continue forward. If we have an active right-of-way acquisition program, DCA views that as we are moving forward eventually with that project. So we are moving forward with the design, and we're buying right-of-way right now with opportunity buys, anybody that wants to come forward, but we're funding that program and specifically showing DCA that while we can't construct that proj ect within the five-year work program, we are actively pursuing the right-of-way so that we're moving to be able to bring it into the program when we can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any idea what we have spent or committed to date? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can find out for you. It's in our AUIR CIE. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same thing with Vanderbilt Beach extension. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that. Spent to date and committed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I don't even -- I don't even see it on there. And I know that we built -- purchased a home out there for, I think, $2 million. MR. FEDER: If I could. For the record, Norman Feder, Administrator of Growth Management Division. First of all, on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, you defined the corridor. We acquired the whole takes. We have 19 of the 21 based on negotiated; none of it on a condemnation basis. Two have decided not to sell at this time. We've acquired other parcels as those parcels have come forward Page 29 December 10, 2010 and asked to be negotiated; takes, as well on the partial takes. We don't have an aggressive program or acquisition on Vanderbilt Beach Road at this time, recognizing that we don't have construction imminent. Additionally, on Golden Gate Boulevard where we are trying to bring that project forward, we are working on right-of-way and trying to get that addressed. I do need to try and put this discussion in perspective though. This long-range transportation plan is developed based on items that we're required to respond to. First and foremost is, there is a costing tool we're required to use that's assuming about a 4-percent-a-year increase to year of expenditure, which is rather large and restricts us greatly, especially when I'm talking 30 years out into the future. Number two, we were only allowed to consider the funding sources we have today, capacity, but only the portion that we could commit to, and what I mean by that is, our current capital program, as Commissioner Coy Ie pointed out, as it stands today, is really only the impact fees, our developer contribution agreements, and grants. Developer contribution agreements and grants have served us well over the current five years of our AUIR or five years of our program, but we weren't able to take into account anything for the remaining period of time because we don't have those grants or those developer agreements in place. So when you heard about right-of-way on U.S. 41, where we've had developers come forward to us and note that they will work with us on right-of-way and on stormwater, we can't take that into account. So the cost -- the needs are a bit inflated. The revenue stream for us to deal with our cost feasible are very restricted. And so what you've got is our best shot of projects, but we anticipate and would hope that, in fact, that gap between your cost feasible and your needs, first of all, our needs aren't quite as expensive and that our revenue stream allows us to meet more proj ects as we go forward. Page 30 December 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I know -- what was it, the Collier Boulevard grant that we have to go from two lanes to six lanes? MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. We have 7-million-plus and a trip grant from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green. That's in the five-year program. It's in the first five-year increment here. But, again, I was able to consider that in the five-year because that grant is already established with Florida DOT . You'll see it again very shortly in their tentative program. But I wasn't able to consider any future trip grants, Big P grants, any developer contribution agreements like, for instance, right-of-way and issues in the future. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard that. The -- on this sheet, it says from Golden Gate -- Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Canal to Green Boulevard. MS. WOLFE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that supposed to be Golden Gate Boulevard? No, that -- MS. WOLFE: That's -- the funded portion for trip in the current five years -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The current -- MS. WOLFE: -- is from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green. The portion that still needs to be funded is from the canal, which is just north of75, up to Green Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So when is -- and I apologize, everybody. Golden Gate Boulevard to Green Boulevard, when is that going under construction? MR. FEDER: Fiscal year '13, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirteen, okay. The cost in here, is that using an inflated cost, CPI? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay, thank you. Page 31 December 10, 2010 Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Nick, if I could. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make sure that we don't leave the public out there with some sort of misconception as far as the $25,000 per household debt that would be assumed. When you divide that number into it and you come up with $25,000, it really has no meaning in the fact that the majority of money in the past, and we can assume in the future, will come from such things as impact fees, development, developmental agreements between the developers and other sources; am I correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As Mr. Feder stated, you are correct that we can't count those right now in that 25-year plan. We know they're out there. As a matter of fact, as part of the RLSA program, many of the developers have said, we're going to participate. We just can't put that in the plan as a revenue source. So a lot of those facilities that -- if you use that number strictly as presented, it seems inflated, but we know in the future, grants, developer contribution agreements for right-of-way, mitigation, and construction will come into play, so that number will get adjusted as well, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that. Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: I would only add that, as I pointed out to you, to develop the needs plan, we had to use a costing formula that we found very high. So when you work that figure, it's based on needs. There's always been a gap, unfortunately, between the needs and the cost feasible. Probably a better look would be to take the cost feasible portion of that, even though that's still inflated and an estimate of cost, we believe, and look at that relative to the household. You were given a factor based on trying to meet that inflated needs plan as well. Page 32 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Would you comment on the fact that our -- what our debt is in relationship to the taxes that we pay and how that's going to carry over a number of years to be -- MR. FEDER: Transportation? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. MR. FEDER: You did two bond issues to address the backlog facilities back in 2000. They total a little over $200 million. Most of that is being worked out and is set up at about 14.6 million a year payback to the year 2023, I believe, both of them get paid off. That's where -- the issue we talked about, then we get gas taxes back, we can assume, for the balance of the program. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has there ever been any question about our ability to pay these bonds back? MR. FEDER: No. We have paid them back, and your gas taxes more than cover that, and we have taken out no debt against our impact fees or any other part of the transportation -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have we had to raise ad valorem to cover the cost of these bond debts? MR. FEDER: No. We've gotten ad valorem in the program previously in the capital, but it has been not structured to pay the debt. The gas taxes exceed the debt payment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I have a few questions related to both points that Commissioner Henning raised and also points that Commissioner Coy Ie raised. I understand that over the last few weeks or maybe month the cost feasible project schedule was materially altered; is that correct? MS. WOLFE: Commissioner Hiller, if I can refer back to an earlier slide that I had. At your -- the difference between what you have in the document before you today and your November meeting Page 33 December 10, 2010 are the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just these projects here. MS. WOLFE: Just these projects right here under the first bullet here, the 8th and the 16th, the Green Boulevard extension corridor study which actually would study a potential extension of Green Boulevard from Collier Boulevard over to Everglades, or it would basically cover an area that was, you know, from Green Boulevard down to Golden Gate Parkway over to see if there was a potential alignment, and then the initial phases for two of the critical intersections, the PD&E design and right-of-way for Immokalee-- Immokalee Road at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road at Randall. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So these were the only changes that took place during this last month? Were there material changes prior to that? MS. WOLFE: No, because that was the first time you were presented with a cost feasible. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. All right. So going to that cost feasible plan, who actually made the determination that the particular projects that were included should be included? MS. WOLFE: That was actually an iterative process that was with the MPO staff and county staff and looking at current work programs, what was basically in your pipeline as priorities. Quite frankly, we added a lot of projects and said, we want to -- here's this project. We want to finish it out, we want to finish it out. Once we threw all these -- our primary list in, we went and looked at what our comparison to revenues was, and unfortunately then we started having to peel back projects overall and then phases overall until we got a balance. There's a lot of -- I know there's a lot of priorities out there. What ended up staying in here were, to the maximum extent, the higher of the priorities where we could fit production phasing in as Page 34 December 10, 2010 well as completion phasing, and as far as timing as to when those revenues were available. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you did not have a -- you don't have a stated process for selecting projects? Like you don't identify first all projects that relate to public safety or, you know, next all projects that are -- I mean, you've got a number of items here as your goals. But I mean, do have you a specified approach? MR. RANK: The approach -- excuse me, Commissioner Hiller. My name is Richard Rank with DRMP. We were working on the development of the needs plan and a lot of the goals and objectives and striving to meet those goals and objectives for addressing and developing the needs plan, and the improvements that are highlighted in the needs plan -- we used our transportation model to determine what the deficiencies were. And from that and using the goals of, you know, mobility, safety, what have you, that's how we've worked on and developed the needs plan. To get to the cost feasible plan, there was an initial set of evaluation criteria as well that we looked at in order to determine whether or not we could prioritize some of those needs plans for movement into the cost feasible plan. And so, again, some of those goals and objectives were used as a background for the evaluation criteria. Ultimately, it's a matter of trying to coordinate with the county and the municipalities to determine from the revenue sources what we can physically build. But a lot of those goals and objectives and policies where that information was used in the model and the deficiencies that we developed fed into the needs plan portion of the analysis. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you used the same standards when you first developed the overall pot to when you were reducing to the -- the pot based on what available funds there were? Is that a-- am I understanding that? I mean, just yes or no is good enough for Page 35 December 10,2010 me. MR. RANK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Okay. Did you incorporate input from the various advisory groups with respect to developing those plans? MR. RANK: Certainly. I mean, this has gone through the process of the TAC and the CAC. Our -- the MPO staff has been in coordination with those members, even apart from or before actually T AC meetings to help in the prioritization and the discussion of these improvements that you see before you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And where I'm going is a concern based on my limited review. And you have to forgive me. I haven't had the benefit of the time as all the other board members have to review this in detail. But I'm very concerned about public safety. Obviously that's the number one priority for government. And one of the things when I looked at the overall plan was that the bridges have pretty -- in Golden Gate Estates have been pretty much eliminated. I guess there's only two that have been left on your cost feasible schedule, and those are going to be built, I guess, you know, when we're all dead based on the timing. Or -- well, maybe some of us, maybe not all of us. And I'm very concerned about that. And I'm just wondering, you know, what input did you get from the community with respect to that, and why did you make that decision? MR. RANK: We had a public involvement process. We've had a -- this has been -- the whole process and development of the plan itself has been open for public discussion. We've had several public meetings, one to discuss kind of the overall process, a specific public meeting to discuss the needs plan and then one to discuss the cost feasible plan. So I think beyond the public discussion and their concerns about safety, access -- I think Norm can discuss a little bit more, because Page 36 December 10, 2010 there was also an additional horizon study that addressed all the public bridges themselves. MR. FEDER: Yeah. Commissioner, to the bridges, we did a study. And as your point is well taken, safety is very much a concern. Additionally, there's a lot of community desire not to expand the width of the road system, but rather capitalize on the two-lane grid that exists or could exist in the Estates if it weren't for the lack of bridges, and because of that we did a study . We identified a number of bridges that we'd like to try and bring forward, both for time, safety, response, and other issues. To your question, two are being developed within our five-year program. We were going to, as you saw in this, possibly lose 8th and 16th, which are next priority bridges. We brought that into the bridge program and said that even if my current requirements under the way I have to develop this plan, I have to keep those bridges in, and we committed to that, and that's how we're keeping those into the plan right now. I need to, though, put in perspective, I raised the issues about our cost factors and revenue streams that we could assume against that. Additionally I need to point out to you, this plan, while it's 30 years in the horizon -- so I don't want to minimize its importance as a tool -- is just that, a tool. You hqve to revise it every five years at the longest, and realistically, with as many issues as we have right now, the nature of the economy, other issues, waiting for some developments to come forward and to give us indication -- the Big Cypress has been mentioned relative to interchange issues and the like -- all of those are going to probably prompt, if not amendments initially, definitely the update of this plan probably even earlier than five years. So again, you need to look at it as a 30-year plan. You also need to acknowledge, the only thing we know for sure is we're going to be changing it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask -- thank you for your Page 37 December 10, 2010 comments, Norm. Mr. Nance? Mr. Nance? MR. NANCE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you comment on the bridges for me, please, from the perspective of, you know -- MR. NANCE: Yes. Tim Nance. I served as a member of the east of 951 Horizon Infrastructure Study Group at the time it was meeting and beginning in 2007 and 2008, and the bridge -- the bridge locations were put together using a lot of different things, including input from the public, input from Fire, EMS, Sheriff, Forestry Service, and I believe Collier County Emergency Management, and they prioritized these bridges. At the time I think everybody thought that it was a great idea. They thought it was very important, and most of it was -- most of the final ranking of the bridges was arrived at by evaluating how much the response time was going to be reduced to emergencies that might arise at some of the different locations that were -- that were difficult to access because we don't have enough through roads out there in that part of Golden Gate Estates. So I think if it was -- it was very well received and it's been -- you know, it's been out there in the community and, I think, well imagined as a great resource that we had hoped to have, you know, going forward from a safety perspective for -- not only just for emergency services, but also for evacuations due to wildfires and things of that nature. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So would you recommend to this board that the construction of those bridges be moved up in priority based on public safety reasons? MR. NANCE: I think -- I think they're very, very important. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Based on this -- MR. NANCE: -- I think it's a complicated issue, but I think Page 38 December 10, 2010 they're among -- you know, among the most important things in Golden Gate Estates that are on the list of considerations for -- you know, for District 5, in my personal opinion, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much. MR. NANCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask another question? My next comment relates to what Commissioner Coyle brought out, and he very correctly stated that there are two prongs to this analysis. The first prong is, you know, what available revenues we have, and the second prong is, what is the underlying cost. And the focus on the cost, I think, is extremely important. And I just wanted to ask a couple of questions with respect to how the costs were analyzed and specifically go to just a couple of roads that I've taken some notes on that I would like to get some feedback from you-all on. The first one -- can you all hear me? The first one is Oil Well Road, Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well. It's my understanding that it's being proposed that it's going to be changed from a two-lane to a six-lane. And I'm going to just read from my notes. The projected traffic volume in 2035 will not be over the capacity of a four-lane road. Why don't we build four lanes in the five-year plan and add additional lanes when and if warranted? And as a note, Oil Well Road under construction -- is now under construction for six lanes between Oil Well grade to Camp Keais, is projected to have 20,000 vehicles in 2035, and this is just above the maximum volume for a two-lane road. This section may never need six lanes, but we are still maintaining the extra lanes forever. That's one example. The other example relates to Highway 41 from 951 to 6L Farms Road where two lanes are being added, and they're proposing to add curb and gutter for a design speed of 45 miles per hour. And the suggestion is, why not design a rural roadway with no curbs and a Page 39 December 10,2010 55-mile-per-hour design speed? Just as an added point, the difference between urban roads, which is 45 miles per hour with curb and gutter, and rural, which is 55 miles per hour, is nine-and-a-half million per mile for the urban and 6.2 million per mile for rural. And that, you know, considers also the sidewalk, lights, and bike lanes. So I'm just curious, you know, why we're taking these approaches when, you know, there are very significant cost savings to be had. And then on the revenue side, just for an example, going back to Oil Well Road, just as a question, are we considering the $60 million that Barron Collier owes the county for the construction of that road in the local revenue contribution in this analysis? And by the way, when is that money going to be paid to the county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got a lot of questions that you've hit me with. Let's see if I can get them one at a time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the Socratic method. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Oil Well Road, obviously we have a developer contribution agreement. We've purposely set aside the middle section, kind of deferred it in a sense, kind of waiting to see what happens. So that developer contribution agreement talks about when things will be constructed and what their width will be. Additionally, our Growth Management Plan says we don't consider just the long-range plan. We look -- we consider the build-out analysis when we construct the road. So if you'll take Oil Well Road, you would not only look at the 2035 plan, you would run a build-out analysis and say, why would you build out to four lanes if the build-out says six? Those are some of the things we considered. With respect to U. S. 41 to the east -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just interrupt you on that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the projection is, is that we're Page 40 December 10, 2010 going to have 20,000 vehicles in 2035. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right? Which is the maximum volume for a two-lane road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think that's a little light -- that's a little heavy for a two-lane road. I'll check that, but I would -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you? Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. But again, we look at build-out when we buy the right-of-way and we build the road. On u.s. 41, your construction costs obviously going from urban to suburban or rural become less, but your right-of-way impacts become enormous when you go to a rural cross-section, because then you're doing open-swale drainage. And when you're in an urban area with shopping centers and residential development, your right-of-way costs become highly impactive if you go to a rural section. So you try and -- I don't know, you look at best-value engineering to see what makes the most sense. Cheaper design, larger road versus buying more right-of-way, and things like that. As far as commitments from the developer, I'd really have to do a detailed look at that. I know, again, it's per agreement. We've looked at what's in that impact fee district. We've only spent up to that dollar amount, and that's one of the reasons why we haven't done the whole project in its entirety as well, also. Did I cover them all? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does this budget consider the 60 million? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Does this budget -- well, this proposed revenue stream? COMMISSIONER HILLER: This proposed revenue stream. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it would consider all revenues, not specifically from Ave Maria, but revenues within this area as well, too. Page 41 December 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I understand. And is the 60 million factored in the total areas for that area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The impact will be. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or total revenues for that area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. The impact fees would. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They are? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because these were projected to be 60 million in impact fees. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. They have not met the initial thoughts when the agreement was established. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Welcome. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Councilman Sulick. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: I have just a couple of questions. If -- going to the transit segments of this, has -- where is this plan in terms of fare increases and -- looking at the ratio of impact in terms of transit expenses going forward, they're enormous. And what is going to be the impact on fares as a result of that? I know transit systems never pay for themselves, nor did we expect them to, but this is really becoming -- and if we're not seeing a tremendous tick-up in fares, will the other revenue sources then be the ad valorem taxes; is that the other? MR. CLARENDON: To -- just to address fares for a moment. We did not assume a fare increase. So the -- what we call farebox ratio or recovery ratio of what you're obtaining today, we assumed would continue into the future, not get better, not get worse. Having said that, as you -- if you expand service, your fare box revenue will increase in terms of overall dollar value just because you've got more routes running, more buses running, and more people getting onboard. But, you know, the -- the ratio of fares to overall revenue would Page 42 December 10,2010 be maintained given the assumptions in this plan. That's number one. Number two, the other funding sources, which I think was the second question you had, we did not assume any new types of revenue for transit. The funding that comes to you from state and federal sources were projected into the future as well as the local sources, those being your county General Fund and a portion of your local option gas tax. Those were projected into the future as well. The one point that I would like to make though on the state and the federal dollars is that -- and it's sort of a wrinkle that comes because of the fact that you're -- will be -- become what's called a transportation management area under federal guidance, which means that you're over 200,000 population within the urbanized area, and that means your federal operating dollars that you have been receiving will go away, and that's just by formula. And so that has to be taken into account. That's one reason we can't really expand transit as much as the needs say we have. So I hope that answers your question. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: No. You just happened to mention the ratio between the farebox and the revenues, but what about the farebox and the costs going forward under this plan? Is that going to change dramatically? MR. FEDER: No. You're assuming about the same which, by the way, is one of the higher in the industry . We're getting about a 20 percent farebox return, which still means 80 percent is federal or local funded. But it's exceedingly high. Most systems aren't experiencing anything close to that. I think the real key to your question though, Councilwoman, is that the needs plan is showing significant increases if we're going to try and expand the system to meet some of the needs that are out there. Realistically the cost feasible plan is assuming generally the same level of revenue off into the future and what the system can handle based on that. Page 43 December 10, 2010 We didn't assume major increases in the cost feasible. The needs is where you show a significantly higher costs from all sources if, in fact, we look to expand the system. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Norman? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes, Commissioner. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You mentioned that we were going to be losing our federal dollars because of the 200,000? MR. FEDER: No. In reality, we're already an attributable area, a TMA based on being over 200,000 population. When we first started the transit system -- and I know you know this very well, Commissioner -- we were able to use more of the funds on operating subsidies. Now we have a very restrictive level of what we can use and operate, and we got some state block grants that can be used there. Most of it, the federal dollar that we get is capital. They have allowed, and they've extended it and they're still talking about it, on preventative maintenance, in other words, our maintenance to the bus fleet and the like, we have been able to use that capital dollar, and it's sort of an operating issue. But we'll continue looking at that, and obviously that will restrict how much we can do anything to expand or if we have to respond accordingly. We have -- we have a level of funding, and we've assumed that into the future. I'd love to see us expand. We just don't have the resources. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you didn't say then we're going to lose federal funding? MR. FEDER: No, no. There's nothing to lose federal in any of that statement. That was just recognizing that once you get to a larger system, the federal grants don't allow you to use as much on operating. There's actually more monies for capital but less money for operating Page 44 December 10,2010 support. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. Thank you very much for eXplaining that. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to direct this question to our Florida Department of Transportation representatives. Stan? We've heard staff tell us that they've had to use state procedures, state-mandated procedures, for the purpose of calculating the unfunded needs, and it has resulted in what we might consider to be an unrealistic forecast. So my question to you is, is Collier County's opportunity to get additional state and/or federal funds in any way conditioned or affected by the size of our deficit of our unfunded needs? In other words, if we have a large deficit, do we move higher on the priority list as opposed to having no deficit at all? MR. CANN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it doesn't affect anything? MR. CANN: It doesn't affect it, no, sir. In fact, I can tell you right now that every MPO -- specifically, I attend all five in my district -- they all show very high deficits. The needs far exceed the amount that you can fund under current revenue. Now, I will say this. What we have provided the county and your consultant is based on, first of all, what we know the federal allocation is going to be, or at least the best we can project it until there's a new -- new bill comes out of Congress, but also with regard to SIS funding. Now, we've got also -- we have our own cost feasible plan, based -- for the system. The numbers they're using is what is currently adopted, but we're going to be going through our own process to update that very shortly and try to make it more accurate as to your needs as well as every other county within the state, so it could change a little bit. Page 45 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER COYLE: So essentially it is really a meaningless figure? MR. CANN : We've -- statewide we're using the same revenue forecast with all the MPOs. In the past, each MPO kind of did what they thought was right based on certain situations. And when all the numbers came together, we had a hard time of comparing apples to apples statewide, so we didn't really have a clear picture. We had a good idea, but we didn't have the clear picture of what the real transportation needs were, what was our deficit in transportation. So this work -- this LR TP cycle we've asked all the MPOs to use -- since we're going to the year of expenditure, use the same forecast, use these inflation figures, that way when we get statewide numbers back after everyone's done and their plans are adopted, we can add them all up and they're consistently done, and we'll have a good or a better understanding of exactly what we're facing as a state as a whole. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- I understand what you're doing, so I understand the logic of that. So because there is a deficit, we shouldn't get really too concerned about that right now. It's not going to affect our priorities, and we recognize that it is not a realistic forecast based upon our historical funding; is that a fair statement? MR. CANN: That's a fair statement, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I have only one other question. In the backup material -- and Lorraine, you're going to have to tell me who should answer this question. MS. LANTZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the backup material, the two intersections that have the highest fatalities are really not intersections at all, but they are identified as 1-75 and Collier Boulevard, and 1-75 and Route 29. Now, if we're talking about safety, my question to you is, what is going to be done about that, if anything, number one; and Page 46 December 10, 2010 number two, I cannot believe that we have those kinds of fatalities at that -- either of those intersections because they really don't intersect, and I'm wondering if we've just group fatalities that occurred nearby and attributed them to those intersections merely because it's easier to identify . MS. WOLFE: I will go ahead and try and take a stab at answering it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. WOLFE: I'll take your last part first in regards to the location of specific incidents. Yes, there are likelihoods that several of those identified specifically at the intersection are within a spacing. We have only been able to go on the information that's actually provided, and a lot of times those reports will give the actual intersection rather than a distance from, specifically in regards to what is being done about them. State Road 29 and u.S. 41, correct-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 1-75. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1-75. MS. WOLFE: -- 1-75 is not in the priorities -- is -- is 29 and 1-75 in the CMS listing? Okay. It is in your CMS as one of the priority proj ects. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's rated number two in number of fatalities. MS. WOLFE: That is where your box comes into play. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. WOLFE: We don't specifically allocate them in this long-range plan, but as your money comes forward and as your CME/ITS committee creates your priorities. That one should be coming up; because they will start taking a look at the results of the technical memorandum, which is something relatively new as a final document, as they come up with their new properties, and we'll be looking at doing the box. Page 47 December 10, 2010 FDOT is currently doing a reevaluation as well as the county is in the next year or two, going to be constructing additional -- MR. FEDER: Next year. MS. WOLFE: -- next year -- additional improvement at Collier and 951 (sic) to actually improve that and basically create a six-plus auxillary lane improvement from Davis up to Magnolia Pond Drive, and additional funds are coming forward that are looking at more of the ultimate interchange, and that would be an area of where we would hope over time to get a priority of SIS funding for it because of its connection to 1-75. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, where I'm going with this is, when we get to the point of designing a project and committing money, are we going to be able to demonstrate that the projects will, perhaps, reduce number of fatal accidents at those locations, and specifically with respect to State Road 29 and 1-75 and an appropriate interchange there? Is that one of the justifications for proceeding with that project? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That answered my question. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Henning, you had a question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yeah. Sue, I'm sorry. The number, the 10,000 number, is that based upon the financially feasible number or the needs? MS. FALKNER: That was a number that we were using at the time of that original discussion last month as an approximate present-day cost for the entire needs plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now that needs plan back then was $5 million (sic). MS. FALKNER: Five billion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five billion dollars, and now it's Page 48 December 10, 2010 6 billion? MS. FALKNER: Well, there were some adjustments that have been made, and I was just doing ballpark, you know. It was like 5.4 or something, and it's now-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six? MS. FALKNER: It also includes transit now, so there is a slight difference. And you know, if you wanted me to look at all the costs, it would be a little higher. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't think it's alarming anybody when you ask, you know, the cost benefit, the cost feasible, take a look at where your sources of revenue are coming from for any one of the facilities, because of growth, and study it and, you know, see if there's going to be a deficit. Your financially (sic) needs plan is based upon the growth in the county. Now we're cutting it back down to what is financially feasible. So -- and there's a big disparity there between what we can forward and what we need. There's a huge disparity there. There's a $5 billion disparity . MS. FALKNER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's wrong with this body taking a look at all the different revenue sources for a particular facility for a particular part of county growth? I think it would be a great exercise, not only for this board, but for the public, and see what the true cost of growth is just for transportation. Is that unrealistic to ask? I don't think so. I think it would be a great exercise. And with that, I apologize. I have another meeting I need to go to, but I do have a lot of concerns based -- this is based upon projection of growth. This is based upon the needs and what are we setting up for the future? Let's -- we have to do this exercise, so let's get down to a little bit more details and see if -- if there's a better way to provide facilities for the future or today's present residents. Thank you. And I apologize having to leave early . We've had a Page 49 December 10,2010 lot of discussion. I've taken a lot of that. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have two questions. The first I'd like to address to the consultant. In your exhibits that you presented at the beginning, you had two schedules, one was overall needs plan costs and the other was the cost feasible. And I was looking at the operations maintenance number in both. And in your needs plan, the operations maintenance number was 290 million, and in your cost feasible plan the operations maintenance was 438 million, about 148 million in excess of what you defined as needs. Can you explain the difference? MS. WOLFE: I apologize for that. What happened is though I was trying to get to those numbers in year of expenditure and trying to keep apples and oranges, the original operation and maintenance numbers and the needs, that line item was solely for right-of-ways. The operation -- transit operations cost is actually included in the transit line item. When we come down to the next page, which is your cost feasible, your transit operation costs are blended in with your cost feasible with your year of expend- -- plus it's year of expenditure, not -- that's what it is. Pardon me. One is year of expenditure, and one is present day. That's what -- I apologize. That's-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you say present day, are you taking -- MS. WOLFE: That means that value is in 2010 dollars. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. So you're saying that this schedule is in present-value dollars, and this schedule is based on the value of the dollar in the year of expenditure? MS. WOLFE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- I think we really need to have matching schedules. MS. WOLFE: Which is why I -- it's very difficult to try and pull Page 50 December 10,2010 those out, unfortunately, that way. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because this is -- this is -- MS. WOLFE: Which was why I came back -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't really compare it. I mean, if you -- you can't -- I mean, are you subtracting present-value dollars against future-value dollars to come up with your -- MS. WOLFE: Unfunded needs? No. On-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that would be -- MS. WOLFE: That slide for your unfunded needs, what I'm showing there is your present-day cost needs plan is 6.092, which matches up with what that needs plan cost is. What I've had to do, because -- the costing tool that we utilized gives us our year of expenditures, and I've had to back down those numbers back to a present-day cost because it's not -- it's not a direct output. The direct output we're given from the tool we had for what's in the cost feasible is actually year of expenditure cost. I apologize. We can try and make it more clear, but the -- the difference between the two is, one is in present-day cost and the other -- cost feasible one is showing up, because of the way output is obtained from the tools, in year of expenditure costs, because the revenues are there and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because if I look at your final schedule, you've got the unfunded needs of 5.235, and your cost feasible plan there in present-day cost is under a billion. MS. WOLFE: Right. Your actual cost for your cost feasible plan in year of expenditure dollars is 1.425, when you apply the inflationary factor, but when you take that inflationary factor off of it COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. MS. WOLFE: -- it's .857. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So-- MS. WOLFE: That's the -- Page 51 December 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- really, the ideal would be if we could have the cost feasible allocated among, you know, operations, transit pathways, and capacity also in present-value dollars so we could compare and reconcile to the final schedule in -- of unfunded needs. MS. WOLFE: We can -- we can make that effort and show those details in both year of expenditure as well as present-day costs for a comparison in the document itself, if that will be of some help. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we need some sort of schedule to support the .857, and you don't have that schedule included in this analysis. MS. WOLFE: Because that schedule doesn't -- it doesn't physically exist as an output. It's an additional calculation level. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand. I mean, it just needs to be included. MS. WOLFE: It's something that considered -- quite frankly, it occurred between the time that these were -- what you have in the document are the standard schedules that were required to be in there. The additional information that we're trying to provide here to give an apples-to-apples comparison is something that was an additional calculation above and beyond. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, thank you. My next question is to FDOT. Can you please explain why, out of our allocation, the toll operations for Alligator Alley are being funded? I mean, and are these toll operations being funded out of other county allocations in the same way? Is every county subjected to this if they have a toll? MR. CANN: No, ma'am. The operation and maintenance of Alligator Alley is wholly funded through the collection of tolls on the alley itself, and so we kind of share that responsibility here in my district, which includes Collier, with District 4 on the East Coast, which includes Broward County. Page 52 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the four -- like the almost $4 million that I see each year is coming from what source of revenues? MR. CANN: Tolls. COMMISSIONER HILLER: These are all tolls? MR. CANN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So this isn't taking away from our local allocation, is it? MR. CANN: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because if I look at the bottom line, if you subtract 4 million out of the bottom line each year, that's a material impact. I mean, like for example in 2015, if I subtract 4 million out of that, I mean, you know, we're left with like $5 million, which is -- MR. CANN: Correct, but it's funded through toll. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But again, I just want to make sure, even though it's being funded through tolls, we are not being given a lesser -- MR. CANN: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- allocation because those dollars are being factored, and it appears as if we are getting those $4 million. I mean, is that really -- should that be part of this analysis? I mean, is it really part of our -- MR. CANN: Well, we included it because we have to include it in the work program document itself within Collier County's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that true for every county? MR. CANN: Yes. It includes a toll facility, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Miami-Dade has their toll facility included in their analysis, and it comes out of their bottom line the same way? MR. CANN: It -- I think that probably Broward would be a better example. I know that Miami-Dade has its own expressway authority. That would not be included in our work program. Page 53 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so what happens in Broward? MR. CANN: The other half of the Alligator Alley II -75. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They actually get charged. Are they -- they've got a $4 million allocation also for toll maintenance? MR. LIMBAUGH: Typically what happens, when we get our allocations to the district when we develop our work program, we get a dedicated funding code for -- what we refer to as DSB2 which refer -- to us -- it means nothing to you guys, but to us that means 1-75 toll funds. When we get our allocation, we get the DSB2 dollars, which are toll revenues from the alley, get allocated to us basically to cover the operation and maintenance. So there's -- it's not a plus or a minus in reality to the county as a whole. It's just an accounting thing on our end that the -- there's an operation phase that needs to be paid for for the alley. So when Tallahassee gives us our allocations, they dip into those toll collections and say, here, here's that line item for us to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I just want to make sure that, given that this is included in this schedule, that our allocation of federal and state funds -- MR. LIMBAUGH: Didn't affect the overall. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is not being diminished merely because it's perceived that we have that source of revenue for that particular project. MR. LIMBAUGH: It doesn't affect -- no. The overall operation and maintenance was based on overall lane miles that need to be maintained. So at the same time you're -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well-- MR. LIMBAUGH: Any roadway -- any state roadway would have been covered under that allocation, and the toll facility needs -- that also needs to be maintained, gets funded out of that special toll facilities fund. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me restate the question. Page 54 December 10,2010 Let's go to year 2015. If I subtract that and let's say now I have $5 million and that was all to show -- that was all that would show up on that schedule, would this area receive more state or local fundings? I mean, what was -- does that affect it? If the number is lower, are we allocated more, or is it -- in other words, is that taking away from the pot of state and federal funds that we could otherwise be using towards our local projects? MR. LIMBAUGH: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No? Okay. MR. LIMBAUGH: Tolls are handled totally separately. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. MS. LANTZ: I just -- I also just want to just redirect a little bit. Your questions are very important, but they are directed more towards the work program, which is not directly related to the public hearing that we are in discussion for for the LR TP. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, I understand. Are these costs -- is this part of the cost feasible program? MS. WOLFE: The toll revenues were not included. They are not under the jurisdiction of the MPO as far as programming and funding those dollars because they are state maintenance operation dollars which are handle at the district and the statewide level. Those types of items, we addressed them by stating -- because there's no direct application. They're based on what are physical needs and actual operation costs. So they aren't included in your revenues, nor are they included in needs. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in the numbers we were discussing earlier that we were reconciling, this is not factored in? MS. WOLFE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It would be helpful, I think, Page 55 December 10, 2010 to this board if the staff could provide us what you would consider to be a realistic proj ection of our unfunded needs, without regard for the state's protocol, which I understand they want to make it uniform, but it would help us understand the potential opportunities for getting funding in the same manner we have obtained funding in the past. So if you could identify the funding sources on a historical basis and then project a reasonable level of anticipated funding of a similar nature into the future, it would help us reach more intelligent decisions about what needs to be done with respect to funding for un- -- for unfunded needs. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the cost feasible plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. We have a motion and second. Before we take a vote, we need to open the public comment. MS. LANTZ: I believe the public hearing is open, and there is one registered speaker on this item. Tim Nance. MR. NANCE: Board Members, I'm speaking to you at present not as a member of the CAC or as that committee's chairman that has worked with you for many years, but as a resident of District 5. What I wanted to address basically was a couple of different things, one of which -- I'll start with the first one, and that is the public process that we've had on the development and the -- and public review of the cost feasible plan. The cost feasible public meeting was held on October the 27th. It was the third of the three public meetings that were held in conjunction with the 2035 transportation plan. At that time what was distributed to the public was a sheet that looked like this. This is actually a sheet from that meeting. It's entitled Draft Cost Feasible Plan, and it's got yellow shaded projects that are termed 2035 cost feasible priority improvements. And the blue are labeled 2035 contingency funded improvements. Page 56 December 10,2010 This is what the public saw. And up until the November meeting of the CAC, this is what everybody else saw when this was -- started to undergo significant changes. And as far as what the public saw in here, they are going to be rather amazed at what has evolved between the time they had their public meeting and what is most likely going to be passed by you today, and I just wanted to comment on it. No, it's not necessary, Sue. Thank you. On the sheets, which were classified as priority improvements, there are seven critical needs intersections. I think two of them remain. There were six bridges in the Golden Gate bridge study included. There are one that's going to be constructed and two that . remaIn. There -- the most significant project relating to the Immokalee community, which is the State Road 29 loop road, is funded only through design, and the Cost Feasible Plan at present basically eliminated, for all intent and purpose, for the period of time under discussion. Randall Boulevard, another major Estates road, improvements that were completely eliminated. I think there's a very -- there's a very, very difficult situation between information that the public gets and the final determinations that are made on this, and much of it comes from transportation planning issues. The public does not receive good information in a lot of cases. They're uninformed. In a lot of cases, they're incompletely informed, and sometimes they're even misinformed or are delivered information that leads them to mislead -- to false assumptions or conclusions. I'm very concerned about that as a citizen. I'm very concerned about where the cost feasible improvements, both the fully funded and the partially funded improvements, went as far as direction for District 5. Page 57 December 10,2010 I think the -- I think it's clear that everybody is understanding that we have a very, very difficult economic circumstance; however, taken into account the developments that apparently have been happening very recently since the documents in these -- in this detailed summary and cost phasing have only been available to anybody for the last ten days, I think it's pretty -- it's pretty remarkable, and I think we're going to have a very, very bad reaction from the public. As far as District 5 is concerned, as a District 5 citizen, to me the cost and feasible -- the cost -- fully funded cost feasible improvements are right now dominated by projects that benefit the Rural Land Stewardship Area. There's $141-and-a-halfmillion worth of projects related to the interchange at 1-75 and additional leg of Oil Well Road. There have been recent public meetings regarding the construction of this interchange, and I think it's got very wide public support. But when you analyze the cost and phasing that we're presented today, I don't think anybody in Golden Gate Estates realizes that in order to fund the 1-75 interchange and Oil Well Road, we're going to have to kick Golden Gate Boulevard and our safety bridges off for 20 to 25 years. I don't think that's been effectively communicated to people, and I'm very concerned about it. I'm personally worried about it. I'm not sure this is very good prioritization, taking into account the dire economic circumstances that we have here. And I think the information provided to the public has been very poor, and I think it's going to come as a tremendous shock. I'm not sure everybody on this board realizes the implications of some of these things. Probably the most significant item in the partial -- in the -- in the cost feasible improvements is a little kind of innocuous project that appears under partially funded -- it's right in the top of the list. It's the right-of-way to expand Everglades Boulevard from 1-75 to Golden Gate Boulevard. It's only $14 million. It's a partially funded project Page 58 December 10,2010 over the next ten years. Funny thing about it is, it's going -- it's going to obligate Collier County to widen that road to six lanes at the cost of several hundreds of millions of dollars of costs that haven't even been determined yet. There's a tremendous study going on on 1-75, and I think it's very premature to put something in there about PD&E and right-of-way acquisition when the 1-75 -- the new potential interchange at 1-75 hasn't been come to grips with yet. So I'm very disturbed about how some of this has come down, and I don't know what to tell you. Just as a citizen of District 5, I think you're going to have a very, very bad reaction to what comes out of this. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. MR. NANCE: Thank you for listening. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: No one else has signed up? MS. LANTZ: No, there are no other speakers. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: No other speakers. I close the public comment portion and close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second for the -- to approve the cost feasible plan. Ms. Seaton, would you call the roll. MS. SEATON: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Henning has gone for the day. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. MS. SEATON: Councilman Trotter? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. MS. SEATON: Councilwoman Sulick? COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Yes. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Fiala? Page 59 December 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MS. SEATON: Councilman Saad? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Yes. MS. SEATON: Motion carried, 6-1. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Do I have a motion in terms of adopting the LR TP? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make that motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. MS. SEATON: I'm sorry, who, Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: He makes the motion. I'll second. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion and a second. MS. SEATON: Coletta, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion made by Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Please call the roll. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. MS. SEATON: Councilman Trotter? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. MS. SEATON: Councilwoman Sulick? COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Yes. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MS. SEATON: Councilman Saad? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Yes. Page 60 December 10,2010 MS. SEATON: Motion carried 6-1. MS. FALKNER: Thank you very much. And I'd like to let you know that I will be bringing to you a finalized copy of the document as soon as we can prepare those final changes that you had in that errata sheet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work. MS. FALKNER: Thank you. MS. LANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: We're now on to board action items. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask? Would you like us to keep these so that -- do you need to send these to anybody? MS. FALKNER: I think that we're going to go ahead and possibly give you a brand new one that is -- if that's okay with you. I heard one person indicate they would like the CD. So if you'd like an electronic of it instead of the large volume, you can let us know. MS. LANTZ: However, I do recommend that you keep the appendices, the supplemental information, as that mostly will not be changing. It's the actual document itself. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay, thank you. Yes? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chairman, I think we should all congratulate and thank these three women who did a phenomenal job. They worked so hard, and they deserve to be recognized. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you very much. MS. FALKNER: Thank you. We couldn't have done it without all of the public and the committees as well though. This was a big effort, and the board was an integral part of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Is the board's pleasure to continue? We've been here for a while. Take a brief break? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Probably should take a brief break. I don't know if anybody's got things to do. Usually we break -- or we're finished by noon, but I don't know what we're going to do. Page 61 December 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a one o'clock appointment I've got to stick with, but I'm available till that time. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Shall we just press forward? And-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: -- if you don't mind, Councilor Sulick, subbing for me for a minute after we get started, because I've got to run out for a minute. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is our reporter okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. Everybody does that. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: I'm sort of the only one that can't. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Why don't we press forward then. Item #8A APPOINTMENT OF MPO ADVISORY COUNCIL (MPOAC) GOVERNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE FOR 2011 - NOMINATING COMMISSIONER FIALA AS THE REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK AS THE ALTERNATE-APPROVED CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Next item, 8A, appointment of the MPO Advisory Council. MS. LANTZ: Yes. This is a requirement for the MPO advisory council. They request one representative every year, and we are requesting someone be appointed -- a representative be appointed from the MPO for -- that can attend these meetings. They are mostly Orlando, some are -- may be in Tampa; however, the dates are on your executive summary for January 27th, April 7th, July 28th, and October 27th. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I nominate Commissioner Fiala. Page 62 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How lucky can you get? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was fast. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: We have a nomination on the floor. Shall we -- MS. SEATON: Yes. And a second, Commissioner Coyle. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Commissioner Coyle seconded it. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: All in favor -- do we need a roll call, or just all in favor? Roll call? MS. LANTZ: No, we don't need a roll call. MS. SEATON: Only for public hearings. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: All in favor? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. (No response.) MS. LANTZ: We also need a representative -- an alternate, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would nominate Ms. Sulick, Councilwoman Sulick. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second that. See what it feels like? COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Okay. I'm not quite sure. I'm-- because I'm chairing the CRA on the city too this year. I'm not quite sure that I would make -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's only one person that needs to go Page 63 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER COYLE: You only have to go if -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it just depends. Yeah. And you're going to get my aide, Sue, right -- MS. LANTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and discuss those dates and get them on my calendar so that she can -- because there's the problem of getting there and getting back and so forth, yes, so she can block out those dates. If I'm not in town -- the only month that I'm gone is August, and I can't make it. We don't have any in August though. MS. LANTZ: And there's no meeting in August, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I don't know that I -- COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: All right, fine. Thank you. Do we need a motion on this? MS. LANTZ: There's a motion, I believe, and a second, so you just need to take a vote. It does not need to be roll call. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Okay. Can we have a vote on this. Yes. All in favor? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: The ayes have it. Item #8B ENDORSEMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5310 AND 5311 GRANT Page 64 December 10,2010 APPLICATION -APPROVED COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Okay. 8B, endorsement of the Federal Transit Administration, FTA, Section 5310 and 5311 grant applications. MS. LANTZ: Yes. And I'd like to introduce Michelle Arnold from the Alternate Transportation Modes Department to present this item. MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes director. The item before you is a request for endorsement of a submittal of an application. One is for the 5310 grants, which is for elderly -- it's a grant application that helps us with capital expense, most primarily is for purchasing of replacement vehicles for our paratransit . serVIce. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. We've got 5311 as well. Does that include the motion for application as well? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: So the motion covers both and the second covers both? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Very good. We don't need a roll call? MS. LANTZ: No. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: All in favor. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. Page 65 December 10,2010 CHAIRMAN TROTTER: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Item #8C ENDORSEMENT FO THE FTA SECTION 5307 GRANT APPLICATION -APPROVED MS. ARNOLD: I'm here again also to request that you endorse the application for the 5307 grant, and that is funding fixed route services, primarily capital, but as you can see from the program of projects, we have one percent going to enhancements, which includes our bus shelters, another 1 percent for security measures. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Second. MS. ARNOLD: I think Commissioner Fiala had a question-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But motion to approve is good. I mean, I just wanted to -- I have two fast things. One is about the bus trolley wrap. We discussed this at length at the -- MS. ARNOLD: Last meeting, LCB. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, at our meeting yesterday, and -- at the Local Coordinating Board level. And I just wanted to make sure that the wrap is in -- is in the same vein as the original wrap. It is, and I thought -- rather than the new one that they'd used a couple times. So it is, and I just wanted to clarify that. Also, did the PAC vote on it, and did they approve is as well? MS. LANTZ: Yes. The PAC endorsed this as well as the LCB. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Thank you very much for that. May I turn it back over to Councilman Trotter? Page 66 December 10,2010 CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Why don't you finish this up. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: We have a motion. Do we have a -- we do have a second? MS. SEATON: Call the question. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: All in favor? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second? MS. SEATON: I have Sulick as the second. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: I'm the second. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: That took us through -- COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: 8C we have finished. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Finished 8C. Thank you. Item #8D ENDORSEMENT OF THE FTA SECTION 5316 AND 5317 GRANT APPLICATIONS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Item 8D. MS. LANTZ: 8D, actually Michelle Arnold is also going to present this item as well. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This as the CTC, the Board of County Commissioners, through our -- through CAT, pulls down funding for 5316 and -17 grants. A 5316 grant is job access reverse commute, and it's to provide funding for -- or system funding for programs that will help to continue work programs. It could be a project that involves, Page 67 December 10, 2010 you know, transportation services -- extending transportation services for the CAT system to later hours to accommodate those employees that work later hours, longer than our current bus system works. And our system currently only runs through 7:30. It also is extended to other programs outside of the county for private companies or agencies that could provide job-related assistance to folks. It -- which could involve the purchase of bus passes to provide access to people going to and from their jobs. We are simply pulling down these funds. The 5317 is a new freedom, which is primarily for providing ADA-related services to the community. And, again, those funds are being pulled down by the county's A TM department or CAT department for the Board of County Commissioners. After the funds are pulled down, the MPO staff goes through a procurement process or an RFP process to solicit projects that these funds would be going towards. Most of the funding is capital or a 50/50 match. If used for operations, I think there's an 80 percent match for the JARC. We are eligible for competing with -- for these funds, as any other agencies within the community, but we simply drawed (sic) these funding down and then have the MPO do the solicitation process to avoid any appearance of impropriety. We are at -- with our financial situation right now, are discussing whether or not it would be appropriate for us to actually go for these funding because, as I indicated, there is either a 50/50 match or an 80/20 percent match where we're coming up with 20 percent or the appropriate party comes up with 20 percent or 50 percent. We are going to have discussions with the MPO. At this particular time we are requesting that at least we have the ability to draw down those funds if, after a discussion with the MPO staff, that it's deemed appropriate to do so. So if you have any questions or any further questions? Page 68 December 10,2010 CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Or comments? Do I have a -- yes, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm a little concerned about why you're undecided about why you'd like to apply for these grants. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's primarily because of the match requirements, and if we compete for those funds and don't have the appropriate match to provide, then we'd be requesting funds without being able to complete it. But as I indicated, the rest of the public has the ability to apply for those funds, too. So we didn't necessarily want to limit the availability of these funding to the other agencies that may apply for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But where would you expect to get the 50 percent local match if you did apply and you did get the grant? MS. ARNOLD: That's the question that we're going to have to identify for our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can Norman expand upon that? MR. FEDER: Yeah, I think I can. Basically what I've told staff is, we are not applying because we do not have the match funding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if we decide to let them apply, we're overruling your recommendations; is that correct? MR. FEDER: You are providing me additional funding, because right now I don't have it, or you're taking it out of something else that you did previously fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now you have me confused. MR. FEDER: You either are taking it out of something I've already funded, or you're going to have to give me additional funds to make a match. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay. So-- MR. FEDER: I don't have any additional funds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- unless we could identify matching funds, we shouldn't apply for this money. Page 69 December 10,2010 MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it we give you approval today to submit a grant and then you decide among yourselves how you're going to get the money, we won't have an opportunity to ratify that. How do we solve that particular discrepancy? MR. FEDER: You would have an ability to ratify as, at least the Board of County Commissioners, because before we accepted a grant, we would bring that as an executive summary before the board. In this case, unless we find that we have something urgent and we find that we have funding within our current funding stream, we are not going to apply, and that's where we stand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me make sure I understand this. If we approve this submission of the grant, we are deferring to the Board of County Commissioners to approve the local match funding? MR. FEDER: As it stands right now, it's only the Board of County Commissioners that's providing any local funds to the transportation or transit system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. FEDER: And again though, this item though, does, by us taking this action, open it up to others. You could have a nonprofit that's providing some transit services or Jitney services, if you will, and they want to apply for these funds to allow them to expand what they're doing. So we wanted to bring the funds down, even though we don't feel right now that we're in a position to be an applicant. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you are only asking this body to make a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners allows the submission of a grant only if the Board of County Commissioners ratifies your matching funds source; is that correct? MR. FEDER: If we're an applicant, that's correct. But we're also recommending to this board that we ask DOT to pull these funds, allows us through the MPO to go through an RFP and see if there's Page 70 December 10, 2010 other entities with matching funds that want to pursue these grant funds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would be willing to make a motion that we approve the submission of the grant contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners finding appropriate matching dollars, and if the Board of County Commissioners cannot find appropriate matching dollars, that we not accept the grant. Does that serve your purposes? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Commissioner, could I get a quick clarification before we make the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Is that -- if we apply for this grant, if we endorse this grant today, you said there are private citizens who can also apply for this money, not necessarily just the county? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So by the MPO endorsing this today, we're not -- we're allowing other people to apply, but the county does not have to apply? MS . ARNOLD: That's correct, and if -- COUNCILMAN SAAD: Ifwe put a -- Commissioner, and my question is, if we put a condition on it, are we going to then hamper private citizens who might want to apply? That's my question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so, because if I understood correctly, it would actually provide the opportunity for a private organization to come up with the matching funds, if they could do so. MS. ARNOLD: Right, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're sort of getting a placeholder in here. MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we submit the grant application and a private organization can come up with matching Page 71 December 10,2010 funds, then we can meet the requirements of the grant without the government having to provide additional funds. If we don't approve the submission of the grant, they won't have the opportunity unless they initiate their own application, which they can do anyway? MS. ARNOLD: Well, they wouldn't be able to pull down the monies, because we are the CTC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'd have to come through the -- MS. ARNOLD: Right, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yet, we have to administer the money; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That is one of the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need to put that into this. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's one of the other concerns that we have is, regardless of who is awarded the dollars or for whatever project, Collier County, as the CTC, or my department, would have to administer the funds, and we don't really get compensated for that administration of it, because we are required through the grant program to make sure that the funding is complying with all the regulations. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Ifwe don't approve -- if we don't endorse as an MPO body, what happens? Just can't -- no one can apply for the funds? MS. ARNOLD: If you don't endorse and we don't draw those down, then we just don't get those funds. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes, Councilwoman Sulick? MS. LANTZ: Into the whole county, so that would mean that the Salvation Army or other entities wouldn't be able to apply for them either. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Have we ever used these types of grants before? MS. ARNOLD: The 5316 and -17, we've applied for it before, Page 72 December 10, 2010 but we have not used them yet. And we are -- part of the reason why they haven't been utilized is, we are going through, or the MPO department's going through that procurement process and establishing that process to solicit vendors for the funding. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: So under this, if this is approved, a private taxi service could come to you and say, I'm going to provide services for the disabled, you will offset that cost and apply to the MPO to be reimbursed? I mean, it could be as simple as that, or versus a -- an entity like a church or something like that? MS. LANTZ: Right. Any entity would apply -- when we do it -- advertise for the request for proposals, they would have to come up with their own matches, and then it would have to be administered by the Board of County Commissioners with -- COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: And who would make sure that, you know, the service was done correctly and-- MS. ARNOLD: That's the administration side that would have to come from our staff. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: So there will be a cost to the county -- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: -- regardless of who actually-- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: And is there money in the budget on the county level to absorb that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's included in the Saturday budget. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And it's a very intensive administrative process as we've identified from talking to our folks -- the Lee Tran and the -- to the north of us, and they currently are administering the same type of funding, and it's very labor intensive. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Coletta? Page 73 December 10,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A procedural question. We're passing this on to the Collier County Commission. The -- what we have together now, the Collier County Commission can accept or refuse in whole or in part, or are they subservient to the MPO in this particular case? MS. ARNOLD: It's up to the Board of County -- the Board of County Commissioners would make that final determination. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, this is more of a suggestion -- even though we've got four commissioners here from Collier County, it's a suggestion we're passing on to the Collier County -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you -- would you -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you mention how the Local Coordinating Board -- would you mention how the Local Coordinating Board discussed this and the result, please. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We did go over this at the Local Coordinating Board, and I believe you all endorsed it. There was concern, of course, with the administrative side of it because of the fact that we are not -- you know, that Saturday budget type of thing. We don't have the adequate staff or budget to administer this program. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you state for the record how much money we're talking about. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. With respect to the 5316, $192,223 would be the granted amount. The 192- -- the same amount would be the retired match for the 50/50 program. If it's used for -- is it operating that's 80 percent?g Page 74 December 10,2010 MS. LANTZ: I believe operating on 5317. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. 5317, it's 180,575. Again, if it's a 50 percent match, it would -- the amount would be the same. I don't have the 80 percent, or the 20 percent requirement for a match in the event that that 361,150 were granted. We -- the total amount doesn't have to be awarded to one party. It could be awarded to multiple parties. So if 50,000 is awarded to a particular agency, they would be required to then match with 50,000. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there is nothing in these grants that allow for an allocation to administration? MS. ARNOLD: I believe, as a part of -- the person that is awarded the grant would be able to utilize some of those funds for their administration of it. But in terms of our administration, I don't believe so. As the CTC, no. I can-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you haven't verified that? MS. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So really -- MS. ARNOLD: I'll verify with Lee Tran to make sure my assumptions are correct whether or not -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So really the question of the cost of administration may, in fact, be covered by the grant? MS. ARNOLD: There is that possibility. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But do you know? MS. LANTZ: I believe it's a 10 percent administrative fee, but it -- or allocation out of the grant; however, I believe Michelle is correct, that it is allocated towards the grant recipient for that 10 percent. So if some other entity asks for $50,000, they would get a 10 percent -- they would be able to use 10 percent of that for their administration, not Collier -- if Collier County applies for it, then they would be able to use whatever allocation they apply for, 10 percent of that. COUNCILMAN SAAD: But Collier County would still have Page 75 December 10, 2010 costs, because they have to oversee the 50,000? MS. LANTZ: Correct, correct. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Then those costs could not be offset? MS. LANTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you charge your recipient for the administrative services? MS. LANTZ: I don't think so. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure about that. I don't know. You know, I'll verify that, and I'll get that information to the MPO to get to you. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Can we postpone this pending the answer to some of these questions? MS. LANTZ: When do you need it by? When are you going to the BCC with this? MS. ARNOLD: We're going in December, I believe. No, actually no. We're in January. MS. LANTZ: This item will be going to the BCC in January, so you would not have another meeting until February. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Assuming we don't need our January meeting. MS. LANTZ: Right, and we don't. We do not need the January meeting because you did adopt the LR TP. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can accomplish our goals, I think, by passing a motion that we would recommend the submission of the grant application provided there's a mechanism for covering the administrative costs of the county for the program. MS. ARNOLD: That would be a way to handle it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that gives the staff an opportunity to come before the Board of County Commissioners with the answers to these questions. And then the Board of Commissioners can make that final decision. I would just say to you that my personal opinion is, that unless we can cover administrative costs some way, I Page 76 December 10,2010 would not be in favor of it. But I have a feeling we can work this out. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'd support your motion, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: So that's in your motion, part of your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That would be my motion. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. We have a motion and second. Any other board comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Opposed? COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Opposed. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion passes. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: May I just make a statement? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Councilwoman Sulick? COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: This has the potential of shooting a hole in your budget of $372,000. If, in fact, it's the county that ends up having to fund this and it doesn't get picked up by -- what happens in that case? MS. ARNOLD: No. We would not apply for funding if there is no match. If there is no match that is identified by the county, the CAT will not apply for funding, and that's a part of the motion, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if Salvation Army, for instance, Page 77 December 10, 2010 and St. Matthew's House and Shelter for Abused Women applied for it and they were each awarded and they had their match and we worked out -- as the motion says, we worked out the administrative costs, then we would apply for it; is that correct? I mean, if they made -- you know, requisite, you know -- required requisitions to that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. All those -- those entities were to apply it and show that they have the match and we can have the administrative costs covered, then this -- it would be a win-win situation for everybody. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: And then what happens if none of that -- you apply for it and no one comes forward in the private sector in order to -- for the -- MS. ARNOLD: Then the funding goes back to the federal government. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: To the federal government. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yeah. You're not locked in on it. MS. ARNOLD: We're not locked in to use it if we don't have-- we have to show that we have a match for it. COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Okay, okay. MS. ARNOLD: They're not going to release it actually unless we show that. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: That happens often with grants where money drives up. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, if I may, to clarify, Commissioner Coyle's motion does not obligate the county to apply for these grants? MS. ARNOLD: No. And we will have the responses to those questions when this item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Just a recommendation. Okay. Item 8D. Yeah, we did vote.m Page 78 December 10,2010 MS. LANTZ: I think we did vote. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. Item #8E RATIFICATION OF THE MEDICAID GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE - APPROVED CHAIRMAN TROTTER: 8E. MS. LANTZ: 8E, this is another item that was brought to the Local Coordinating Board at their meeting on Wednesday. Currently there is a grievance procedure for all trips, local, Medicaid, or however they're funded. With the Medi- -- based on the Medicaid, the new Medicaid contract, we are required to have a Medicaid grievance procedure based on those Medicaid-funded trips. So what we will have, in essence, would be two grievance procedures, one for local, and if those -- if trips are funded that way, citizens would be able to do a grievance procedure based on their-- those -- that policy, and then there would be a Medicaid grievance procedure in which participants who received their trip funding by Medicaid would be able to provide their -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a federal-mandated policy, so we don't have the authority to modify it or do anything else with it, so we have to adopt it, and I would make a motion to adopt it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Motion and second. Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TROTTER: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 79 December 10,2010 COUNCILWOMAN SULICK: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN SAAD: Aye. That always bother me when the federal government sends down a mandate and says, you must approve this. Why do we bother approving it or disapproving it then if we have to adopt it no matter what? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Procedural. Item #9A REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF FDOT'S FY2011/2012 DRAFT TENTATIVE FIVE YEAR WORK PROGRAM AND FDOT'S ENDORSEMENT REQUEST - APPROVED CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Next item, 9A. MS. LANTZ: 9A is the work -- the Florida FDOT work program, and I believe Johnny Limbaugh is here to present. MR. LIMBAUGH: Good afternoon now. This -- as we -- every December we come back and present our draft tentative work program to the MPO which identifies how the department has been able to address the priorities you have given us earlier in the year, typically in the August time frame. I have hopefully a brief presentation, and then I'll answer any questions. I'm going to go through it a little quickly. I didn't realize we're pressed for time. So if you have -- need me to stop, just holler. We've advanced three projects into our current fiscal year. This is because of -- we've experienced cost savings and low bids on several projects throughout the district, so we're able to advance two Page 80 December 10,2010 sidewalk proj ects and the 1-75 interchange modification, which is going to tie into the county project for the six-Ianing with auxilliary lanes on 951 through the interchange, also ties into the State Road 84 improvement, which is moving forward. We had two deletions, and they're technically not really deletions because the projects were completed with cost saving by these -- by the Naples Airport. So the projects are actually on the ground today or under construction, so they have been removed from our work program. We've added the new fifth-year funding for the typical things, the transit planning, transportation disadvantaged trip and equipment funds, funding for the MPO planning effort, traffic signal reimbursements for the municipalities and the county, as we discussed earlier, the Alligator Alley toll plaza/operations, and we've added funds to the Collier congestion management box. Some of the new additions to the program, the CA T intermodal system, which will be placed here at this facility basically to replace the temporary facilities you have out there now. We have trip funds which require a 50 percent local match in '11/' 12, funded bus shelters at various locations. Added a communications system for the transit system itself, which is an ITS-type system where we would -- the county would be able to monitor bus locations and provide predictability on time the buses would hit the next stop. Also, in a -- through your congestion management box, basically applying battery backups to the traffic signals. I believe there's 186 of them throughout the county and the cities. So during thunderstorm events or whatever, when you have a power shortage, you don't lose-- the signals remain in operation. You don't have that downtime which will -- is a cost savings all around, and operation and maintenance of the facilities. Ten new sidewalk projects throughout the county. Golden Gate Page 81 December 10, 2010 City at various locations, Marco Island, of course, Immokalee, State Road 84, basically filling in some of the missing gaps, Florida Club Circle and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Two congestion management and enhancement projects is a turn lane at Airport Road at Horseshoe and adding lighting on Orchid Drive on 41, from Orchid to 7th, sorry. Resurfacing and capacity . We have resurfacing on State Road 84 from Airport Road to Heritage Trail. We've added a new PD&E study for State Road 951, basically from the Jolley Bridge up to Tower Road. If you remember a while back, Wal-Mart six laned up to Tower Road. This basically would pick up from there and go to the Jolley Bridge, the new -- what will be a four-Ianed bridge at that time. This project is not included in the LRTP that you just adopted, so we'll be working with staff to -- through recommendations of either changing this project to something else, the funds -- allocate the funds to something else that is in your plan, or amending the plan to include these improvements on 951. We've added an environmental phase to the U. S. 41 six -lane design from State Road 951 to Green Boulevard. Basically this is to cover mitigation costs. On 1-75, we've -- this is a statewide program through -- on all of our interstates. This is to accomplish providing an advanced warning to motorists as they approach an interchange. They recently updated the manual for uniform traffic patrol devices, which is our guidance that we use to require advanced warning signs. So as you're coming up to an interchange, you'll have a diagram so you'll know as a motorist, is it a loop ramp, is it a -- are you going to the right or to the left before you get to that decision point, which I think will address some incidents and potential crashes at interchanges as you make that last-minute decision. You'll already know what you're getting when you get there. Golden Gate Parkway, an interchange improvement. This is Page 82 December 10, 2010 funded out of your congestion management box to -- basically we're experiencing the left-hand turn -- the southbound exit, the left-hand turn was backing up and traffic was approaching the end of the ramp and into the main line, so to correct that, we're going to add another right turn and take the existing middle lane and make that a left and a right. State Road 951 to Golden Gate Parkway, the capacity is design on 1-75, six-laning, something I know that Commissioner Fiala's been asking for for a while. We finally got it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Thank you. MR. LIMBAUGH: Everglades Boulevard interchange, we've added $2 million to fund the PD&E study. That is currently in fiscal year '11/'12. Now, it's still pending the completion of the IJR and our comminative effects evaluation study, which is ongoing right now. Some -- since we've provided what's in your packets, there's been some additions. White Boulevard sidewalks project has been advanced from '14/'15 to '12/'13. Naples Manor sidewalks have been -- also been advanced to '12/'13. Shadow lawn sidewalks advanced to '12/'13, U.S. 41, Rattlesnake to Broward, sidewalks have been advanced to '12/'13. And we've added a new project at the intersection of State Road 29 and Market. Basically this is going to channelize that intersection to assist the truck movement. We've received comment and studied and saw that there's an operational improvement that needs to happen to assist the trucks on their way to and from Market. We've got 8.6 million for design and construction of the southbound rest area on 1-75. And we've added $805,000 in '14/'15 and 654,000 '15/'16 to your congestion management boxes, which you'll set the priorities for and we'll fund projects this next work program cycle. Always a question is the fair share. And when we look at -- Page 83 December 10, 2010 when we talk fair share, we look at the allocation that comes to the district, and each county, based on population and gas tax revenue, has a percentage of what their slice of the pie is. And typically we look to keep a county between 80 and 100 percent. In Collier's case 9.3 is at 80 percent, and if they reach 100 percent, we'd get 11.6 percent of the overall funds available. Happy to say over the five-year plan, which is our work program, Collier is approaching, well, over 95 percent return on fair share. So we're -- you were behind the eightball or behind the curve of the last five, but we've been able, through adding projects, getting you back up to where you are, realizing that you're going to have some bigger projects coming in the future as we update the SIS plan, and you're looking for the right-of-way phase and that construction phase for Everglades interchange. You're going to be hitting some high-dollar things. And really what -- while I've got a minute, since you're already here. I'm sure you saw in the newspaper about the 600 million that Lee County got in their work program, and you're asking, where's my 600 million? Well, most of that, or a majority of that money, was actually for interstate improvements. We've advanced the CD system, which is going to be the main entrance into the international airport. That's 100 and -- over a $100 million next fiscal year. That project was in the program, out of the program, back in, back out, but now we have the funds to advance it to next fiscal year. So while it's -- Lee County's getting the credit for getting that money, that really affects all of Southwest Florida. And we've also added in, oh, $130 million for the eight laning of the Caloosahatchee River Bridge in Lee County, which will go from the State Road 80 interchange up to State Road 78. So a majority of the overall 600 million that Lee County gets to claim is actually an overall benefit for Southwest Florida on the SIS system through interstate improvements. Page 84 December 10,2010 And I know I went through that really quick, but I figured you'll have some questions, so I wanted to leave time for that. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Questions from the board? Yes, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It says that staff, MPO staff does not recommend approval. Could you comment on that? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Ms. Lantz? MS. LANTZ: Yes. Through the committee -- going through all the committees, there has been several different opinions based on those committee actions. The TAC endorsed with strong recommendations as to whether this should go forward and what should be looked at. The CAC did not endorse this, and the PAC endorsed on the condition that they only were looking at the pathways. And as you see, a lot of pathways were funded based on the pathways box. MPO staff understands that Lee County has received a large portion and has looked at it and determined that Collier County has not received a whole lot of funding at this time. As Commissioner Hiller had noticed, only -- after you took off the tolling allocation, Collier County only received about approximately $4 million. And of that -- basically that is SU funds, which are a requirement to come down to this area based on the TMA requirements. So at this time, we are thinking, or we are recommending, that FDOT re-examine some of the other -- some of the issues that were raised by the T AC before endorsement is obtained. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So just to make sure I understand what you just said, Lee County gets 600 million and we get 4 million? Is that what I heard you say? MR. LIMBAUGH: Six hundred million was over the five years. I don't have the total for your five years. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's just under 20 million if Page 85 December 10,2010 you add the total, if you're talking just about the -- MR. LIMBAUGH: I believe your total is probably in a 260-million range. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. MR. LIMBAUGH: Total over five years, Collier is getting 222 million, little over. Realizing that the SIS funds that Lee County got, they've received those because their projects were production ready and we were -- had additional funds coming -- had the opportunity because of low bids and other projects across the state that weren't ready to move forward. Lee County was the benefactor primarily because we worked hard in building up our shelf, what we refer to as our shelf, get the design plans and right-of-way, everything in place, put the project on the shelf even if the funding's not there, so when the opportunity comes forward to advance a project, we're ready to go, which is why we're funding the -- and one of the questions at the T AC and the CAC, while they questioned -- or didn't want to recommend, they questioned the design on 1-75, the six -laning. Why were we doing it if we don't have the right-of-way and everything else behind it? The reason we're doing that is to make sure that we have the plans on the shelf and we're ready to go. If and when that additional SIS funding becomes available, we can -- Collier County can then reap the benefit. That's -- that was one of the questions. Another question at the T AC was on the battery backups. Why did it cost so much? One of the TAC representatives questioned the cost that we used. We used -- built our estimate based on our existing state contract for those devices. Basically we knew we needed 186 of them. We have a statewide contract in place, which I don't recall exactly what the number was. So we just took the number of need times what our contract is, and that's what our estimate was. Page 86 December 10, 2010 The T AC felt that that might have been overestimated. But the fact is, we have a contract in place. That's the number we used. By the time we get to that -- purchase those, we could have a new contract and the price would fluctuate based on that contract. So -- and there was some questions about how we used the SU funds, like for the improvement at Golden Gate and 1-75. We used SU funds out at -- because it was a congestion management priority, we used the funds from that congestion management box to fund that project. The question was, well, it's an SIS facility. Why don't you use SIS funds to do that project? Quite frankly, we didn't have the SIS funds to do the project, so we -- realizing the need for the project, we used -- and the priority set by the MPO board, we used the SU funds to make sure that it's funded. Now, ifSIS funds were to become available and we could swap those out, we would definitely take that into consideration. But today I can't tell you that I could fund that project through that method, but CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Let me just add one more item from the staff input. I had a preliminary call with Mr. Feder and Ms. Lantz kind of exploring some of these topics. And one of their -- one of their concerns was specifically on Page 11, the PD&E study for County Road 92 to SR29. This is the -- I believe the greenway study. The thought there, particularly from Mr. Feder is, perhaps those funds could better be used in a -- rather than a PD&E, something -- since that's near term '11/'12, to be used for an intersection of951 and 41. Mr. Feder, do you want to expound on that? MR. FEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Norman Feder, Administrator of Growth Management Division. There's a couple things I'd like to touch upon with the board's indulgence. But on this issue in particular, I think I've raised a question that's given people concern that I'm not trying to create. This Page 87 December 10, 2010 is the River of Grass pathway across the state. It's not strong support. It's supported by this board. I'm not advocating that we not support that program, rather what I'm raising as a question is 3 million of your SU funds, the attributable area funds, are projected to be used next year for an environmental study for a section from 92 out to 29 when you've already done the environmental study but don't have any of the phases to construct the section from 951 out to 92. As a matter of fact, just the first item on the page above is a portion of that section that's already had the PD&E, is designing it out in the fourth year for the section from 6L Farms to 92. So, again, what I'm proposing is there's probably a better use for those funds in the initial year, not to try and pull back or away from that pathway project, but in fact, if you used it on u.s. 41 in complement to a project we have in the program that we do have sig P (sic) funds on with the state, which is 41 at 951, to allow you to move further on 41, East Trail, you actually are starting to implement some of that trail as opposed to studying next year an item that you have no phase to follow up on. The issue was, well, if we do that, then maybe we can get grants. Let's get the grants on the major section between 41 and 92, if we can, and then start pursuing issues from 92 out to 29. So I guess what I'm saying is, since that's RU (sic) funds, I would rather -- and there's a couple of others I might bring to your attention, but I'd rather put it there. But, again, I want to highlight, that is not recommending that we not purchase this project. It's an issue of timing and the most beneficial use of available dollars today that I'm recommending. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: This sort of ties back to the discussion we had earlier when Commissioner Henning was addressing the acquisition of land and design for, I believe it was -- or Page 88 December 10,2010 merely the acquisition of land, I can't quite remember right now -- related to the Vanderbilt extension, and the response was, we have to do it now in anticipation of the plans for the future. Mr. Bonness, could you please come to the stand and explain your position on this project? MR. BONNESS: Yes. The -- well, the Pathways Advisory Council -- or Committee, did take a look at that, and we did hear that suggestion. And the idea is to try and get this project out there, designed, and ready to be able to go for long-term -- it's a fairly major product to be able to put this together and to be able to get a concise plan that works, because you're discussing, you know, travel impacts and everything else as this goes along, so we do need a very concise design coming through. From an economic impact standpoint, you know, this is one of the bigger draws for the county. You've got two things that are real and -- real tourist draws in Collier County, and that's basically the beaches, and the other one is the Everglades. The River of Grass Greenway is going to provide access, public access, into the Everglades and really put that in a position of being an economic driver in Collier County. You take a look at some of the places that have drawn in people, and believe it or not, pathways and that are a huge draw to be able to get it going. I mean, Jackson Labs has been talked about quite a bit, and you take a look at why Jackson Lab probably got into Mount Desert Island and Arcadia Park and that, I mean, it was the pathways and that that drew all the tourist attraction into Mount Desert Island back in the early 1900s and that when they went and set up there. That was one of the draws that pulled that in, and it was -- the pathways in Mount Desert Island was one of the -- and Arcadia National Park there is one of the biggest drivers and draws that they had there. So I see this as -- the River of Grass Greenway as being a huge Page 89 December 10, 2010 economic driver over the long term, people knowing that they're going to have access, public access, into one of our greatest assets that we have here in Collier County. Thank you. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Mr. Feder, question. So you're --I'm sorry. Did I -- CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Go ahead. No, go ahead. You started. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I just had a question about, you're suggesting that we take this 3.2 million and move it where? MR. FEDER: Actually it's 3 million; two of it is DIH, which is district in-house. But the $3 million of the U funds, which are your attributable funds, have to be programmed in Collier, basically take that and use it on U. S. 41. We already have the PD&E where design is underway to build the first segment of that trail, granted it won't be a long distance, but also over on the East Coast you've only got one mile of the trail built. You need it all the way across, the desire. And, again, I am not adverse to the project. I'm just saying, it's a matter of timing. If you haven't built the section, you haven't designed the other section, doing a PD&E 3 million at this time, rather than starting to implement some of the program is the thing that I'm calling into question. COUNCILMAN SAAD: Remind me exactly, what is the PD&E? MR. FEDER: The PD&E is your project development and environment study. I'm sorry, sir. Basically it's the study you have to do to get all the environmental issues looked at, look at different alignments, look at different options, and get an approval of a project after all those conditions are met. COUNCILMAN SAAD: How long does that generally take? MR. FEDER: Typically it's about two years on most projects. You do have, in this case, on this one, one of the issues that was raised, you have the Indian reservation in the area, other issues to Page 90 December 10,2010 work with, less development to work with. So I will defer to the secretary, but probably two years would still hold. COUNCILMAN SAAD: And if we don't do it in 2011/2012, when would the next opportunity to do it be? MR. LIMBAUGH: That would be -- basically it would go through the priority-setting process again, and you would set the priority. I would look for the funding again. Part of -- I'll give you a little background on why we've put it in this fiscal year. Partially it's to take advantage of our ongoing commutative -- cumulative effects study, basically what we're doing for the interchange. We're having to do a 25-mile radius study to look at the environment -- environmental impacts of placing that interchange there, or any roadway improvements within that 25-mile area. We're collecting all that data today to facilitate moving forward with the interchange. This project is in that same area. So while we're collecting that data, while it's still there and we have all the environmental agencies at the table talking about Everglades Parkway, we can also bring this project forward and do the PD&E for that and Everglades Parkway at the same time, using similar data. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Mr. Cann wanted to add something. MR. CANN: Yeah. Just along the same things that Johnny is pointing out. You know, we're talking about a pathway that's going to go all the way across the state. It's not just a section here, section there necessarily. And as Mr. Bonness pointed out, there's some major issues out there. Number one, we're going though the Everglades, okay. That right there shows, just like with the interchange, all kinds of issues that we're dealing with that, but also we're also going to face the tribal issues, as we've faced with the proposed wildlife crossing, remember, on41. So if you're talking about a facility that's going all the way Page 91 December 10,2010 across, all these things got to be taken care of for the whole length at the very beginning. So that's kind of -- that's what our thinking is, is to try to do it as soon as possible, which is next fiscal year, and get it all taken care of as quickly as possible, whether it's two years -- that would be great in my opinion. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So this 3 million goes -- is to study the entire length? MR. CANN: Within Collier County. COUNCILMAN SAAD: To the Collier County border? MR. CANN: Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN SAAD: And how far -- Johnny, you're shaking your head no. MR. LIMBAUGH: Well, it goes from County Road 92 to 29. MR. CANN: I'm sorry. So there's three-- MR. LIMBAUGH: Further east-- MR. CANN: Thirty miles. MR. LIMBAUGH: -- there's additional study and stuff that go on after. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So this 3 million is not all the way to the border. It's just that segment from 29 to 92. MR. LIMBAUGH: Right. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So Norm, you mentioned a couple things that you'd like to see done before this study's undertaken. List those again. MR. FEDER: Basically the one thing I was proposing -- but it could be other things -- this is your XU funds. You've got very limited dollars programmed in the county to your projects. You have a priority to widen U.S. 41 from 951 on out to the east. Now, the study was done. It limited that widening based on environmental issues to a point and then said, you can continue this trail the rest of the way to 92. That environmental work has already been done. That's existing. Page 92 December 10,2010 What I'm proposing is, start building what you've already done the environmental work on before you start doing a $3 million environmental study for a portion of the remainder across the county. Again, not to try and stop the project, but only to start biting off chunks and developing what you're trying to do as opposed to continuing to study further out when you have no phases or dollars necessarily involved. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So basically -- well, you're just suggesting that instead -- not that this money be taken away from the River of Grass Greenway project-- MR. FEDER: No. COUNCILMAN SAAD: -- but that the money be used in a different section, actually build the section of the trail as opposed to study -- MR. FEDER: And you won't build a lot of the greenway. I want to make sure I'm clear on that. But then again, when it gets implemented, it will get implemented first as part of the multilaning of 41 from 951 out. Then it will be a separate construction project out to 92, and I assume if it gets approved past 92, especially through the Everglades, it also would be a separate project, not a widening of U.S. 41. COUNCILMAN SAAD: And I'm sure that everyone got the same emails. I mean, we've never gotten an em ail about an MPO issue until this came up, and now all of a sudden people that I know and trust are calling me very concerned. MR. FEDER: My apologies for raising this question. COUNCILMAN SAAD: No, no, no, no, no. It's -- I certainly am aware of your background and experience and trust your judgment with regard to transportation issues, and that's why I'm taking it very seriously. I just want to be clear that, you know, that they're saying that-- the public seems to have the perception that we're taking money out of Page 93 December 10,2010 the River of Grass Greenway project, and I want to understand that you are not suggesting that we take money out of the River of Grass Greenway project. You're just suggesting that we move it -- move the section and actually build one section as opposed -- MR. FEDER: Timing and phasing, yes. COUNCILMAN SAAD: -- as opposed to studying the building of a separate section further down the path. MR. FEDER: It is my understanding that's what I am proposing to you, yes. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Let me just -- Commissioner Coletta has to leave. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm not going to leave until this issue's over with, because I'll be honest with you, there's a number of things that are hanging in jeopardy here. And this -- the greenway has been my baby. I'm the one that brought it before this council and before the commission some time ago. And I just want to do what's best. And you brought up something, Stan, that was very important to me. You mentioned the fact that we're -- the reason that you'd like to see it pushed out to have a study done up to 29 was because we're going to be going through the cumulative effects study at that point in time, and we could tie one right into the other and keep going forward. MR. CANN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if we reached the point where we don't take advantage of this, we're going to come back at some future time, and they're going to probably demand studies that are going to be almost as extensive as we do for the interchange, and it's going to be a duplication of funds. So I don't agree with staff on this. I do agree that we -- you know, because the limited amount of pathway we're going to gain from this is not going to be as great as being able to set this back in the background and come at it sometime in the future to be able to go Page 94 December 10, 2010 forward. Times are tough right now and dollars are tight. We're fortunate to have what we've got. Probably not going to see any for a couple more years, but when this starts to come back again, if we already have approval, if stimulus money comes forward, God forbid -- it's almost a dirty word anymore but, you know, we're not above taking it under the right circumstances. If that comes forward again, we'd be able to jump on it as a project -- as a -- what do you call it, shovel-ready project? MR. CANN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I think it's a -- it goes without saying, the best thing to do is to apply this money as the Department of Transportation has suggested towards future studies. And you know, if I can make a motion separate from everything else -- because there's quite a few different things we're going to be dealing with. Is that possible to do? I'd like to get this off the table and maybe we can take a couple of them inter- -- as we go through, or do we have to vote on everything as a package? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were there any other concerns? Let's ask that question first, or is this the only one? So if you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I do have some other questions that I'm not clear on. And, man, I hate to drag this out forever. But, you know, probably the biggest thing I'm dealing with right now -- and I can't understand why there's any dissention in the community on it at all, of course -- is the interchange. And you said about -- explain one more time about the funds that are coming forward. MR. CANN: For the pathway or-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, the Everglades interchange and other issues. MR. CANN: For the interchange. Well, yes. As Johnny mentioned, we've added $2 million to the project this Page 95 December 10, 2010 go-around that weren't there yesterday. Okay. As you know we're doing the study. You had the great meeting out there with the public, which was very well attended, so there's a lot of interest obviously in having this interchange done. But the county, as you know it, has got the Interchange Justification Report underway, your funding doc, that we are funding the PD&E as well as the comminative effects study. We needed an extra 2 million to complete all that, because that study was a surprise to everybody. So that's what we've done with the 2 million. And also we've funded the design out in, I think, '14, in fiscal year '14/'15. So we've got those phases funded in the program. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you've got me aboard on that, too. Now, there's just one other issue that nobody has talked about yet. It has to do with funding for the airports, and that's why Ted Soliday is here today, and I know he's signed up to be a speaker. And I would like to be able to make some comments on it. I know staff is quite concerned, so is other people, about the lack of funding for the airports and the way it's coming down. The county airports in particular in the fact that we have Naples Airport, which is a tremendously valuable asset, who's completing two projects, and because they're completing it, they're no longer eligible for funding. But before I ask you the questions on that, can we have Mr. Soliday come up, sir? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Why don't we open for public comment at this point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We already brought one person up for public comment. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Well, but we have somebody signed up, Ms. Lantz? MS. LANTZ: We have several people signed for this. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: We can take him first. Is he signed up? Page 96 December 10, 2010 MS. LANTZ: We'll take him first. Ted Soliday. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Coletta, for the opportunity to get up here. I'm Ted Soliday. I'm the executive director of the City of Naples Airport Authority. I had prepared remarks, but now that I've been here, I am totally confused. First of all, I want to make sure you understand that I am also not only the chairman of -- the executive director of the City of Naples Airport Authority, I'm also chair of the Florida State Airports Council, and I'm also very active on a national basis, and I'm very strained -- I've never seen an MPO take proj ects out of an airport, out of our JPDO. We submit it once a year every year. It changes just like a revolution. In fact, my established words here are to thank you-all when you voted last -- in October for not changing our -- one of the things you talked about was our terminal projects. We put that project in our JPDO in 1995, but when we lost the carriers, we didn't go forward with the grants because we didn't need the money. We're not -- we're not taking money away from any other project. When I look in here, you've taken away -- you say you've only taken away a couple or three projects, but they haven't been funded by the state yet, and they are under grant. But you've -- we're down to three projects here from the -- in your work plan. Our JPO (sic), our joint participation -- I can't say it -- Joint Agency Capital Improvement Plan that we submit to the state has many more projects, and many of those are placeholders in case we decide -- if we get our carrier service back, we've got to do something to our terminal. That will be a big deal. Taking that out, that's not on here any longer. I don't understand it. So I'll say it -- I don't understand it and that scares me, but I also want to point out real quickly that airport funding does not in any way take away from transportation funding. We -- the funds from the state go through our fuel taxes from the users, and the Naples Airport Page 97 December 10,2010 Authority is the fueler. It provides a significant amount of funds from Collier County to the state transportation fund. Similarly, on a national basis, from federal funding, which again normally expects MPO support, comes from the tick taxes and passenger taxes. Yeah, they go through Lee County, but there are people that are paying those taxes, and they expect to get those back as much as possible. Weare very good at doing grants, but that doesn't take away from anything you-all are doing or the county. In fact, if anything, the revenue we pay from Collier County into the state transportation fund supports the Collier County airports. But again, in this situation I see, there's not a Collier County airport project on your work plan. I don't understand that, because I have to believe that the Collier County has a joint Capital Improvement Plan. And why that's not in there, I don't know. I've been here 17 years. I've been to every MPO. You know, I've never seen our Capital Improvement Plan taken out of your vote. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may comment, I'm hearing you echo what Mr. Nance said earlier, and that was the question that I raised at the beginning of this meeting when we started having discussion, and that is, what was the process to eliminate projects, who made those decisions, and what was the standard used for the elimination of projects and the inclusion of projects? And quite frankly, after hearing what you're saying and what Mr. Nance is saying, I'm left very concerned. MR. SOLIDAY: Yes, ma'am. I appreciate that. And I would like to point out something. We studied very carefully after the October meeting the bylaws and the direction that -- ofMPO. As-- the MPO is established under the Article 201 (d) of the Florida Statutes 339.175, state legislation, that you're supposed to work jointly with all the agencies to assure, not prioritize, to assure eligibility for federal and state funding, an interlocal agreement that you have amongst all Page 98 December 10, 2010 the agencies as part of the MPO. The same language is very direct. Quote, to qualify each of the various agencies to the maximum extent possible for federal and state funding assistance, end quote. There's no stipulation or language we can find that has the MPO prioritizing projects. And I'll take it a step further. The state and federal funding for airports doesn't get -- you can't prioritize that. It comes from the grants and established by the State Department of Transportation or the federal agency by a significant formula. We have to work. We don't get to have any input in that either as airports, but we work our grants around in such away, being grants people, to -- so that we have those priorities in line so that we can get the funding. We've been very successful. We've worked with the Collier County airport, to help them. You know, it's -- I don't understand why you would take airport projects out, just completely -- CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Let me just -- one point of clarification. This is not an MPO program. This is the FDOT five-year work program that we're asked for input but yet we -- it's not in our control to prioritize. And I think to that point, Mr. Cann, did-- you wanted to say something. MR. CANN: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'm confused also. We had proposed those two projects within our tentative program and then at the T AC meeting we're told by staff that those jobs are done, so we don't need the funds anymore; therefore, we deleted them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What staff? Our staff, county staff? MR. CANN: Well, members of the TAC. MR. SOLIDAY : We do have a member of the T AC, and he's confused by this process also. But you took out more than just those two projects you took out. MR. CANN: But I'm very confused by that, because you're saying we just arbitrarily took something out, but it's because we were Page 99 December 10, 2010 told by the airport that we're done, we don't need it. MR. SOLIDAY: Do you recall in the October meeting where the discussion was about the terminal projects and $30 million of this and that? That was in the -- that is in our Joint Participation -- our JACIP. And I'm sure you understand JACIP. That's in our JACIP. Ifwe get an air carrier, my number one priority for my board -- if I don't, maybe I'm gone -- but if we do, our terminal cannot meet the security requirements under TSA right now . We're going to do a terminal project. It would be a high priority, federal funding. If the federal fund gun (sic) -- federal agency's fund it, the state law requires the state to fund it, half of our match. You know, I'm just a little bit confused why our Joint Agency Capital Improvement Plan, the JACIP submittal, is not submitted in there, and I would think for the county also. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Mr. Limbaugh, you were going to say something? MR. LIMBAUGH: Yeah. Hopefully I can clear this up and not make it muddier. The JACIP plan, which is the airport master plan, they submit their priorities through our aviation department, and they -- he's correct. They get addressed out of those funds. We use our district bank or our state funds to match -- typically we look at what FAA is willing or able to fund. We take our -- which requires a match. We use our district dollars and local dollars to match those FAA funds to make a project happen. What is presented to you today is projects that have already received some FAA funding, and we're -- what we would show is the district match to those FAA fundings. It's not saying that his projects aren't viable and aren't still moving forward on another priority list through the aviation program. It's just saying, at the district level we have not identified any projects that have FAA funding that we have the ability to match with district funds. It's not taking his projects out Page 100 December 10,2010 of the work program. Now, the two projects that I talked about, we were informed by his staff that those proj ects have already been let for construction, therefore are no longer eligible for the district match in this work program document that we're presenting to you. Now, if they're moving in another direction with other funds, they wouldn't be part of our program. So that's probably where the confusion is. The project -- there's two separate projects. We always bring the airport's list to you guys so you know what the MPO -- what the airport is doing, and seek approval, yeah, you agree that it's consistent with your overall LR TP and the transportation vision for the county. But -- so the priorities and the discussion we had at the last meeting really didn't affect projects coming in or out of this program. It's just the fact that the district state funds were not there to add anything to this five-year work program currently. We will continue to work with airport staff, as we do with all airport staffs, to identify projects for state funding. There just aren't currently any identified in the five years. MR. SOLIDAY: Sorry. Johnny, it's never been done before. Our JACIP, we've always brought it to the MPO. We work hard on it. It varies. Our JACIP has varied since we took it to the city council. And by the way, Ms. Sulick, thank you for what you said, because the JACIP that we have submitted has been absolutely 100 percent approved by city council, so take away that confusion. But the issue is, you know, are we ready to move forward? If I don't have an airline, we're not going to be doing our terminal building. So it gets placed off. And so our priorities rotate, but we do have -- MPO support, and your transportation plan is exactly that. It supports us. And I'd point out that under Florida Statute 339.1 75, it mentions that your responsibility in setting up this -- the operation -- to the extent possible at the legislation, to encourage or promote the safe and Page 101 December 10,2010 efficient management, operation, and development of surface transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people, freight, foster economic growth and development within the thorough (sic) urbanized areas of -- within and through urbanized areas of the state. I said surface. I'm really startled. I would ask for the MPO's consideration of supporting the air transportation projects so that we have that endorsed by the MPO. I -- you know, we always have that little box that we have to fill out in the grant application; is it supported? Is it approved by the local communities and so on? This has been, our projects on our JACIP, every one of them have been on our city plan. We're prepared to deal with that in detail. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay, sir. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes, Mr. Feder. MR. FEDER: Round two of trying to clear it up. Might not make it muddy. I'll be very quick. Ted, what you're talking about is your JACIP plan. Your JACIP plan hasn't been, in any way, modified, changed, or anything done. What you're talking about here is DOT's five-year work program. In the five-year work program they only show those JACIP projects that have been taken out of your JACIP, FAA has said they will fund, and they provide the local match. I, with you, would like to see a lot more in their program on that and in the county ones. That's the process. The only thing that was taken out of their work program was two projects that your representative at the T AC said, we don't need these anymore. We've already built them. We didn't wait for the state's program. That didn't take anything out of your JACIP. Now, if you go through JACIP and get them to fund some other things because you pulled that out, then DOT will provide the match. And while you're doing that, get some more and get some for the Page 102 December 10, 2010 county, too, because we don't have anything in this aviation program at all. MR. SOLIDAY: With all due respect, Norm, the one project you took out is runway 523, and that project resurfacing will be finished hopefully tonight, if not tonight, Monday or Tuesday next week. All we're doing is grooving and final painting. But the payment from the state, because when we got the federal grant, was a little bit of a surprise to them. They didn't have the money sitting aside, ready to go. By the way, some of those other projects go back several years, and they are complete, but we haven't got state funding because the state did not have funds at that time. So they approved the project, but the funding comes multiple years later. We paid for it. The Airport Authority and people from our community have paid for it. We've done the project. They deserve to get their money back. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you, sir. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Just a procedural thing. At the end result of this, we would either be endorsing the program as currently structured or directing MPO staff to write a letter of comments and concerns and not endorse it. So I think that's sort of our binary decision here. So let me -- next public speaker. I want to get through this before MS. LANTZ: The next speaker is Maureen Bonness. MS. BONNESS: Maureen Bonness with the River of Grass Greenway. I'll try to be very brief and not repeat other things that have been said. I do represent several people in the back and a number of other people that can't be here today because they are working. The River of Grass Greenway, as you know, is a 75-mile pathway, multiuse pathway across the Everglades. It includes both Page 103 December 10, 2010 Collier and Dade County. Within the Collier County section, which is the area we're talking about today, it will probably be within the FDOT right-of-way. It is the only bike route to get across the state of Florida in the southern part. It is also the only way to access many of the Everglades parks in that area. The issue today is a PD&E study for a 16-mile segment between Highway 29 and 92. That 16-mile segment has a lot of environmental concerns. It's going to take a lot of money to study it and establish how a pathway can possibly be built sustainably without too much impact to the environment. That study will then set the precedents for the rest of the pathway farther east, so all the way to the county line. Most of those issues will be addressed. So this first PD&E study is going to resolve a lot of those issues, hopefully also some of the tribal issues. And it will take a lot of money because of the environmental sensitivity. It deserves complete study for all of the issues and all of the agencies, regulatory agencies involved. Now, as mentioned before, this is not just a bike pathway. It's a multiuse pathway to allow everyone of any ability, any age, to be able to go cross the Everglades and visit some of the areas. It will also become a destination trail. It's not just a transportation. It will be a tourist amenity that will attract people not only from the U.S., but from the world. In that essence, it is also an income generator for the state and for the county. It will attract -- it will -- it will have some income involvement that -- not just a roadway. It also will generate a lot of business, not only Marco Island, also Everglades City and other parts of greater Naples. Because it has regional, state, and federal significance, this particular project has the ability to generate -- to bring in grant dollars from many other sources, not just FDOT. In fact, we already have a one-million-dollar grant from the Federal Transit Administration Page 104 December 10,2010 through the surveyance transit in the parks, and we will be applying for another million next month. And so there is a lot of other sources of money that can be brought in. Those are jobs, hopefully. So I urge you to keep the River of Grass Greenway PD&E study in and also -- oh, to mention the construction that Norm was talking about, that other section of having -- trying to construct that closer-in part of the pathway, that section there, just east of Highway 951, I consider that to be part of the u.s. 41 roadway expansion. That's in an area that's very urban. The 75 miles of River of Grass Greenway that I'm talking about is almost entirely within parks, state parks and national parks, and that's what I consider to be the River of Grass Greenway. I do want to get that initial segment constructed there right near 951, because that will be the beginning for the populous to actually bicycle, walk, get to the parks, through -- without a vehicle. With that, I conclude my talk and urge you to keep the River of Grass Greenway project in this FDOT plan. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I just ask, just for a point of clarification. If I understand correctly, it really wouldn't make sense to improve the beginning of the pathway, because if we don't do -- or if we -- and if we -- because if we did this study subsequently and we found out that there were, you know, environmental issues or, you know, whatever other issues there could possibly come as a result of this analysis, we would have wasted funds on the first part. MS. BONNESS: I believe that first section right near 951 is going to be built no matter what happens with the River of Grass Greenway. There is a multiuse pathway all the way between 951, Collier Boulevard, and Highway 92 that probably will be constructed as U.S. 41 is improved. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Inaudible.) Page 105 December 10, 2010 MS. BONNESS: Yes, that will be done regardless. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's unrelated. It can stand on its own. MS. BONNESS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Irrespective of which direction this path goes? MS. BONNESS: I believe so. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MS. BONNESS: Actually that project was started before the River of Grass Greenway. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Thank you. Next -- someone else signed up? MS. LANTZ: The next speaker is Michelle Avola, and she is then followed by Patricia Huff. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Again, I've been advised that any lobbyists that would speak for any company or interest need to be on the list. MS. A VOLA: Michelle Avola, executive director of Naples Pathways Coalition. For the sake of time, I really can just point out what Ms. Bonness already stated in total agreement, also what Mr. Coletta had pointed out about having that study so that we are then ready when further funding comes. And as Ms. Bonness pointed out, this particular PD&E study is going to encompass so much and really sets the stage for the progress to happen. It needs to be done right, and this could be a -- just a phenomenal amenity for this county, for the state, but it really needs to be done right. We need the study done now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. MS. LANTZ: Ms. Patricia Huff. Page 106 December 10,2010 MS. HUFF: Hello. My name is Patricia Huff. I'm also with the River of Grass Greenway, and I'm from Everglades City. I just want to comment on a few things. I just attended the National Symposium of the American Trails, and during that I was very impressed by what they've done throughout the country with trails. They are way ahead of us in a lot of things. And I've also been to the Miami-Dade Parks and Rec Department. They have a 50-year study on their parks and trails. Two weeks ago I attended the City of Florida City City Council. They have passed a resolution as Collier County has and as Miami-Dade has, passed a resolution to support our River of Grass Greenway. They all see the importance of putting this up front. They are very excited that this could also connected with the east coast Greenway, the Biscayne-Everglades Trail, and also the overseas trails down in the Keys. So I feel like it's -- timing is very important to get this on the road. I feel like we're really behind the ball on this, and we need to get going on the PD&E study. Also, the -- as I -- if you read the letter that I sent to you, the chief marketing officer with Visit Florida stated at this national symposium that 67 percent of Florida visitors want nature-based activities. And one of the most frequently asked questions when they come to Florida is where is there to bicycle. F our million visitors are trail users. And as Maureen said, trails are now a destination. And if we don't do this in Collier County -- this is the only route across South Florida. If we don't do it here, we're going to lose those dollars and those visitors to Lee County and to other places where they have to go up across State Road 80 up in the Lee County area. We won't have it here. We're going to miss out on visitors, and we're going to miss out on dollars and -- help our economy, especially in the Everglades area where we're hoping this will eventually bee Page 107 December 10,2010 extended. And the other thing I was very happy to hear from this group is about safety. I have bicycled over 20,000 miles throughout the United States, and this is one of the most dangerous areas to bike. I don't like biking on U.s. 41 because of the safety factor, but bicyclists are coming here because it's a beautiful area. It's a wonderful area to see, and I'd love to bicycle on it more. And I think that this PD&E study is the important step to take, and you have to be shovel ready. And that was another thing we learned at this national symposium. If you're not shovel ready, you won't get the dollars and you won't get the tourists here. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Thank you. MS. HUFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Does that conclude our sign-ups? MS. LANTZ: That concludes all the registers that I have. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Do I have a-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion-- CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that we approve the study or -- that's been done as it is with the caveat that we also add in there that we'd like Florida Department of Transportation to go back and look at the airport questions, because it looks like somebody made a terrible mistake along the way. Not only would I like them to look at the Naples Airport too, but to relook at the county-owned airports to see if there may have been something that was overlooked. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: That's approving the five-year work program? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, approving the five-year work program. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: I have a motion and a second. Page 108 December 10, 2010 Any other council-- COUNCILMAN SAAD: Just a quick question. You said that we can either approve or deny with comments; how do we approve with comments? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Either -- well, then we direct the MPO staff to write a letter regarding our comments and concerns to the state. COUNCILMAN SAAD: So we can approve as -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And add the comments. COUNCILMAN SAAD: -- and add comments. You didn't say that. I was a little confused. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Ms. Lantz, is that -- MS. LANTZ: Yes. You can approve and add comments as a letter. You can disapprove and add comments as a letter. That would be your choice. I do believe though that the stronger motion would be to disapprove and add comments -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. MS. LANTZ: -- as opposed to approving and adding comments. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely not. That's not my motion. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: So we can approve and add comments from this board, and we could distribute something that would get comments to be sent, so that would be -- MS. LANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: -- consistent with your motion, I would -- to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To approve and add comments, and you have someone down there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Chairman, while I understand there's a motion on the table and it has been seconded, I don't think we completed the discussion. Commissioner Coletta brought up 1-75, the -- you know, the interchange, and I would like some discussion on that Page 109 December 10, 2010 point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could, our court reporter has been working for three-and-a-half hours without a break. She generally gets a break every hour and a half. That's a tough job to sit there and type for this long a time without a break. If we're going to have additional discussion which might go on all afternoon, she at least should get a break right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. Ten minutes? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, may I make a suggestion? I think we've discussed 1-75 to the full extent of what it is. And I'm not too sure how to go about it, but I'd like to see this motion go forward as is so that we could get on with the people's business. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. COUNCILMAN SAAD: I'll call the question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Call the question. Why don't we do a roll call vote on that just to be sure how everybody stands. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. MS. SEATON: Councilman Trotter? CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Yes. MS. SEATON: Councilwoman Sulick? COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: Yes. I just want to make sure that the concerns of the Naples Airport are addressed and noted as such, that everything goes back in that they had originally -- we had originally seen. Thank you. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. SEATON: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Page 110 December 10,2010 MS. SEATON: Councilman Saad? COUNCILMAN SAAD: Yeah. And I'll also add with regard to the Naples Airport, the city council's going to be discussing it on Monday, so perhaps we can hold off on all of those comments until that discussion is complete. I expect it to be fairly comprehensive. MS. SEATON: Okay. Motion carried 6-1. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Motion carried. Do we need to take a break, or we have one more item to do? MS. SEATON: Yes, because we have a couple more items. COUNCIL WOMAN SULICK: In regard to the airport, I just would like -- I did a little background work and got the city council minutes going back to August 18, 2008, where the city council did approve what Mr. Soliday has proposed and what has been said, and so I think that's important to understand. The only thing that's questionable out there at this point in time is the correspondence from the FAA consenting -- concerning preemption, the preemption question. So I -- I don't think it changes anything as far as this list of projects is concerned. COUNCILMAN SAAD: And all I was mentioning was that we're going to discuss it on Monday at the city council meeting. CHAIRMAN TROTTER: Okay. Let's take a ten-minute break. We'll be back at 1 :40, please. (Partial of proceedings concluded. The meeting continued on after the recess without verbatim minutes.) ***** Page 111 December 10,2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :27 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY MPO BOARD MEETING SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL WILLIAM D. TROTTER, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 112