BCC Minutes 11/10/2010 S (AUIR)
BCC-AUIR
Min utes
November 10, 2010
turned in by
Marcia Kendall
Board Approved
February 8, 2011
Item #2D
TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
November 10,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" ofthe Government Complex, East
Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
Fred Coyle, Chairman
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta (By Speakerphone)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Mark Isackson, Director of Corporate Financial
Planning
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to BCC
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a quorum.
Ladies and gentlemen, the AUIR meeting is in session. Will you
please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you hear us now?
I don't think he's there.
Okay. All right, Nick, it's all yours.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida with the Growth Management Division.
First of all, I wanted to thank you for this meeting, because it's a
combination of two projects that you have, both the AUIR and CIE.
I won't belabor this, and turn it over to Mike real quick, but I want
to commend staff on the record for the work they've done. Because
this was a quite interesting proposal we brought forward to you in May,
which you approved, which is the combining ofthe AUIR and the CIE.
In the past many times you've had issues because both ofthem
have been snapshots in times and you kept different fiscal numbers.
This year you have them both at the same time in front of you with the
same financial numbers.
So that said, I'd like to introduce Mike Bosi, and he'll take you
through this project review and we'll go from there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
Mike?
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Nick.
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Good morning, Board of
County Commissioners.
As Nick stated --
(Audio interference.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can't make a motion with that.
MR. MITCHELL: No, I'll speak to him off-line.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell him to put it on mute while he's
got us on hold.
MR. BOSI: As noted by Mr. Casalanguida, and I've been the
project coordinator for the AUIR for the past four-and-a-half, or four
years, this is a departure from the prior years. The prior years the
AUIR and the CIE have always been a separate process.
And there's two main distinctions that we're going to encounter this
year, and I'm going to go over that, in regard towards how it's going to
affect the mechanics of to day's proceedings.
One departure from the past was the Productivity Committee.
The Productivity Committee has always been part of the review process
of the AUIR. This year the Productivity Committee opted out of
reviewing the AUIR because of the lack of projects that are being put
forward. Their analysis is concentrated within the fiscal realm. And
based upon the lack of projects that are being put forward, they felt that
their efforts and energy would be better serving the Board of County
Commissioners in this county focused in another direction. So it was
only the Planning Commission that had reviewed the AUIR and the
CIE.
And the second is that this is -- this is the first time that we've ran
the AUIR and the CIE in tandem. And it's designed -- the premise was
to eliminate a lot ofthe inefficiencies, the discrepancies between the
numbers that were presented within the AUIR, which was heard by the
Board of County Commissioners traditionally in November, and the
CIE was heard by the Board of County Commissioners in March.
Same projects being put forward, but because of the snapshots in time
between the revenue and expenditures projections, there was
discrepancies between the two.
May 25th, Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board
decided upon staff's suggestion that combining the two eliminated those
deficiencies, but also saving the taxpayers dollars in terms of
duplicative meetings, streamlining the process was something that we
wanted to do.
We were a little unsure of how it was going to work. We feel that
it's been successful. And one of the things that we're going to ask, and
it's based upon the Land Development Code and the provision related to
the AUIR and how it relates to the CIE. 6.02.02 ofthe Land
Development Code says that the findings of the AUIR, once approved
by the BCC, will form the basis for the preparation ofthe next annual
update and amendment of the CIE for Category A facilities.
Based upon that, we're going to hear the AUIR as we traditionally
hear it with the section by section review, and then asking the Board to
make their traditional motions regarding that project. Close that special
meeting for the AUIR and then open up the CIE adoption hearing. The
projects contained within that CIE adoption hearing will be the same
projects that were just gone over for the AUIR portion. So that should
just be a procedural manner. But we do want to bifurcate the two
processes based upon the Land Development Code provision stating
that the AUIR should be approved first before the approval of the CIE.
And that really concludes the comments related to the mechanics
of the day of how we move forward.
Within the executive summary there were two recommendation
memos that were provided. One was Exhibit A, and that was regarding
the Planning Commission's recommendations for the AUIR, which they
heard on September 20th. And there was Exhibit B, which was the
Planning Commission's recommendations for the CIE, which was heard
on October 21 st.
One of the things, there was a slight difference between the AUIR
and the CIE, and it related to transportation and improvements
contained within the transportation section.
What had happened between the 20th of September and the 21 st of
October related to transportation and the projects that they're putting
forward was the Board of County Commissioners approved the impact
fee reduction for transportation, which put a downward adjustment
upon the revenues that were available.
Well, that downward adjustment upon revenues available had a
corresponding effect upon the projects that we're putting forward and
the timing of those projects. And Mr. Feder will provide a much better
detail of those.
But those two recommendation or memorandums have been
attached to the executive summary. And the books that were provided
to the Board of County Commissioners have been updated so they
reflect the recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding
both the AUIR and the CIE.
One of the things that you'll notice, and it was part ofthe executive
summary, was this was a third departure, and it's related to the
University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
Now, that is the official population projection entity for the State of
Florida. We're required by statute to utilize those population
projections. This was the first year that compared to the prior year that
we actually had projected an increase in the population we're expecting
within the five years. The prior year we expected 24,000 people over
the previous five years. This year that's been upped to 32,000 people.
Now, not tremendously in terms of magnitude of an increase, but it
is significant I think in this inset, it's the first time it's a departure that we
started to see that we're not treading downward, but it's a slight increase.
As staffwe are kind of in a wait and see approach on that.
It's good, you hear the economic news, the reports that are out there
that there is a firming of the economy, and it seems that the financial
situations do seem to be improving, but by no means are ready to say
that our growth rates are ready to get back to what they were in the
prevIOUS years.
So we as a staff look at it, are encouraged that the conditions may
be firming up, but we continue to analyze those next needed
improvements and making sure that they're the most efficient
expenditures of the public's tax paying dollars.
One last note, and it's related to the recommendation from the
Planning Commission related to parks in your original parks levels of
servIce.
Regional parks levels of service has been a very highly debated
and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Contentious.
MR. BOSI: -- and discussed aspect of the levels of service for this
county over the past four years. We've had levels of service special
meetings off -- related to the AUIR. In May of2007 and 2008 we did a
population study trying to get a better handle upon what is the
appropriate levels of service.
This year, and it was based upon the direction that the Board had
provided us last year, was give us more options, give us more options
related to levels of service. We had provided those options to the
Planning Commission, and they recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners adjust the levels of service from 2.9 to 2.7 acres per
thousand population. And that was based upon the recognition ofthe
state and federal lands that are available, but also the recreational
facilities that are provided by the individual gated communities in
private development.
And it's trying to find a better balance for what's the appropriate
levels of service standard related to that. And that was the one
departure for an adjustment to the levels of service standards contained
within the book.
And the last point I would make is any ofthe Commissioners who
would like to give these books back to me at the end of the meeting, I'd
appreciate it, because we have to get 10 copies to the DCA and to the
various state reviewing agencies. And if we don't have to send out a
request for duplicate copies, save some money, we appreciate it. But
also if you want to take it home and add it to your collection, we also
understand that as well. And that's your purview.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gee, that's nice, thank you.
MR. BOSI: With that, that concludes my overview remarks.
Any questions in terms of the mechanics of how we move
forward?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just an observation, Mike. It's my clear
recollection that it was the Board who asked that you combine these two
processes and change the process. You didn't have to explain to us
why it was done. But nevertheless, thank you.
There is an ordinance, I'm sure, that the county has that if the Board
has a recommendation that is good, the stafftakes credit for it. So I just
wanted to make sure you're aware that we are aware of that, okay?
Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Coletta is on
the line now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you hear us, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can hear you perfectly. I'm
going to keep off. Whenever you need me to speak, I'll come off mute.
But then when I end what I have to say I'll go back on mute so you don't
have to listen to the background road noise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. To make it easier for you,
Commissioner Coletta, we're not going to ask you to speak.
We need to have a vote to permit him to participate by telephone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Halas and
second by Commissioner Fiala to approve. All in favor, please signifY
by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you're approved to participate,
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mike, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the executive summary.
You said the PCC's (sic) recommendations are incorporated in it.
Now, are you saying that the changes have been made to each ofthe
elements based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations?
MR. BOSI: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The second thing is, on
the second and third page of the executive summary, you have a chart in
there with the BEBR assessments. And on the second page of the chart
it's showing from 2008 to 2009 a slight reduction in their estimates, but
the percentage of growth has increased. I don't understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you mind if I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The percentage of growth is based upon
the five-year growth projections, I believe. It's annualized for the five
years.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't calculate the percentage of
growth from year to year. That's the difference, I think; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Yes, that is correct. That's just for the five-year
window that they're providing for that specific year, not a comparison.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, so the -- each of the
elements are based upon the BEBR numbers. Now, does that reflect it
per year based upon the BEBR numbers, or is it based upon the
five-year?
MR. BOSI: No, it's based upon the five-year. The five-year
window is what we're required to maintain our levels of service at.
And each year that BEBR provides us new numbers we have to make
the adjustments to the projects that are being proposed to reflect the new
projection. So it's a constant moving picture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How will the -- or will the
census affect the CIE -- AUIR/CIE?
MR. BOSI: Well, the census has the potential to affect the CIE in
a particular way of in terms ofthe determination ofthe persons per
household. The persons per household has a dictation upon the
population projections that are utilized based upon our dwelling units,
based upon what that more detailed information is. Because the
persons per household that's being utilized is 2.39, which is dated to
2000. That's a component ofthe factors utilized by BEBR when they
tally up the total formula for how the projections are applied.
And they'll also true up the vacancy rate. And the vacancy rates
that are discovered within the census will be provided to the University
of Florida, the BEBR projections, and that will also have an effect upon
what the population numbers are.
So the numbers that we get beginning next year should start to
reflect the truing up that the census allows for in terms of the actual
counts, what's being experienced on the ground, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In true population.
MR. BOSI: In true population, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we may see a dramatic
change next year.
MR. BOSI: We most certainly may. We may see a dramatic
change based upon the vacancy rates that are currently experienced
within our housing units. And that may -- we may find next year with
our population numbers that we have another reduction, even though it
seems like the economic indicators are leading -- would provide a
different picture. But that census information may be utilized or may be
significant enough to cause a reduction within our population. And
then the capital programming would be adjusted appropriately based
upon what of those numbers would come out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think there are a couple ofthings you
need to consider, Mike. One is that the census was taken earlier this
year. So when we get it, it will be a year old. So whatever the
economic indicators are right now will likely not be reflected in that
census count.
But the thing that has always troubled me, and I know that -- I don't
believe you have an access to an actual figure on an annual basis
anyway. There's no way you can tell us how the BEBR number
compares with the actual population from year to year, except when you
have a census, and it's every 10 years. So it is inaccurate.
But the one thing that bothers me a little bit is that the BEBR
estimate has always been a little too high as we've gone through history
over the past several years. Is there a reason to believe that the 2010
BEBR estimate of333,600 people is more accurate than the ones we
have had in the past?
MR. BOSI: I don't think that there's been any departure or change
within their population projections so that we can draw that conclusion.
And I guess there has to be a level of an acceptance by everyone
involved within the process that understands that population projections
and even the estimates they provide for what's here right now, there's
always a range of accuracy that's not 100 percent.
And that's just when you deal with projections, when you deal with
estimates, that there has to be that understanding that within a five to a
10 percent range of error, that that probability does exist. And
that -- and based upon that, the strict accounting that everyone would
like cannot be applied on a regular basis because of that standard, that
deviation from what the reality is to what's being projected.
And I couldn't say by any means that I'd be more confident within
these numbers compared to the prior numbers, because I always know
that there's a five to 10 degree inaccuracy that's inherent to the
projections that are contained.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. BOSI: And one last mechanic thing. Before we start, and
traditionally, as presented within the book, we go through
transportation, stormwater, to Category A. But two years ago we
started a departure. Just for the first responders that are contained
within our AUIR/CIE, we normally allow the dependent fire districts to
make their presentations at the beginning so they can get on to their
important work later on. But that's at the discretion of the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mike.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
How many people do we estimate is in a household? Are in a
household, excuse me.
MR. BOSI: The current official statistic is 2.39. Now, what
David Weeks has developed within our individual population allocation
methodology, because we get a final number for a countywide
population number, it's not segmented down to geographic areas for the
county. Well, David's developed a specifics, it's based upon traffic
analysis zones, which we have over 200 currently within the county,
and we're set to increase that to 400. So each of those T AZ's has a
persons per household estimate within those. And that varies by
degrees, by the geographic areas. But until the official census numbers
comes out, it's 2.39, which is our persons per household.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So my second question is, do we
ever take it a step further and get ahold ofFP&L, who would have
probably have a more specific count of how many households are in
Collier County than anybody else because they serve everybody in
Collier County, other than Marco Island, and we could always get that
figure? And then -- and multiply it out to see what that estimate would
be?
MR. BOSI: No, no, no. And even if we did that, that would only
be for our own internal in-house utilization, sort oflike we do utilize an
in-house utilization of persons per household by T AZ. We're required
by statutes to accept the population numbers.
And a point that probably needs to be made was, and it relates to
Chairman Coyle's comment about it's always been a little bit too high,
we recognized that in 2007, when the Board of County
Commissioners -- again, staff is taking credit for what the Board
recognized. The Board recognized that we were utilizing the BEBR
high population numbers, which is no longer appropriate for this
county. And the Board directed staffto, through discussions with
DCA, to adjust from a BEBR high to BEBR medium with the 20
percent population -- increase in population to account for seasonal
residents.
But there has been that feeling that BEBR high was a little bit too
high. And I think these past two years we made that adjustment to
BEBR medium, but we still have that feeling that maybe BEBR
medium is still a little bit too optimistic. And we continue to make
those adjustments.
One of the things, I guess, the advantageous portion of this process,
and it's also a disadvantageous, is we do this every year. And every
year. So see those projects that in year four and five, those outer years,
those are real-- those are tentative, those are tentative to make sure that
those population increases that we've expected are continuing, so we're
not going to migrate those four and five to two and three, to closer to
reality until we really see that the population that we're calling for
within those five years is materializing over that year to year basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, i[J could just interject a
comment. And the corollary to that is that within this document I find a
number of cautionary statements about not pursuing certain capital
improvements as aggressively as we should.
But by using a higher BEBR estimate than we think is reasonable,
it insulates us from the bad consequences of that decision. So when
Norm gets up here and tells us he needs $15 million more for capital
improvements because the population is going to double in the next
three years, that will help a little bit, right?
MR. BOSI: It's a terrific observation, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'mjust kidding, Norm.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you touched on exactly what I
was going to say. First of all, Mike, I want to thank you and your staff
for putting together all this information. I know with the lack of
personnel, it's very taxing, so I appreciate all the time and effort that
goes into this.
I believe there's three BEBR numbers. You've got the high, the
medium and the low. Would it be advantageous for us to look at the
low number, or do you think that that would put us into a serious
problem in the future?
MR. BOSI: My own personal assessment in terms of that
situation, I think if we see another year where the growth that we -- that
BEBR and we are expecting doesn't start to materialize, I think that may
be the appropriate time to say, you know what, maybe this is a different
reality, maybe this is a new norm that's going to be experienced for
Collier County.
But as I drive in -- as I drive into work every day and I look around
and the humidity's gone and the sunshine is apparent and there's no
smudges or clouds in the sky, the same things that have attracted
individuals to this environment, they're still readily abundant. And I'm
not sure if I'm ready to say that the lure of Collier County has been
diminished.
I think that there's been such a structural transformation in issues
within the macro-economic environment that has prevented the
migration of individuals from one location to another. I read an article
about last year -- 2008 and 2009 was the lowest in 35 years of individual
migration from one place to another. And it had everything to do with
the lack of economic opportunity and the lack of financing
opportunities.
I think as those situations become a little bit more solidified, as
they become a little bit more whole, as they heal themselves, as money
becomes more available for those type of opportunities, I think we will
start to see that appreciation, a more of a steady growth within our
population. But I think if we have another year that maybe that
discussion is appropriate, that we start thinking about adjusting from
that BEBR medium to BEBR low.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One thing I have noticed is the
increase oftraffic at this time of year compared to a year ago. Our
roads are getting to the point -- the volume of traffic is getting close to
what we had in 2006, 2007 as I drive around the community.
MR. BOSI: That's a perfect segue, really, towards what I was
going to point out is, when Norm makes his presentation, he's going to
let you know that the prior two years we had dropped, their volumes had
dropped. This year the departure that BEBR has provided has been
reflected also within the transportation counts that we actually saw an
increase within the utilization of our transportation system. So I'm not
ready to say that we're in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've turned my light on,
whenever you get a chance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Mike -- and just to close this
discussion out, next year with the census numbers, it's going to give you
the chance to true it all up, so you'll know where you're going, we can
make a decision as to what we do.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, do you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, i[J could, I have a couple
questions, I'm going to get both of you at the same time, so I can turn
this phone back on to mute again so you don't have to tolerate the road
nOIse.
My first question is, do we expect to see any significant shift as the
data is released from the 2010 census? That's the first question.
Second question is, is this AUIR and the Capital Improvement
Element that we're looking at now, and the requirement of it, is this
more or less guidelines, or if we don't do it, is there some legal
repercussions that we would suffer from the state?
I'm going back to putting this on mute.
MR. BOSI: I'll address the second question first. That second
question related to our Capital A facilities that are in our CIE, we have
adopted levels of service standard. Ifwe do not maintain those adopted
levels of service standards, that is when the state, the Department of
Community Affairs could step in and say we are not -- we are not
fulfilling the commitments that are expressed within our Growth
Management Plan, and there could be consequences associated with
that, whether it be inability to amend your Growth Management Plan,
whether it be punitive financial remedies. Not sure, but there are
potentials if we do not maintain the levels of service that we've
expressed within the Growth Management Plan for the CIE.
The AUIR portion is a little bit different. The Category B facilities,
which aren't part of our CIE, that, you know, more of your law
enforcement, your jails, your libraries, those government buildings,
those aren't tied to any punitive damage for the state, but they have
consequences potentially for the impact fees that we collect. We
obviously can't charge more than what we're providing, so -- in that
relationship.
And then we touched about it earlier, Commissioner, and it was
brought up by Chairman Coyle, related to the census, the 2002 census.
Personally on staff we don't know what to expect other than we know
that there will be an influence upon the numbers. And there will
be -- we've utilized the term a truing up of some of the conditions that
are utilized to project our population and our estimate.
So there will be influence from the census based upon the next year
when we're doing this while I'm standing before you. We'll have some
comments, we'll have some analysis to say what was the effect ofthe
census upon those numbers. But what exactly those particulars are at
this time, I couldn't determine. But I do know that they will have an
influence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does, thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Halas wants to know if you're driving on a limerock road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When it comes to Iimerock
roads, you can't build enough and you can't build them fast enough.
And I understand at the last meeting Commissioner Coyle gave me a
total endorsement to be able to go forward with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's true. We're going to have all the
hard surface roads in Immokalee turned into limerock roads. Thank
you.
Okay, Mike.
MR. BOSI: And that would conclude my -- and we can take it as
the order ofthe book or how the order the Board would prefer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we just take it in order.
Whoever is first.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
your administrator for the Growth Management Division. I'll be
covering transportation and storm water. If I can call your attention
though before we get started, and I apologize for a little bit of
housekeeping.
Under the staff -- and Mike, I apologize, I just noticed this as we're
up there. Under recommendation number three on both Page 4 ofthe
executive summary and Page 7 of the staff report, if I can call your
attention to that before I get started.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 3 of the executive
summary?
MR. FEDER: Page 4 of the executive summary,
recommendation number three. And also Page 7 of the staff report that
follows, same recommendation, number three.
On the fourth page you've got recommendations under the
executive summary, and on Page 7 ofthe staff report you've got
recommendations. They parallel each other. Recommendation
number three, I've got a request, a minor edit on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have different numbering systems
than you. Maybe we do. Hold on. You said seven of the staff report.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, got it.
MR. FEDER: And you got recommendation number three --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. FEDER: -- shown there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. FEDER: That recommendation, the clause at the very end
until the Fiscal Year 10-11 end of third quarter status report. I'm going
to recommend that you strike that because you should end it based on
realtime concurrency that there's a available capacity under our realtime
concurrency. We again are doing realtime concurrency. We are not
using an AUIR until the next AUIR. So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we just stop the sentence at realtime
declining balance ledger.
MR. FEDER: To support development order issuance, period.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, period. And strike until the end
of FYI 0, 11, end which third quarter status report. Is that what you
want to do?
MR. FEDER: We can have realtime concurrency as opposed to a
period oftime.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Thank you very much for that indulgence.
Transportation, starting -- I'm going to take a chance here, on my
Page 17.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, hold on. And that's under
Category A.
MR. FEDER: Category A, county road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I appreciate if everyone would just
get to the bottom line. And we don't need a description as to how you
got there, we'll ask those questions, if we have any.
MR. FEDER: By all means. Your bottom line is shown here
that we're balanced on Page 17, a total program over the five years of
239,646,000.
Page 18 reflects how that has changed since your prior AUIR.
And basically, as you can see, the program has gone down quite a bit.
As a matter of fact, your capital projects in 2008 were 861,209,305, as
reflected in that larger chart here, and 60 million today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But the reason for that is that we don't
need those improvements as early as we previously --
MR. FEDER: As you'll see, we're generally meeting our
concurrency with minor exception. We're working towards those.
And I will say that we don't work on a population basis, we work
on traffic counts. But having said that, generally your statement is true,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. FEDER: As you'll seeing going through, and I won't belabor
it, as the Commissioner noted. On Page 19 we make a discussion on the
fact that one of our biggest emphasis area rather than capital is on the
maintenance and operation. We added considerable lane miles and
improvements, signalization and the like to the system. That's become
a bigger and bigger focus. I brought that to your attention the last three
AUIR's.
And also on Page 20, that while we're in pretty decent shape, as
Commissioner Coyle has pointed out, with all the efforts that we made
the last 10 years, we do have a fairly high vacancy rate and our traffic
counts are starting to move up about two-and-a-half percent this year,
although they were down the two prior years.
Page 22 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Norm, let me ask you a question there.
Is there any way for us to determine whether traffic counts are up
because of the number of visitors or because of the number of
year-round residents? Is there any indication that would help us --
MR. FEDER: You can do some level of origin destination, which
we haven't done, to try to catch that. But generally what we're using is
putting in count stations and traffic counts, which don't give you that
indication.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand the difficulty in doing that,
yes.
MR. FEDER: On Page 22 is our five-year work program. The
results, as was pointed out, obviously the revenues are significantly
reduced. We've met quite a bit ofthe demand, as you'll see under the
following pages.
The program is at 60 million now, and what I need to make sure
that you realize, what you have in this program is, other than moving
forward this year with 951 and Davis efforts, which are shortly to be let
to construction, and we reduced the estimates on that as you see here,
that negative number, just to explain those in 10, were to be able to keep
the two construction projects that you have remaining in the program.
Both of those are supported by grant funding. In the case of the one
where we reduced both the available dollars after Santa Barbara
construction in 10 and reduced both the Davis, the 951 and the
right-of-way for Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, so you see those
negatives in 10, already approved budget, were to keep the project on
Collier Boulevard where I have seven million in state trip funding
supporting that construction that you see in 14, we also have
predominantly through developer contribution agreements a state Sig-P
grant, some monies from the resurfacing project with the state that we're
going to do and take the balance, and some county monies. 951 at U.S.
41 and 5th-15 is the only other construction project.
The rest of the program is minor right-of-way mainly to work with
voluntary negotiated purchase to keep projects moving and also to meet
concurrency, as I'll mention in a moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Norm, just as a general view, can
you tell us about the trend of state and federal grants for road
maintenance or construction?
MR. FEDER: Mainly on construction, there's very little in the
way of grants on maintenance, although we have taken on an asset
management the maintenance of the state system within Collier County.
And we're looking to renegotiate that. And so far we've done well under
that as far as the monies received and the work performed in keeping the
system up.
As far as the capital area, we've been very successful, but it's all
discretionary funding. The trip, Sig-P, you need to apply and receive.
Staffhas done an excellent job, the OMB office, assisting us and our
grants office. And we've been pretty successful as you can see across
here. I almost have more in grants, almost as much in grants as I have
in impact fees in this program.
And that's the key point I wanted to make here. The 60 million
that you see is entirely funded, all the capital above the line projects are
entirely funded by either impact fees, grants or developer contribution
agreements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No general fund.
MR. FEDER: No general fund and no gas taxes per se. Now, in
debt service, I do have gas taxes and general fund. I no longer have the
general fund replacing the gas tax used on the bonding. Now, that was
not bonding of impact fees, it was bonding ofthe shortfall that we
experienced during the '90's. And in 2000 we had a significant
backlog. And that backlog we funded from both two issuance of bonds
under utilizing the gas taxes, the support of it. And was to be some ad
valorem on an ongoing basis, 24 million at one time, reduced now.
But nonetheless, that's the only bonding we have, and that's the
only area in the capital program, but it was for the backlog that you have
any ad valorem supports, sir.
Page 23 is just sort of a summary of what you saw previously.
Any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
Twenty-four, 25, basically giving you your realtime concurrency
and showing you where you stand based on service volumes against
what we're actually tracking out there and what we show is coming off
of vested. And as you know, we're not pulling the vesting off right now
because ofthat vacancy rate as we stand right today.
The meat ofthe issue, as far as the AUIR, which is supposed to be
a snapshot of whether or not we're meeting our level of service or
concurrency. And our level of service is D and E, which is basically
the lower end ofthe level of service spectrum for transportation.
On 26 shows you that we do have an existing deficiency on Golden
Gate Boulevard. Unfortunately there, as you saw, we had to reduce all
the right-of-way in the program. But we are maintaining, be it at a
small level, a continued right-of-way acquisition, which should suffice
our issues with DCA to show them that we're making progress towards
trying to meet that deficiency.
You see when I bring in my vested trips, I've got some other
segments. The good news is on each of those I have projects slated or
moving, so they're being addressed.
And then the last one on 41, which of course the grade areas are the
state system as well. But that last one, Tamiami Trail, we worked with
the state to advance the PD&E. They do have design but we don't have
other phases programmed. It is a state facility.
And then you see that we see a couple coming on very shortly in
deficiency. And we basically are addressing those sufficiently to go to
DCA and note that we are in compliance with our level of service in
transportation.
You've got the TCMA areas. They are operating well. That's
what you see on Pages 28 and 29. Basically we say that all the segments
in total should operate at level of service, and they do.
Twenty-nine point one is just showing you what is carry-forward
item when you see that, so you know what was out there.
And then on Pages 31 and 32, basically summarizes what was in
the AUIR and all the figures to give you your Capital Improvement
Element.
And I'm open for any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good to go. Thank you, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Appreciate that. And if you'd like to, I canjump
into stormwater. This one can be fairly brief. It's an important
program, but nonetheless, we were at .15 mills of an allocation to
stormwater that's been modified under the current financial situation to
a .1 mills.
Plus it is one ofthe funds that is very definitely millage neutral,
because as the millage rate goes down, assessed values go down, that
millage rate produces less revenue, and that's been the trend.
Basically the bottom line in the stormwater program is, other than
meeting requirements for NPDES and a little bit of planning, a couple of
monitoring areas like the Freedom Park, essentially your whole
program is L.A.S.J.P. We did just recently meet with the Corps to talk
about what happens if we have to extend the time frame, because based
on current revenue stream, we don't know if we can get to it by 15,
which is the permit provisions.
They gave us an indication that we probably can get a permit
extension; however, they also noted that we might have to meet current
standards relative to species and flora and fauna and nitrates. They
weren't very clear on what that was. So we're continuing to pursue to
try and finish the project within the available funding. As you see, our
focus is almost pretty exclusively on completing the L.A.S.l.P. project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thanks.
Does that bring us -- any questions then? Norm is pretty much
finished, I think, right?
MR. FEDER: Yes, I am, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Mike.
MR. BOSI: And one interjection before we hear public utilities.
Both Chief McLaughlin and Chief Rodriguez from the dependent fire
districts were wondering ifthey could -- they've got a relatively short
presentation, meaning there's no projects that are being proposed.
They were just wondering if they could cut in line, so to speak, to be
able to get in and get out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. BOSI: -- it shouldn't take more than three minutes to get
those two components done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you yield your time?
MR. DeLONY: 1 yield my time always to those guys. Ifthey
don't have guns, they've got fire axes for sure.
MR. BOSI: And that's Page 179 is the start ofIsles of Capri
within your book.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Emilio Rodriguez, ChiefofIsles of Capri . And this year on our
AUIR we do not have any capital. It's the same as last year. And I'm
here to answer any questions that any of the Commissioners might have.
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proposed to put a station in, I
believe it was Fiddler's Creek or Hamilton.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: On Mainsail Drive, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mainsail Drive.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. We are still looking at that.
We have had several meetings with the Marco Island airport. They do
have some land that they say that they were willing to work with us, but
at this time we do not have the funding to build any joint station there
with Collier County EMS.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Impact fees?
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We do not have sufficient impact fees for
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they stable or going down
dramatically?
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: They are not moving at all, sir. We have
no construction in the district sufficient enough to bring our impact fees
up at this time.
We have two highrises that were not built on Mainsail Drive out of
the five. And those are put on hold right now. They have not been
canceled completely, but they are on hold. So that will probably be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good.
No questions? Okay. We'd just like for you to stay until the end
of the meeting and we'll probably have you come up.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. BOSI: And Ochopee is 193.
CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning Chairman,
Commissioners. Alan McLaughlin with Ochopee Fire Control
District. We have no proposed changes from last year's either. I'm
here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was a quick presentation.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chief.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'd like to introduce Nathan Beals, who
works on the Public Utilities staff. He's our planning guru, and I'd like
to -- in the interests of the efforts made by the County Manager to ensure
that we have sustainability in our county staff, I'd like to have do the
Public Utilities presentation. My staff and I are standing by for any of
your questions as well.
Nathan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You will be able to conform to our other
guidance and get to the bottom line and lead us through --
MR. BEALS: Good morning, Commissioners. Nathan Beals for
the record. I'm here to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you doing all the public
facilities?
MR. BEALS: All the public utilities, water, wastewater and solid
waste.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On your solid waste, do you
have anyactuals? I was looking for actuals on the tonnage per year. I
know you have the population and estimates per population. But do
you have any annual actuals?
MR. BEALS: On Page 73, under column four, years 2000
through 2009 are the actual tonnage disposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you, in 2010 -- '09 to
2010 has gone down 4,000 tons?
MR. BEALS: That was what we projected at the time of
this -- the AUlR. That was an estimated -- 2010 was estimated. We
did not update it for actual through October. But it's pretty close.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you see a significant
increase of actuals from 2010 to 2011 ?
MR. BEALS: Well, in 2011 forward, the tons per capita disposal
rate is the average of the three prior years. And with those three years
being.6 of one, .54 and .52, that made the carry-forward a .55.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's the -- that's based
upon -- column three is not actuals. Column four --
MR. BEALS: Column three is actuals from 2000 through 2009.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, those are per capita
disposable rates per the rate per -- oh --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Person.
MR. DeLONY: I'm going to help you here a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You lost a little bit of hair.
MR. DeLONY: What 1 would try to do is, on Page 74, if you look
at note three. On note three it details to you how column three is
calculated. And just to give you a chance to familiarize yourself with
that, I believe Mike, help me, it was about two years ago, I came to you,
and we were doing such a great job in recycling, and reducing our per
capita disposal rates. It's taken instead of projecting forward our five
years -- past five years of experience, it was my recommendation, you
accepted it, that we only look at the first -- the next three.
Because if you look, if we were to go five years our forward
looking disposal rate would be about .6, .62, something along those
lines. That's not reflective of what we're going to see with the recycling
initiatives and the cycling, the response that we've had with the county.
The .55 is more reasonable of a planning figuring going forward.
And so that's how we got to the tons per capita disposal rate, sir.
In terms of calculating that, it's a three-year look back. And then
projecting that three-year look back forward over the period of
consideration for the AUIR concurrency. And we hope to beat it.
That's our intent.
This is recycling month, November.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So what's our capacity
oflandfill space? If you take a look at -- and this really is reflective of
the building in Collier County. From 2006 forward, it's gone down.
Is that a fair statement?
MR. DeLONY: No, I think it could be. Absolutely. Economic
activity is going to have an effect on this number also. I think equally
effective and equally impactive is the diversion to the landfill. These
figures that you see in column four are actually those tons which are
actually going to the hill. This is buried tons. This is not total
aggregated tons. We're somewhere around 800,000 tons plus in the
aggregate but only 200,000 therein about as that you see on this chart on
column four actually going to the hill.
It's the hill, that we bury, that we have to maintain concurrency on
in terms of air space availability for those disposal tonnages.
Ifwe're able to divert it. We discussed, not yesterday but the
previous meeting, about some work we're trying to do with Lee County
now to further divert some of our brown goods, for example, that would
normally be buried. If we can take those away from being buried and
at the same and equitable price send them to Lee County, we're going to
come back to you all with that proposal. The key is to preserve the air
space in the hill. That's the concurrency that we're looking for in AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, the air space that you
have, have you included all the other activities in the previous year with
that air space?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. And that's the ticket of using this
calculation that you can see in column three, is that that will aggregate
the experience of that diversion, and then we'll use that experience in
driving forward our projection of utilization of that air space on a
population-driven basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in the landfill footprint, we
have recycling there ofC and D. We have recycling or horticultural
waste.
MR. DeLONY: Diversion, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is -- since that is a
cumulative of the -- what happens there, we're going to remove that,
locate it to the north a little bit, so you're going to include that available
space for landfill.
MR. DeLONY: The calculation we have, and it's actually
depicted graphically on the chart with the 10 years of permitted landfill
capacity, which I believe your book is Page 75, is a clear depiction of
what's available in the hill for permitted air space. And all that area
that's in our current permitted area is there.
Now, this is not reflective, if you would project that, of your
decision of meeting before last to go to DEP for a permit to go up. So if
we do, obviously we're going to have more air space and we're going to
move that red dot further out in the future in terms of your decision point
for either a new landfill or another alternative to disposal of waste that
we cannot either divert or recycle in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it's not true that -- I'll
wait till that person stops whispering in your ear.
MR. DeLONY: He got me, yes, sir -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the statement is not true that
you're going to recapture that space that the C and D is taking place and
the horticultural waste, that's already counted within the chart.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir. That's all part ofthat
build-out for that full footprint utilization, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you answered my first
question as far as the shipping of the waste, if the agreement is made to
Lee County -- I mean, the brown stuff.
But the second thing I had, or the first thing, actually, is Page 51
you talk about existing and future water service areas. And in there
you have a graph and it shows what areas are in the City of Naples and
then what areas are served by the City of Naples. But that map, I -- it
didn't seem to reflect, from the way I can read it anyway, that doesn't
mean I'm very good at reading maps, that Lakewood, Glades, this
government complex, Bayshore, they're all in the City of Naples water
service area. I know because I pay the 25 percent fee --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, we'll take a look at it, but I believe
it's correct. It's a very poor scale.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. But I'll check and make sure that's
correct, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might add, the water tastes terrible.
I wish I had county water. Maybe I shouldn't say that out in public,
huh.
MR. DeLONY: That's okay, ma'am, we'll let you say that all you
want, because we happen to agree with you. I don't necessarily think it
tastes terrible, I think ours just tastes better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it. Ijust wanted to check
on the map.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, thank you. We'll make sure that
that's there -- but it's a very poor scale, and so I would think that we're
fine there. We just moved along township lines or -- as best we could
depict --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Other than that, or I just move into
the City of Naples.
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am, we don't want you doing that, we like
your revenue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go back to Page 73.
MR. DeLONY: Seven, two?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seventy-three. And looking backward
five years, the increases in peak population have been relatively small.
In fact there was a small decrease in some years. But your projections
for 2011 show a fairly substantial increase of7 ,000 people. But yet the
MR. DeLONY: I'll let Mike answer that. Mike provides us the
population to be served.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thanks.
MR. DeLONY: And remember, on this particular element, solid
waste, we're looking everywhere, the entire county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're also looking at the peak
transient population.
MR. DeLONY: I'm looking at the number that's provided to me
by those good folks over there to ensure that we're consistent across the
board in the county the way we measure population by service area.
You might remember it was some years ago that we made sure that
we were seeing -- the population was a fact across all service areas. So
I'll refer to Mike for the answer.
MR. BOSI: The BEBR populations for April 1st for the
unincorporated -- or for the county as a whole is 6,130 people. This
projection that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's an increase?
MR. BOSI: Yes, it was an increase of 6, 100. And the increase
that they're showing from 10 to II is basically reflective of that increase
that the BEBR had projected for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, have you added the transient
population, the visitors or --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You did.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To the -- that is included in the BEBR
calculation.
MR. BOSI: Yes. But the BEBR calculation is static, that 6,100.
We add the 20 percent increase and that gives you your seasonal
population, which explains the numbers that they utilized.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, any other questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very goodjob.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, thank you.
Thanks, Mike.
MR. EASTMAN: Commissioners, I'm Tom Eastman,
representing the school district. And the bottom line with our capital
plan is that we have no new schools planned in the next five year period.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that makes it simple, doesn't it.
MR. EASTMAN: Yes, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta with a
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I can't pick up any
background. But I think you can hear me all right.
The question on the school district. With the amendment that just
failed on our recent ballot issues regarding the class size, is that going to
have any effect on the school district in the future, in the near future if
they have to reduce class size? They're going to need more teachers. If
they need more teachers, do they need more schools?
MR. EASTMAN: Commissioner Coletta, you're exactly correct.
We will have to hire new teachers. We have no new schools planned,
as I said earlier. That may change outside of this five year window, but
we're doing rezoning analysis to address that matter to better utilize the
facilities we already have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, does that answer your question,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that answers my question.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thanks a lot.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you're ready for
Parks and Rec --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're ready for Parks and Rec, yes.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- but we're here for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're just trying to find out where you
are in this --
MR. WILLIAMS: Page 90 would be a good place to start.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, just a couple points to start
out. And certainly I'll be brief in whatever questions you might have.
First point to make is in regional park land we have several
acquisitions over the time frame. What I'd want to point out to you,
though, is all those acquisitions, with the exception of Big Corkscrew
Island Regional Park, are intergovernmental transfers of various types.
Isles of Capri is an example I'll mention.
We're working with Rookery Bay right now, they're developing a
kayak/canoe launch, and we're working with them for an interlocal
agreement for us to maintain the launch. And that would be counted as
part of our inventory.
So we're looking at those opportunities. We're not making any
recommendations as far as using impact fee dollars. The impact fee
dollars are going primarily for debt service.
The other thing I wanted to point out that is I think significant is the
A TV parle In previous years we've included 640 acres of regional park
land with the ATV park in consideration. We've removed that this
year, given the circumstances in where we stand with the A TV park.
That was 640 acres --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you get a chance, please.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- 640 acres greatly elevated what we had in
regional park land. So we think that taking those acres out reflects a
better indication of where we stand.
Just to pick up one other thing too with Mike. Mike mentioned a
chart that we included. And in can draw your attention to that. It's on
page --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's at 92.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. I'm looking at Page 98.
And just, you know, part ofthe consideration this past cycle is
looking at reducing level of service. The regional park land, the
proposal that we're bringing forward for regional park land at 2.9 -- level
of service, 2.98 acres level of service actually puts us in a deficit in the
five-year window. And I may ask Mike to speak to that, whether that's
problematic for DCA.
If we were to reduce level of service to 2.7 -- and basically you're
reducing level of service to be better reflective of what you're able to
accomplish during this time frame, we are slightly in a positive area, 42
acres to the good.
It may seem a little like cooking the books; however, I think part of
the discussion that we've had with the Planning Commission and with
the Board in regards to park land level of service is taking into
consideration the state, federal and conservation lands that are available
for folks to recreate. So we think that that's consistent with that
philosophy.
But at this point our recommendation for community park land is
requesting 1.2 acres per thousand, and for the regional park land we're
requesting 2.7.
And I'll stop at this point and see if you have questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoever. It doesn't make any
difference. You can go first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Amy, I'm going to need
some help on this, please.
On Page 79, your chart ofland values, the added projects
from -- well, next year the FP&L greenway. Now, when the -- our
impact fee consultant was here I asked him, when you figure what
impact fees are, do you use the figures within the AUIR and the CIE?
And his statement was yes.
Will this chart be used to reflect impact fees?
MS. PATTERSON: Is your question for a future update of parks
impact fees? Right now the parks impact fees were just updated last
year. So when we go into the next update, that would be in 2012, and
they would gather all of the pertinent information at that time, including
the documentation in the AUIR as well as any subsequent purchases or
acquisitions that are made by parks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you for that
answer. And that is my concern is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When we get a moment, I would
like to have a say in this too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we've got you on the list.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I think your question is, and a
valid one, is with the $230,000 an acre, we have an estimated value of
that transfer of$8.2 million. And your question is whether that would
be included -- that price tag be included in the impact fee calculation.
Did I fo llow that correctly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where I'm going, yes.
MS. PATTERSON: And the answer to that is no. Just -- the
acreage calculation, the cost per acre calculation that's being used for
the AUIR in no way dictates the cost per acre that we use as a
component in the impact fee. They look at actual acquisitions, the
actual purchase prices of land that they purchased, and also the value of
their inventory at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the acreage on this one
will be a part of the calculation; is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: Is this -- I'm sorry, I don't--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The acreage oflike let's say the
FP&L greenway trail of37.5 acres, that is -- that will be a part ofthat
calculation.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the application of it is that
37 -and-a-half acres would be whatever the cost is, that would be
included. So--
MS. PATTERSON: The value at the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The value at the time.
But the issue is it is not a transfer of funds, but we are applying the
acreage and applying per cost of that acreage, and that would be the
outcome of the impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: Are you concerned -- ifI can get a
clarification, your concern is the assignment ofthe value to that
acreage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you already said it's not
going to be assigned a value. But you are assigning the acreage.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the acreage cost. When you
have the acreage included in it, even though it didn't cost you anything,
there is assigned a value to that.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. It adds to the inventory of
parks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It adds to the inventory ofthe
parks, and the value of that per acreage is added.
MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Therefore, the -- even though
that we have an increase of acreage per population at no value, zero
value, didn't cost us anything, it will reflect the outcome of the impact
fees.
MS. PATTERSON: It potentially could, that's true. And there's
a lot of ways we can go with these. This has been an ongoing
discussion, and not just this impact fee, but in others, of how to handle
donations --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. PATTERSON: -- at what level it's appropriate to include
them and at what value.
So these are one --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or any value. Or should it be a
credit? Like what happens in transportation, when you have a DCA
where you have a donation, per se, that is on the revenue side.
MS. PATTERSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not going to be on the
revenue side.
MS. PATTERSON: It could be treated that way. When we get
there we determine -- as far as donations go, they're evaluated at the
time that they're placed on the inventory, and oftentimes there's an
associated credit that goes along that essentially discounts the value of
that donation as far as how it affects the fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: So if that's -- and we'll make sure to note that
that's one that needs to be looked at carefully for the 20 -- if it comes
onto the inventory for the 2012 update, and be sure that we're
appropriately placing it onto the inventory and appropriately crediting it
or valuing it. And there's different ways you can do it, either by
discounting the value or even by not including it on the inventory.
There's different ways we approach donations. And this happens in
other facilities as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I just wanted to
point that out in -- could you keep me updated on how that's going to be
done --
MS. PATTERSON: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in the future?
MS. PATTERSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or maybe meet with me? With
all the e-mailsthatweget.it.s hard to keep up with.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
And then another thing, the FP&L greenway, how are you going to
maintain that? Is it going to be park-pristine maintenance or brush cut
or something like -- and monitoring it, I'm assuming you're going to
have parks and -- or the park rangers, you know, opening and closing
the gates and that kind of thing?
MR. WILLIAMS: Correct. Well, we're working with
transportation on the development, and worked with them on the
construction, just with our input from a maintenance side. It's Bahia
that they are laying on the -- around the greenway. There's not
irrigation associated with that, so once the Bahia takes hold, I mean, we
know that currently they're mowing that greenway once a month during
rainy season. So, you know, we want to work with the homeowners in
and around the property to maintain the green way in a way that's
appropriate and consistent with what their desires are.
We're looking at once a month initially, and during the dry season
obviously we wouldn't need to mow as much. But that would be pretty
much our maintenance plan.
We are talking with Commissioner Fiala about potential amenities
that could be placed on the greenway. It's a two-mile stretch, so it's a
considerable length.
We do have a philosophy that we've used at Freedom Park, I'll
mention, where with reduction in staffwe implemented an approach
called pack it in, pack it out, where we basically expect people, when
they go into the park, to take their trash with them. And that's been
surprisingly well received. People are doing that.
So we will have some trash cans, some benches, minimal along the
greenway, and we'll implement that philosophy.
I hope that answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does.
Is it a possibility -- the greenway, you're going to have some people
that want -- who are just going to want to bicycle it or run it or
something like that.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there's really little parking
area, if no parking area, to utilize it, Commissioner Fiala. And I think
it's opportunities for the neighboring communities to kind of adopt it
and work with the park system to maybe close and open the gates. Just
a comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so too. Because it's kind of
closed right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Back to the FP&L
freeway -- or greenway, rather, excuse me.
Did you just say you're putting benches and waste receptacles on
there?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. We plan to install on the ends of
the greenway some benches and some trash receptacles. But the
two-mile stretch, you know, there's a lot in between that. So we will
have them on either end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'll have them on either end.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because there's no amenities on that
thing, I was thinking oftrying to get the community together to have
fundraisers or whatever they can do, or people dedicate a tree or
dedicate a bench or something so that we can have some kind of
amenities on that thing. For two miles there's nothing for anybody to
even sit down, so -- and you've got old people, so that's what he's talking
about. And it's going to be a big effort. I don't know when we're
going to get there.
So that is considered a park then?
MR. WILLIAMS: We consider it a linear park, yes, ma'am.
And we have several like this. Transportation has for the most part
developed a similar type of arrangements, pathways and whatnot. But,
yes, a linear park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, the one you just had also, but
has a lot of amenities, in Vanderbilt. How come that's not on here?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The one on Vanderbilt that the DCA
put in a lot of amenities, how come that isn't in here? Or isn't that
green way going to be a part of the parks?
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not following your question, ma'am.
Vanderbilt?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Greenway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Greenway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was money donated by a--
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. This is a transportation
project. I would ask them to perhaps speak to that.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder.
Right now that is a sidewalk project as opposed to a greenway like
FPL. We're talking to Parks and Rec, like we have also sidewalks and
multi-use paths on 951 and Immokalee. None of those are in their
system right now. They did take FPL because it's exclusively a
pathway not associated with a roadway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine, thank you.
Now, my next question is where in your parks thing is the
projection to be building the community center at Eagle Lakes
Community Park?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not part of the AUIR. It's not a part of the
planning document that's used in terms of future facilities.
The AUIR addresses mainly looking at acres per thousand that are
needed to meet the level of service. So facility improvements aren't a
part of this exercise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Where was Manatee Park
then?
MR. WILLIAMS: Manatee Park as far as in the AUIR?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. WILLIAMS: Manatee's already included as part of the
inventory. It's not part of the 1 O-year projection. We have the -- we
own the property and it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not part of the 10-year
projection?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not part of -- we have the land, the land's in
our inventory. So we're not making a recommendation in the next 10
years to acquire land for Manatee, we already have it in the inventory.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're not making projections to
acquire the land on any of these other projects, like Pulling -- or rather,
like Pepper Ranch, we already have acquired it, Isles ofCapris, we have
it, Big Corkscrew, we have that, FP&L --
MR. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am, we have not acquired it. These
are projections that we are seeking interlocal agree -- or
intergovernmental agreements to acquire the property and for us to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't own Pepper Ranch?
MR. WILLIAMS: Pepper Ranch is owned and a part of
Conservation Collier.
What we're recommending and what we're saying in the AUIR
process is that we would like to work an arrangement with Conservation
Collier to have 50 acres for recreational purposes. And we've talked to
them about that.
The kind of use that we're looking at is like a trailhead. There's a
lot of great pathways at Pepper Ranch. So our taking over
responsibility for 50 acres to develop a trailhead for people that are
interested in hiking is the proposal.
We don't have that agreement in play right now. There's a lot of
questions about that with the ordinance with Conservation Collier
whether that's doable, but it's part of our planning exercise that we
would like to put forward in the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look, you know, a while back we
had to move all of these remote controlled airplane guys off of Manatee
because we were going to build a park there, right? And so we told
them that they had to clear out and find another place.
Now since then we've allowed them to bring in their electric planes
to use it because we're not doing anything on there. We did have
money set aside to at least begin the project. We--
MR. WILLIAMS: Money's still in the project for Manatee.
There's a little over $2 million in that project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, now, are you sure? Because
the Commissioners, when I asked to take that money and put it into the
community center so we could finish the park at Eagle Lakes, they had
instead put it into reserves.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just showing you a print-out that I got this
morning. It's our SAP system that reflects what projects that we have
with parks.
What I'll do is point to you -- I don't know if we can zero in on this.
But -- and I'm doing an eye chart for you, I apologize.
Manatee Park, and I don't know if you can follow my finger, but
we've looking at, we've got $2,071,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's still in there, it isn't gone?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, it wasn't put in reserves?
MR. WILLIAMS: It wasn't put in reserves. It's in the project.
And ] believe with the Board's direction at the time when the discussion
about Eagle Lakes and Manatee came to be, the discussion was to not
move the money from the project but to keep it in the existing project in
case it was needed for debt service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, I want to know when
it's projected that you're going to do something in Eagle Lakes to finish
that park. You've got 1,000 Habitat homes there and still going, you've
got all the Section 8 housing, and yet you have no place for these
children to even seek shelter at a park there.
And yet we continue to add things to other parks and we haven't
even taken care ofthe park that's been built in 1997. When are you
going to do something about that?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, ma'am, I would tell you that the Board
has directed us to develop a master plan, and that is in play. We had a
community meeting in October. We invited people from all over
Collier County to come and talk to us and help us with the priorities of
what needs to be next --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you see any urgency in that at all,
being that there's only one very small community center in all of East
Naples?
MR. WILLIAMS: Ma'am, I agree. I totally agree that we need
it. But you're asking me as far as when are we going to plan it. We're
bringing you a master plan in January. That hopefully will give you
that information that you need in terms of what priorities that we need to
take as Parks Department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You better know I'm going to be
watching carefully, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
I'll tell you what, I have some real concerns with the idea of
dropping the requirements for the ORV park. Listen, at this point in
time, that is not a good idea, and I'll tell you why: We're in the process
of a lawsuit with Water Management to supply the park or the money
for it. Ifwe suddenly write this out of our program, we lose any
negotiating ability whatsoever. They could come back with the
comments, well, the county wrote it off, there's no longer a public need,
so why should you come to us for the money to build it.
So please, rethink this one, would you please.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Coletta, Mr. Chair, just to make a point,
and this is a planning document for acquisition ofland to meet our level
of service.
We're making a recommendation that we not include it, because
we can't see that this land is coming in any time in the near future.
If that would change, if there was success with the litigation with
South Florida Water Management and that would be available, then we
would include it in the AUIR. Us not including it in the AUIR does in
no way affect the litigation and discussions that are going on with South
Florida Water Management. It's just staffs perspective that from our
standpoint we don't see the 640 acres as being in that five-year window.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, ifI may, I'm sorry ifI
interrupt at inappropriate times. When I go for feedback to regular
folks, there is no voice coming from the other end. So can only I hope
that I don't have anybody too mad at the other end.
JeffKlatzkow, I hope you're sitting there right now. I think you're
pretty aware ofthe fact what we're up against with Water Management,
and every part of this equation as we go forward is extremely important.
I'd like to hear your comments on it, sir.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, you know, I've given Jackie direction
to take this to trial as soon as possible so we can get resolution ofthis.
From a planning document, whether it's in there or it's out there, I
don't know that it's of any real relevance. The issue is going to be, you
know, what was promised to the people of Collier County and what has
not been delivered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you get that, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I got it. But I still have
grave concerns. It sounds to me like we're writing off that whole part
of the population. They gave up their recreational pursuits to what is
now the Picayune Forest with the idea we were going to be
compensated. It's just one more nail in the coffin, as far as I'm
concerned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the alternative, Marla?
MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, for the record, Public Services
Administrator.
If you like, we have a number of notes in the AUIR. We could
add a note that says that South Florida Water Management was to
provide, you know, 640 acres and we have yet to see it so it's not
included in our estimates at this time or something to that effect, if you
would like us to do that to memorialize it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we make note of the fact that we are
filing suit to assure their compliance with the previous agreement?
MS. RAMSEY: We can put that in as a note if you wish us too,
yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and that we continue to pursue it
until they come into compliance?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would that help, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That certainly takes us a lot
closer to where we need to be. I thank you very much for offering
those suggestions, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Then why don't we do that. I think it is important that we make
clear our intentions, even if you're not including the acreage. Everyone
should understand that we haven't abandoned the effort, okay?
That brings me back to Page 98. And you had suggested a level of
service of2.7, ifI remember correctly. Let's make sure that we're all
clear on what that really means.
If you adopt 2.7, at least my interpretation ofthe chart, it means
that next year we're likely to be below the level of service for regional
parks.
Next year we already know that we're probably going to be faced
with additional cuts of maybe eight percent or more in general funding
for property taxes.
Is it wise to adopt a level of standard -- a level of service standard
that we know is going to put us into a deficit situation at a time when we
don't have the money to really do anything with it?
MR. BOSI: Commissioner, I think it is wise. And the wise part of
it is reflected at the end ofthe five-year -- the CIE, the capital
improvement programming. We don't make the assessment after that
first year of that five years, it's at the end of the five-year. And the
reduction -- because right now we're at 2.9 and we're suggesting we go
to 2.7.
So what that action does is actually places that deficit -- it shrinks
the deficit, and at the end of the five years we are 42 acres on the plus
side. Currently at 2.9 at the end of the five years we're at a 46-acre
deficit. So the modification to 2.7 actually places us on the positive
side of the ledger at the end of the five-year period.
It's because of the interdepartment transfers that will happen over
this next five years. At the end of the five-year period, we will be
whole. You are correct, next year until those transfers start to be
materialized in the further out years, we will still be at a deficit, but the
reduction to 2.7 gives us a less of a deficit than what we currently are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'm not interpreting your chart
properly. Can you put that chart on the overhead and please explain to
me how you reach those conclusions.
MR. BOSI: Within the chart we have a level of service options.
And it's 2.2. And the reason why we picked 2.2 is that's the level of
service standards that's indicated within the impact fees. We can't go
below that unless we want to adjust our impact fee. So that was the
floor.
The highest right now that we have is 2.9. That's our currently
adopted levels of service, 2.9 acres per 1,000 people.
Basically at the end of the five-year period, based upon the BEBR
population projections, at 2.9 we need 1,286 acres. That's what those
numbers would translate to. At 2.7 acres per thousand, the required
inventory drops down to 1,197 acres, a reduction in the acres that we
need.
So the 2.9 requires us to have more acreages at the end ofthat
five-year. 2.7 is less. And as you lower that levels of service
standard, the inventory starts to increase, or that gap starts to increase
where you become more positive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So using this chart, if we went with 2.7,
at the end of five years we would have a surplus of 42.64.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if you go into the year after that, the
sixth, seventh and eighth year, when do we go into a deficit? Which
year would we go into a deficit?
MR. BOSI: You know, that is a tentative deficit. Because we
look at it, those improvements that we're going to be containing in years
six through 1 0 are tentative at best.
If you look at -- on Page 96. Within your book on Page 96 it
shows years 2015, '16 through years 2019 through '20. Those
are -- that's six through 10. And if you look, the blue is the
required -- the red is the acres available.
We dip below it in 2016, 2017, but we get a big jump from Captiva
Pond and the Big Cypress acquisition. So we go -- the next year we're
satisfYing the required level of service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now let's talk about the A TV park.
Suppose in the period oftime between now and let's say three or four
years we solve this problem and we recognize that acreage. What does
that do to your calculations?
MR. WILLIAMS: Just one point I'd like to make about the A TV
park too, just before Michael answers that is, the 640 acres that we
characterize, as we've looked at this we realize that the entire 640 acres
is not going to be usable recreational land. It's more than likely going
to be extensive trails, paths, etc., you know, for A TV's to use. So it's
going to be a considerable less amount of acreage than the 640 acres
when we get down to it.
Sojustto mention that. You know, the question is if you
have -- and the property that is at Lake Trafford, for example, it's a
640-acre parcel, but 200 acres of it is wetlands that won't be used, or part
of it.
So, you know, it's what we can count as active recreational will be
a question that comes to us as we get these lands.
I don't know if I've confused you, you've got that look. But I
wanted to make mention ofthat ifI could.
MR. BOSI: And to address your question, whatever we
determine is the usable acreages that are provided from the district to us
for that purpose, it will be included within our inventory and our
inventory will get an added boost or shot in the arm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will that include just the acreage of the
trails on which the A TV's ride and it will exclude the trees that they ride
by?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. Appreciate the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then ifit doesn't, why does it exclude the
wetlands?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's not active recreation, it's -- you
know, it's a question that's come up in this discussion over the years as
far as preserve land, do we count it as part of acreage required.
We actually went through an exercise this last cycle looking at the
preserve lands that are in our existing parks and questioned whether we
remove those from our acreage. And our decision was not to do that.
But there are some lands associated with a parcel that we might get
that's not usable recreational. So the question will come up do we
count that as part of the AUIR, as part of the level of service. I'm
hearing from your comments that yes, we would.
And it's consistent with what we're doing now. For example, North
Collier Regional Park, you know, it's a 200-acre parcel. We have 100
acres that are considered preserve, but that is all -- all that park is
counted in our regional park calculation, so -- but it is a question --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's a discussion for later. But
yes, I have some very serious concerns about the way you do that.
Some portion ofthose 640 acres will be included. And that
portion that you would include at some point in time, as I understand it,
is not reflected in any of these figures. But we're setting a level of
service standard that ignores the possibility that we're ever going to get
those -- some portion ofthose 640 acres. And I suspect there's other
parcels that you have not considered.
You have not considered the potential recreation capability for
Pepper Ranch. At least -- well, you are taking a look at it between 2014
and 2015, I presume.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there's no notation on this particular
chart that you anticipate that sometime in the future you're going to have
some portion of a 640-acre A TV park for recreation.
MR. WILLIAMS: We will make the adjustment to include that
note as discussed, and can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but that has a bearing on the level
of service standard in your chart on Page 98. Your chart on Page 98
would be substantially modified if you recognized a portion ofthat
640-acre ATV chart somewhere in that five-year period of time.
All I'm suggesting is that we should be realistic. We believe we're
going to be able to solve this problem and get that property. Shouldn't
some portion of that property be included in the inventory within the
five-year period of time? Just as an estimate. Or should it not
influence our decision to make a level of service standard selection that
is realistic?
MR. BOSI: And for the purpose ofthe adjustment we will make
to the levels of service if we do go to 2.7, that's not part of the discussion
that we talk with DCA. We don't say we're going to adjust our levels of
service because of planned acquisitions. We say our levels of service is
based upon the recognition ofthe state and the federal and the private
recreational amenities that are provided, and this is more appropriate as
we have more moving forward.
What we plan to acquire to satisfy that level of service is part of the
AUIR process but isn't a determining factor of what we should
determine our acceptable level of services is at. That is more reflective
of what is provided by those other outside entities. But I understand
your point.
And to further kind of muddy the waters, the County Manager did
point out that on Page 96, that original chart that we had provided
towards, would it be affected by the acreages of the A TV park? It
would, and it would even be further reflected, because that chart shows
that 2.9, the current levels of service. So it would be adjusted
appropriately at the 2.7.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Commissioner, you have a couple of
options, I think. And one was one that was stated. We could put a
note reflecting the litigation and the acreage so that it's kept. I think the
other option that you're suggesting is that we could include some
portion, anticipating the five-year window, the A TV park, some
acreage.
My only point in -- if -- my recommendation would be to choose
the former. And the reason is, I think that, you know, this question of
the A TV park, the lands, whether it's going to come to us or not is still a
matter of ongoing discussions.
The 640 acres, if you put it into the inventory, it's going to show
that you have a tremendous excess of regional park land. And frankly,
I don't know that that's a fair characterization of the regional park land.
You know, you have discussions of other parks that are
in -- facility-wise in the planning. And I think going to adding those
acres, until it's done -- I mean, for us in the next cycle, ifthe litigation is
satisfied, we have some understanding that yes, we're getting the 640
acres of ATV, we would include it in the inventory at that time and
show it in our plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then you would suggest a change in
the level of service standard, I presume, for moving forward.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and that might be the safe thing at this
juncture. You know, keep 2.9, keep the ATV in a note--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 2.7.
MR. WILLIAMS: Keep 2.7, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And go to 2.5 if you get the additional
property, maybe, or whatever is reasonable.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, if -- ifI'm hearing you right, if we put a
note about the ATV, the recommendation is 2.7, it would be included in
future AUIR cycles if it does come to be. That's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we would have an opportunity to
make a decision about adjusting level of service standard at that point in
time. Okay.
Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Just one comment that is straightforward and doesn't
require a lot of discussion, and actually is a recognition of the work that
the Board of County Commissioners does, and through Marla and Barry
with the parks department.
But last Thursday I was at Naples Community Hospital and
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta were both there. And
it was a presentation regarding sustaining excellence.
And they were at separate tables, Jeff, so there was no Sunshine
issues. But--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They were in the same room.
MR. BOSI: -- what it was for was the determination by the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic organization from
the State of Minnesota, that has made a determination, they went
through every county in the United States, every county in Florida, and
in Florida, Collier County was rated number one for health outcomes,
meaning the healthiest citizenry of all the counties in the State of
Florida.
And I think that has a direct bearing upon the commitment that this
Board of County Commissioners has to the park system and the
recreational amenities that are provided to our citizens.
So just a recognition of the good work that Barry and Marla does,
and the direction that you provide, that has a direct and tangible effect
upon the health outcomes of our citizens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And when we add that 640 acres to the
ATV, our health level will increase tremendously, so I'm looking
forward to that.
Thank you very much.
We need to take a break; we're 10 minutes overdue. We'll take a
break and we'll return in 10 minutes, okay.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we're back
. .
III seSSIOn.
I'm going to distribute these to the audience, members ofthe
audience.
Chief, how are you?
CHIEF SMITH: Mr. Chair, I am fine, other than I have a little bit
of a cold.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just keep your distance.
CHIEF SMITH: I may not sound exactly like myself this
mornmg.
We have our jail program on Page 109, Category B facilities, as a
leadoff. The report remains static from last year. I'll entertain any
questions if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've done a great job.
CHIEF SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really have. We appreciate your help in
reducing our costs and maintaining the protection to our citizens.
CHIEF SMITH: I will give you a little bit of an update with
regard to our 287 -G program as it's relevant to jails. But to date we've
sanctioned for removal of2,680 illegal criminal aliens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those are people who would otherwise
be occupying our jails, I presume --
CHIEF SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and committing more and more
cnmes.
CHIEF SMITH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2,700 criminal aliens, right?
CHIEF SMITH: 2,680.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you've provided us information in
the past about the fact that many, if not all of these, are repeat offenders.
Is there any rule ofthumb concerning the number of crimes each of
those people might have committed over the period oftime?
CHIEF SMITH: What we're finding in our study is that most of
them have at least six criminal acts attributed to them prior to their
removal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow, that's a lot of crime off our streets.
CHIEF SMITH: It is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good job. Thank you very much.
CHIEF SMITH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those are just illegals.
CHIEF SMITH: That takes us to Page 119, and that is our law
enforcement. And we do have some changes with regard to this. And
I don't know if I was supposed to speak to theIll or if Amy was going to.
But there was some discussion regarding the 1.96 officers per thousand
population.
When we presented to the Planning Commission, they wanted a
more relevant metric as opposed to population, so we're trying to like
see if square feet makes sense.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Amy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the
record.
We're going to be talking about this in a little bit more detail when
we look at the law enforcement impact fee in December. The law
enforcement impact fee study will reset the level of service, based on
current conditions.
But right now what we have is a level of service standard based on
the past impact fee study of 1.96 officers per thousand population. We
also have a cost per officer attributed to that.
And over time what's happened is we've had an inventory value
based on those two components that's gone from $98 million to $157
million, based on AUIR calculations, indexing and a number of other
calculating factors.
But what's causing this confusion then is if you bring that back
down to a cost per officer, it looks like we have 949 officers, when the
actual number of certified law enforcement officers right now is 656.
So obviously this is the ongoing problem, and we've had these
discussions with the Planning Commission, is that the level of service
and then how that level of service translates into the AUIR needs to be
recalibrated.
And with discussions with Mike, what we're looking at is we know
right now in the draft study that the actual level of service based on the
656 officers is a level of service of 1.84 officers per thousand
population. We have an available inventory right now of263,171
square feet and, like I said, 656 current certified law enforcement
officers.
And so what seems to be making the most sense is to translate then
that down to a square footage per officer, which can then easily be
assigned a value. And therefore we know, as we need to add officers
based on increases in population, we also know an attributable square
footage that would need to be added, and that could be assigned a value.
As so this is going to get away from the more complicated calculation
that we've been using with this cost per officer. So we've just changed
the components a little bit.
We're not making a recommendation to change the AUIR for this
year, but upon adoption of the impact fee study and that level of service,
we will then ask for your direction to incorporate it going into the
20 II -- the 2010-11 AUIR.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have some questions about that. But
go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned. I know we've got a
very low crime rate, but I'm concerned of how many officers that we're
allocating here. I don't think you got much reserve. And that gives
me some -- I'm a little concerned about that, because of the fact that we
have a low crime rate. And that's one of the things that was brought up
in that discussion, why this community is good. And I just don't want
to see us going the opposite direction. Ijust don't want to see people
burned out to the point where they can't retain the level of proficiency
that they're doing now.
CHIEF SMITH: And all those are very good points, and thank
you.
We have never used the AUIR as the rule or guide of how we
budget or how we staff. We have always used the Sheriffs
certification to the Board for what we need to do with regard to funding
for our available staffing.
What they do with the AUIR, ifI understand it correctly, and I
don't presume to know everything about it, that's why we have good
people like Amy and Mike. But what they're trying to do is come up
with a number that suits thc impact fee study. And that's all well and
good, and we can ascribe to that. But understand that, you know, we
still are going to staff with what we think we need to do the job.
If you look at the charts on here, what you're actually talking when
you adopt that as a level of service is going back to a staffing matrix that
we haven't had here since 1985, which, you know, crime was a lot more
severe then than it is now.
So, you know, we're keeping an eye on that. We keep an eye on the
occurrence of crime, calls for service. Those are better indicators of
when we need to bring on staff than the AUIR is. I think they're just
trying to arrive at a point in time where they can attribute how much
square feet of a building we need to accommodate a law enforcement
officer. As most of you know, they're not occupying a lot of building
for a lot of their day, they're out in the green and white doing what they
do best in this county, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your
explanation. I appreciate it. I think that gives a level of comfort to all
the citizens, especially when you start talking about officers per
thousand and how it relates to the impact fees and so on. Thank you so
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it makes me feel more comfortable
that you're using real life data rather than an AUIR for determining the
staffing requirements. But AUIR must be ranked very high on the list
oftotally incomprehensible programs in the government. But
nevertheless, thank you.
I have real, real concerns about why we would have a level of
service standard based upon the amount of square feet that a Sheriffs
employee should occupy. That might help you internally, but from the
standpoint of a citizen who is interested in lower crime rates and greater
safety, it means nothing. And so I guess I could appreciate your
concern because of the internal calculations that are necessary by the
AUIR, but I just don't get it.
MS. PATTERSON: IfI may, we're not moving away from the
officers per thousand population. But then for the purposes ofthe
AUIR -- that will still be your adopted standard. Right now it's 1.96
officers per thousand. And that was based on the 2005 impact fee
study. The current impact fee study is calling for a level of service of
1.84 officers per thousand population, based on existing conditions on
the ground today.
If you want it to remain at the 1.96 officers per thousand, that can
be done. And you could have a higher standard than your impact fee
calls for. We could move down to the 1.84 officers per thousand. So
that will be your standard. But then for the AUIR purposes, we'll take
that standard and then apply the calculations to determine the things that
need to be built for your work program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, but wouldn't that be included in
government buildings?
MS. PATTERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? Why not?
MS. PATTERSON: We have a law enforcement impact fee. All
the law enforcement buildings are included as part ofthe law
enforcement fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But wouldn't you include that in law
enforcement buildings then?
MS. PATTERSON: Those are the buildings we're talking about
building.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. But I'm talking about
staffing.
MS. PATTERSON: I understand. The level of service that has
to be established involves the actual officers. But where we put those
officers or the facilities needed to support those officers is the building
side ofthe law enforcement impact fee.
I'm not being clear? The inventory oflaw enforcement for impact
fee purposes is buildings, land, equipment, patrol cars, everything that
you need for those officers to be able to serve the population on the
capital side.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So you're merely
taking that and converting it into a standard that helps you turn it into a
capital improvement investment.
MS. PATTERSON: That's right. We're still starting with an
officer per population, but we're converting it to a capital asset.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay.
Okay, Mike, you have a comment?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, just for clarification, there are no
improvements being suggested by the Sheriffs Department for this
AUIR. You will get an opportunity for this detailed discussion during
the impact fee presentation that Amy will make, but for this purposes
there are no proposed improvements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very good.
CHIEF SMITH: However, I would like to make a statement on
the record that we understand the current situation absolutely, and we
have been cooperating with the Board and with county staff to try to
hold the line, because we all understand where we're at with regard to
budget and funding, especially with regard to capital projects.
But Ijust want to keep out in front of the Board the understanding
that at some point in the very near future we are going to need a
substation in Golden Gate Estates. The calls for service, even though
they're down slightly in other areas, that area has remained what they've
been for the last couple of years. And with the widening of 858, it's
now about 20 feet from our exterior door of this modular little mobile
home that we've got sitting there on school property.
So at some point we'd just like to be able to have a permanent
facility to service the residents ofthe Estates with regard to law
enforcement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thanks.
CHIEF SMITH: For the record, Chief Greg Smith, Chief of
Administration for the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we're going to hear about libraries,
right?
MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director, for the
record.
Starting on Page 130, talks about libraries. And we have no capital
improvements planned. And we're still buying books to meet the level
of service standard for items per capita.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what effect do you think this recent
trend towards electronic book access is going to have on the library
system?
MS. MATTHES: Well, I couldn't buy my crystal ball, because
we didn't have money for it, but what I tend to read is it's mixed.
People really don't know right now. This -- with the technology
improvements, people are buying more electronic devices and they've
reading more books on line electronically, whether downloads or
purchases directly from vendors.
The book publishing market still publishes an inordinate amount of
print books annually. I think our population right now is still more
book-centered than electronic-centered.
I go back to thinking about how your children learned to read.
Are they going -- are the children of the future going to learn to read
electronically or are they going to be better served by a print book that
they can handle and mishandle and really get into?
So things are changing, but they're not changing that fast for public
libraries. And we're kind of -- we try not to be on the bleeding edge of
anything. We try to keep up with technology but to provide for all of
the services that people want.
We've discontinued a number offormats through the years. Right
now we're discontinuing audio cassettes, books on audio cassette. And
that's problematic for a few people who still have cassette players and
don't have DVD players. But we make those transitions as it is
appropriate for our population.
So yeah, electronics downloads are becoming more important, but
still books are too.
What I hear mostly is that the fiction and straight text material is
great on line, not so much all of the illustrations on the readers that are
available today. So there's still a technology gap.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Questions from the Board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
EMS?
MR. BOSI: That's at 146.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
CHIEF PAGE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services.
A few things I did want to point out is that our running call volume
went up about six percent over last year, about 2,000 more calls.
Additionally, there were another 1,000 transports, about half of that.
As of last night, our current response time goal of urban under eight
minutes is 81.7 percent, rural under 12 minutes is 86.6 percent, and the
current percentage of call versus transport as of last night was 64
percent of the time that we respond to a call do we transport.
This really hasn't changed much from what you saw last year.
One thing I would point out, though, is on Page 153, that EMS cost
per own station, that would drastically go down due to the impact fee
study next year when you see it. So that would also bring down the
figure on 146 of additional revenues required.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how much would it bring it down?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, I don't know quite yet, so -- I don't have
those figures. But that's what we're anticipating anyway from the
impact fee study.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else you want to
highlight for us?
CHIEF PAGE: No. I was directed not to whine, so I won't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Just one, Chief Page, if you'd be so kind. I understand that some
citizens have some concern over the amount of overtime that's being put
in with EMS personnel, and concern has doubled.
And one is the fact that when you get too much overtime in, the
person's efficiency, especially when they're working with people's
health, safety and welfare, has a tendency to drop off.
And number two, the cost of overtime sometimes gets to be
atrocious.
Has there been a recent cost study as far as overtime versus
bringing on new personnel?
CHIEF PAGE: Not necessarily a study. But you have to
remember, when they have those comparisons, that in EMS, overtime
starts after 40 hours, and with the fire districts and law enforcement it's
actually 53 or 57 hours, I'm not sure which.
So when you look at a -- the way that we do it is you take
somebody's annual salary, and because of the way the schedules are,
there's built-in overtime. So we have our employees start at a lower
hourly rate to adjust for that overtime that they naturally have
scheduled.
But the overtime has not been really significant. I mean, we have
a number of part-time or job bank personnel that fill in those vacancies,
so -- we can certainly provide to you a comparison over the last three
years ofthe overtime, but you're not going to see any significant change
there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, that answered
your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, very much so. Thank you,
Chief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm a chief now.
CHIEF PAGE: Anything else I can answer?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think also when you start
looking at percentage of overtime paid plus the cost of bringing on
someone additional, you've got to look at the fringe benefits and all the
other things that incorporate adding personnel versus paying overtime.
And a lot oftimes you'll see that it's cheaper to pay overtime than to
bring new people on board and pay them the salary plus all the fringe
benefits that are entitled to them.
So -- but you've got to watch that. It's a fine line. And I'm sure
that you've got a handle on it.
CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, we're currently fully staffed, so there hasn't
been really an issue of that overtime filling in for vacant positions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions by Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
CHIEF PAGE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to our last item, which is
county government buildings.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities Management
Director.
You asked for the bottom line. We'll be doing nothing for the next
five years, maybe 10.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have a good day.
Any questions?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a -- move
to make a motion to approve the AUIR as presented, assuming that the
Planning Commission's recommendations are within the --
MR. BOSI: And to point out the modification that as the
recommendations contained in your book that Norm had provided as I
put on the visualizer for three -- ending recommendation number three
at the development order issue.
And also the understanding that the -- well, the recommendation
for the AUIR for Parks be adjusted to 2.7 level of service. I believe that
was the expression.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, included in my motion is
the recommended changes from the transportation administrator to
strike partially number three to ending in declining balance ledgers to
support development order issued. Parks and Rec to include the level
of service to 2.7.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For regional parks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For regional parks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There was a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Sneezed.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that was a second.
Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, did we cover the issue that
you went in great detail regarding the off-road parks for the
vehicles -- off-road vehicle park?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I think we covered that with staff,
and staff understands we will be including that.
(Noise interruption.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Must be in a bar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wouldn't surprise me. There's a lot of
those on those limerock roads out there.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Board. I believe that's all we have for
the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have to have a vote on this.
And we'll do the CIE next. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
***Now let's go to the CIE. Is there a motion to approve the CIE
with -- to include the CCPC recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Were there any other
adjustments to the CIE?
MR. BOSI: No adjustments. Just a clarification with Jeff.
Jeff, do we need to officially close the AUIR and then open up the
CIE? I'm not sure on the procedural aspect.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you'd like. But it's -- we know what we're
doing here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we've got a motion -- or do we
have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there something you want to tell us?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Commissioners, thank you.
An inadvertent omission from your booklets. As part of a
stipulated settlement agreement with DCA with the last change to the
CIE, date changes as highlighted on your screen having to do with the
schools' capital improvement program and their work program.
Previous language had simply kept the old dates and indicated we
would update them annually, and we had not done that at that time.
And the new language changes updates those dates and indicates
that we will continue to update them annually.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it be acceptable to change the
motion to include these changes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this language within the GMP
presently?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And adopted?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'll make those changes to
include.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the second, okay.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to wish
Commissioner Halas -- I understand he's going to be traveling
extensively, I just wish you safe travels on your trips.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that all we have to do?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir, you've satisfied the requirements.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then there is a motion to adjourn --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and we are adjourned. Thank you.
****************
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :17 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI ISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
W.
FRED COYLE, CHAT AN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
2t , as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY
CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
4 41 #
POIWCte �`
attest'43 to ,Cha lrsan
i i gnetare ohs%