Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/29/2011September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 29, 2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: o 149VT 09 TRO V 3 CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain NOV 0 9 7011 Melissa Ahern Brad Schiffer BY: Donna Reed Caron ....................... Karen Homiak / Fiala >/ Diane Ebert Hiller tom' Barry Klein Henning - r�____- ABSENT: Paul Midney Coyle r Coletta Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division Raymond V. Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Heidi Ashton, County Attorney's Office Tom Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 of 91 Misc. Corres: Date: _._ �2 +R y Item #:,lpZ Copies to: September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. BOSI: You have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, September 29th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting, and I will read the names of the acronyms so that everybody knows what we're talking about who might be watching who hasn't heard these before. It's the 2011 AUIR, which is the Annual Update and Inventory Report, the CIE, which is the Capital Improvements Element. Well, anyway. Let's stand for Pledge of Allegiance, and we'll get into the meeting. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please make the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms. Homiak is here. Ms. Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And Mr. Midney is absent today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. There's going to be some chairman's comments first. Well, first of all, we will be -- for those members of the public who are anxious to speak -- and I can see there's no one in the room that is -- had you been here, you would be allowed to, of course, enter into the discussion at the end of each category that we discuss. I wish all of you that aren't here were here. But thankfully we do have some people here who we need. Arld I want to congratulate Barry and Melissa for their reappointments to this board. You're both valuable, as is Ms. Caron, and I only hope that, Ms. Caron, you consider reapplying. You have been a great asset to this board, and I have been honored to sit next to you these years. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here, here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully you'll consider that. It would be good for all of us. And with that, the only other thing, we had this scheduled for two days. Hopefully we can make -- get through it in one day. This is also known as the annual smoke - and - mirrors report. Oh, I'm sorry. That's the budget we're talking about. I had to throw that in for Nick's benefit. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, let's go. Mike, it's all yours. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning/Land Development Services within the Growth Management Division. I appreciate your optimism for the speed of the hearing today or the meeting. Hopefully it will take one day. It's somewhat of a contrast, and you'll see -- I have a slight -- I have a short presentation to talk about the nuts and bolts of exactly what those acronyms, are, the AUIR and the CIE. It should take about ten minutes, and then we have our traditional agenda of presenters. And what you're going to see within the AUIR is a continuation of a reflection of the new growth environment that this county has witnessed over the last three to four years, continuation of the attention to planning for when those improvements are going to be needed based upon the projections for population, the population and Page 2 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting growth, and trying to establish what is that new reality, what is that new growth rate that we can expect so we can properly program and allocate with the resources and the infrastructure within the right places to optimize the efficiencies within the systems that we present. As I started, the AUIR, it's the Annual Update and Inventory Report, as the chairman has said. It's the annual one -year snapshot in time of the projected needs and required improvements for all infrastructure and service- providing departments, divisions based upon the population increases against the BCC - adopted levels -of- service standards, and it should be noted that this snapshot changes as the changes in the demand equation evolve. What does all of that mean? Basically, what we're trying to say and what we're establishing within the AUIR and the CIE is the projection. Over the next five years, what's the population that we're going to expect to have? Those popul- -- with that population comes the need to service the infrastructure and the services to provide the needs to those households. So what are the improvements that are going to need to be -- to be needed to satisfy those populations? And we build to a standard that's adopted within our Growth Management Plan for the majority of these categories. They're levels -of- service standards. These are things that the Planning Commission will have -- has opportunities to make recommendations upon the appropriateness to the Board of County Commissioners. As I mentioned, all the infrastructure and services provided in the departments take part within -- take part within the AUIR process. That's roads, drainage, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, parks and recreation, and schools. Those are your Category A facilities or your concurrency facilities. There will be some questions related to concurrency based upon the changes in the state law that we're going to ask the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on. I will hit that -- those points in -- a little bit later in the presentation as to -- and as the departments and divisions move forward. The Category B, the non - concurrency facilities; your jails; your law enforcement; the libraries; the emergency services; government buildings; and the two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri. As you can see, these are the major components that provide the services and the infrastructure that make Collier County and make our society and our economy function. So attending to these needs are critical to the continued growth, development, and the quality of place that Collier County enjoys. One of the questions is how do we get to the projections. One of the things that always -- I think the advisory boards, staff, public, decision - makers, politicians struggle with is projection, population projections. How do we get them? How do we know that they're accurate? How can we make sure that the expenditures that we -- that we plan related to those projections are appropriate? The Florida Statute requires that we utilize the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, BEBR's, medium population for our population growth. They provide the population over the next five years that we expect that is the basis of the AUIR, and they project our permanent population. David Weeks and the comprehensive planning team allocates that population based upon past trends of CO issues to make sure that the populations that are being projected are being allocated in the right geographic area, which helps us with the proper planning and placement of the infrastructure and the improvements that are being proposed. We also have seasonal population. As we know, we have a robust season that runs sometimes from October to April or May with various degrees of intensities within those months. The arrival -- or the BCC arrived upon the current method of projecting for our seasonal population by taking our permanent population and increasing by 20 percent, and that's what yields the seasonal population. Towards the end of this presentation, I will have the five -year population projection for BEBR, and we'll make some comments related to some of the changes within the growth environment that we had but also the significance of the 2010 census and the resetting that that provided to us and some extra slack within the system that is provided, and I'll explain those comments in just a bit. The next question related to the AUIR is, well, we've got the demand side addressed with the population, which comes from BEBR. And then the next is, well, how much do we build based upon those projected population, and that's all determined by your level -of- service standard. The formula for capital improvements is right there, the top line. It's your new population times your levels -of- service standard equals what's required within your capital improvements program. Library buildings are a Page 3 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting good example, a very straightforward example. For this five -year period we're projecting 36,316 people. The level -of- service standard that's currently adopted by the Board of County Commissioners is .33 square feet. You take the population that's projected against your required level of service, and that's what's required to be built. Within this example, library buildings has satisfied that -- has satisfied that concurrency, so there's no libraries being proposed. But this is what would be required. This is what the new population is going to be -- is going to demand upon the system, so this system has to expand to be able to meet the levels of service as we've prescribed them. Also the AUIR identifies new -- the new facilities that serve the population, as I just spoke about, but also the replacement for public facilities that will no longer be adequate within the five- year -AUIR time period. A sidenote on this: I believe next year you'll see a much more robust presentation related to the -- related to the replacement cost of all the assets that the county has based upon the direction that the county manager has initiated throughout this county division starting with the public utilities division of an asset - management program, and with that program, with that identification of the asset - management program, we're going to be able to provide a much more robust picture to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners to all of the improvements that are going to be needed, because when you add 235 lane miles in ten years, those lane miles need attending to. All of -- all of the infrastructure improvements eventually need attending to. Nothing lasts forever. There's a shelf life on everything. So we have to, as these improvements move forward, start to identify also the costs for replacements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you never take a breath between your sentences. The only reason I'm noticing is Terri's typing as fast as I've ever seen her type, so maybe you could just slow it down -- MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --just a notch, a little bit. MR. BOSI: I will. I will try to slow my patterns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BOSL• Any other reasons for the AUIR? There is one reason, and it's related to impact fees. The AUIR helps establish the rational nexus between the -- the imposition of impact fees and the improvements that are associated with those fees. For the Category B facilities, it really is kind of the safeguard to make sure that we're legally assessing the rate of the impact fees, the charges of the impact fees, and the expenditure of the impact fees are being allocated in the appropriate, lawful manner. AUIR helps establish to make sure that we're on solid ground within all those categories. It also gives an approximation of revenue over the five -year period as well as the costs. And it's not a budgetary document. But it starts the preparation for the budgetary discussions recognizing what's the approximate cost and what's the approximate revenue and where the gaps are within those so we can make sure that we can maintain the levels of service that we have expressed within the Growth Management Plan or make the appropriate adjustments. When did this all start? And one of the things that -- when I first started with Comprehensive Planning and I took over the AUIR project and a couple of the side projects that we've done for the AUIR so the Planning Commission become a little bit more familiar and secure with the way that we -- with the way that we do things, this county is the only county in the State of Florida that I know that not only has a CIE, Capital Improvement Element process, but also an AUIR process where we talk about the -- we talk about library buildings, we talk about jails, we talk about law enforcement levels of service, we talk about levels of service for government buildings. I haven't found a -- I haven't found a category (sic) that spends much time discussing with the advisory boards, with the Board of County Commissioners, and with the public what they think is appropriate for our -- the standards that we have in place and what needs to be changed or what needs to be maintained moving forward. Basically, the idea of the AUIR came from the basis of the original 1985 growth management laws that said, every county has to start to -- has to start assuring that infrastructure is going to be available for the populations that -- that we expect. The Board of County Commissioners back in the early part of the'90s identified the AUIR as a process to help -- to help ensure that those standards are going to be met. There's been some changes. And this is -- there has been some changes on the statutory level, which I'm Page 4 of 91 �t September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting going to talk to you right after -- this last slide talks about the AUIR and the CIE. Used to be two separate processes, and they used to create somewhat of a confusion. And that first slide when I said the demand equation changes on a regular basis, well, so does the revenue projections based upon the current trend. We had the AUIR being heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in November. We had the CIE being heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in April. There was two divergent pictures that were being painted, but they were focusing upon the same components, and that caused a great degree of confusion and misunderstanding. Based upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission and then ultimately the decision of the Board of County Commissioners, we -- last year we brought the two together, and we -- I think we found it was a successful project, and we've made the county manager's decision -- the board's decision to move forward and continue as one project. And like I said, both of them focused on the same thing, the levels of service and the needed projects to satisfy those levels of service. I mentioned a couple times House Bill 7207, a number of changes within the growth management regulations and structures, basically an overview not quite just related to the CIE /AUIR. The state has really pulled back. The state has pulled back and said, the locals, we're going to give you much more control over the decisions you make at a local level. Related to the CIE /AUIR, what that means is we no longer -- well, first, the CIE used to be an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. It is no longer an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. The CIE is the updating of the schedule of capital improvements, but legally it is not an -- it is not an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. And also, before, every locality, Collier County included, would have to send your Capital Improvement Element to the State of Florida, and that -- your Capital Improvement Element are your Category A facilities. Those facilities that make up concurrency. They wanted to make sure that those facilities that you had planned were moving forward and there was revenue identified for them moving forward associated with those. No longer do we send our CIE to state, so it's strictly going to be a local document. So those are the significant changes in relationship to 7207 and how it affects the -- you know, the CIE and AUIR. And, lastly, one of the last questions -- and we're going to ask the Planning Commission for recommendations related to concurrency. No longer is concurrency required for roads, no longer is it required for schools, and no longer is it required for parks. It's now an optional element. If you -- if this county decided that they no longer wanted to maintain concurrency for schools, for roads, for parks, we would have to amend our Growth Management Plan to remove -- to remove those components of concurrency. Within the staff report, staffs perspective is, the levels of service for standards that we have established -- one of the primary tools that we have to maintain the levels of service in the sense of place that Collier County has is the utilization of concurrency. The utilization of concurrency ensures that when an individual developer goes for a development order for a plat or an SDP, that the capacity is planned or under construction or in place to handle the demands of that individual development order. I'm not sure what the benefit would be to take those assurances away from the development process. And another thing -- another thing that -- allowing or -- and maintaining roads, schools, and parks for concurrency is during the -- during the rezone process, during the Site Development Plan process, the plat process, it ensures that the contributions that that individual development order is going to be required (sic) is going to be made to meet the extra demand that their units are going to place upon any one system. So from a staffs perspective, concurrency management, we believe, has helped ensure the levels -of- service standards as prescribed within the Growth Management Plan, and staff feels it's still the most effective way to maintain those prescribed levels of service. This is a snapshot, and I believe it was within your staff report, and it just -- it documents AUIR starting in 2006 all the way up to 2011. And the most important, I think, column is that last column, the growth percent annualized, meaning what is the percentage of growth we expect in terms of population on an annual basis? Page 5 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting In 2006, the population projections were -- provided a 6.2 percent annualized growth rate. And as you see, 2007 and 2008 it began to slow down to where it bottomed in 2009. The past -- the past -- 2010 and 2011, right --just under 2 percent, that looks more and more to be what the projections are for growth, at least moving forward over the next 5 to 10 years for the county. And based upon that the planning prospectives and the time frames associated with when those new improvements are going to be needed is being calibrated towards that growth rate and when that growth rate's going to trigger that next needed improvement for any one of the facilities. A sidenote, when I was talking about how much do we build, most of the -- most of the divisions, most of the departments are related to a population, strictly a population base. As I said, libraries is .33 square feet per person. Roads is an exception, and what roads is is more of a real -time concurrency where we're out there with traffic counts at the various stations looking at the volume to capacity for each road segment and what is the utilization for each one of those road segments related to its capacity, and that is how the transportation planning -- obviously, it is related to population, it's related to those units because those units are the ones that create the demand and create the trips associated that put the -- or that occupies the capacity on the road, but it's not strictly, well, we're planning three thou- -- or 36,000 people in the next five years, we need this many roads. It's more of a real -time concurrency, and it was one of the efforts in 2007 that we went through with the Planning Commission related to the AUIR, trying to see if we could bring that real -time concurrency approach not only to -- not only to transportation, but to some of the other divisions and departments. We found that it's a little bit more difficult to quantify with -- say with the library in terms of that actual usage, but we do provide, within your package, the demand statistics for each one of the divisions, departments, for what kind of change they've had within terms of -- within the organization related to year -to -year fluctuation. And the goals for today's meeting -- this is the last slide, and then we'll move on to the more interesting components -- asking the Planning Commission to accept and approve the attached document is the 2011 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities and then to give the BCC direction by separate motion and vote on each of the Category A and B facilities relative to the projects and the revenue sources, and with the A facilities, set forth -- set those forth and recommend them to set forth within the schedule of updates to the CIE for FYI (sic) ' 11 and'12. With that, that ends my presentation. Any questions on the overview of the process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'd like to do, Mike, is -- first of all, I'd like to ask the Planning Commission if they -- if we can resolve each category as we go through it and take the vote at that time. That might expedite, instead of waiting till the end and trying to figure it out then. Second of all, as we always have done, let's move a few pages at a time through the reports. I imagine some will go very quickly. But Mike's presentation was from the staff report that precedes the table of consents tab in the documents we got. There's 11 pages there, some of which where maps and things. Because that is not the AUIR elements itself, why don't we just take that section as a whole and his presentation to entertain any questions we have at this stage from Mike on the AUIR before we get into the individual items. Does anybody have any questions on his presentation or his staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, it's me. I have some. Why did the legislature remove the concurrency requirements or leave -- or provide the option to remove them? MR. BOSI: That would -- that would be a question that I could not answer. I wasn't part of the process and, you know, it would only be speculative, so I couldn't make that assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't have a lot of faith in elected officials, but there had to be a reason for this, because below them they have the people who are really doing the work, which is the staff members like yourself and different levels of Tallahassee. So someone up there was told to do this, and certainly the questions that would come about as a result of what could happen if that was done were discussed, and I can't imagine them going blindly forward without having the reasoning, and basically it's based -- what's behind the intent of the law? And has anybody on your staff looked at that to see if -- what their intent was when they did it? MR. BOSL• Commissioner, I was at the Florida APA conference the 7th, 8th, and the 9th of this month in Palm Beach. Billy Buzzett, the current secretary of DCA, along with Mike McDaniel -- Mike McDaniel had made Page 6 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting presentations to this board during the public school facilities element adoption -- gave an hour -long presentation over the changes related to 7207, there are -- questions came up. And the only -- the only thing that Mr. Buzzett had provided was, he couldn't tell you what the legislator -- what the legislative motivation was behind it other than -- other than that 25 years of growth management has engrained each of the jurisdictions within the process of how to do good planning, and giving the locals the option to opt out is something they felt was appropriate. Now, they didn't -- they wouldn't talk about what those consequences could possibly be. And there was a tremendous amount of dis -rest amongst most of the public - service planners over the removal of these concurrency requirements, but they wouldn't get into specifics. And like I said, there's a tremendous amount of speculation that I could make on a personal basis, but from a standpoint of the manager of Comprehensive Planning, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to speculate in that manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is, one of the things you've asked us to do is consider whether or not we want to opt out or in on those elements that the legislature has allowed us to do so. And from my perspective, I'm trying to understand why that was even put on the table in the first place, not by us but by them, because that -- their reasoning would have a weight on any decision. I'm trying to understand what the other side thinks so we know -- put ourselves in their shoes, more or less. If you don't know -- and I'm sure, Nick, you don't have any further insight into it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean that facetiously. I mean, he probably -- I mean, Mike's probably gotten all the information he can from you on the matter. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would imagine -- we've talked to a few people. I guess I'll be a little more speculative than Michael will be in my position. If you get rid of concurrency, the next logical step is a mobility fee in terms of impact fees, a pay- and -go system where concurrency doesn't apply. A lot of jurisdictions are looking at that and moving towards that, eliminating concurrency, and then reducing that impact fee or modifying into a mobility fee. So I think -- we've talked with some of the jurisdictions, we've talked with some of the legislators, I guess, as well, the aides, and to try to make it a more developer - friendly environment, so if you go to eliminate concurrency and a mobility fee, you've pretty much got a streamlined approach, the development to move in as quickly as they can come online. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what would be the basis then of something like a mobility fee as compared to our system now, based on how many cars a project generates on the road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've looked at how many cars it would generate on the road and the average distance they would drive in a certain county, and that would be a mobility fee. Now, some of the more urban counties are looking at it for transit and bike paths. Right now you can only use impact fees for capacity improvements, lane lines. They are now using it to add transit, add bike pedestrians facilities. So mobility fees is much broader and can be used much broader versus a roadway impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would they be -- if the -- has any county gone to the mobility fee yet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Several have, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they use VMT or VHT, I think it is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't just use VMT. They use VMT. They don't use VHT. But they look at transit as well, too. There's a transit level of service they're starting to establish as well. For our county, we have two TCMAs where you don't count strictly just those links. Some communities, if you can imagine, expand that to the entire urban area, and then saying, put in a mobility fee there, which we're going to have to look at eventually, but that's what they're moving towards, especially the more urban counties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is your mobility plan a setup for the future conversion to mobility fees? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at this point in time, no, sir. We're sticking to what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how many counties have opted out based on the legislature's recent action; do we know -- have opted out of the concurrency and into something else? MR. BOSL• There -- there would be none at this time. They would have to -- the statutes require you have to go Growth Management Plan -- they have to amend the Growth Management Plan. So I have not heard of any at this Page 7 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're in the process. MR. BOSI: There may be some in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't -- if you opt out and you go to the mobility fee, that's one option. Are there any other alternatives to go to if you opt out? MR. BOSI: They do not express any -- they really don't express options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not by them, by the communities. Has anybody come up with a better creative idea? We may not have the best square box in the world. Is there another way to do it that is better? We ought to be looking at options. I'm just wondering if there are any. Has anybody come across any? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've looked at some of the urban counties, but better's a relative word. If you spend time in Orlando or some of these more urban counties, I don't think they have the same public facilities. So if their version is better, better for who, and that's a perspective opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more looking at alternatives. If there's a different alternative out there -- and Collier County is unique. And if we have a way of now being able to turn to an alternative that is actually better, we ought to certainly see if it is there and consider it. That's all I'm trying to find out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the alternative's out there, the mobility fee, and we will certainly look at that, how it would benefit or hurt Collier County, make a presentation to the board when the facts come out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also mentioned, Mike, real -time concurrency. We do have some new members of the board that may not have been here when that issue came up. And could you give us a real brief summary of what the -- how that applies and how it works, especially on roads, real time versus vested trips and all those good things that you guys like to bury us with. MR. BOSI: I'm going to defer to my boss. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's going to defer to his, so this is going to be great. And you're going to defer to who, Norm? MR. FEDER: Chairman, members of the commission, I'll be very brief. But for those that haven't been on the board, back in 2000 we came to a situation to address what was the disapproval of the theory that if you don't build it, they won't come. We didn't build anything; everybody came. We had a huge backlog, and I'm talking about transportation right now. We had the concurrency provisions, and I'll get to that in the presentation on roads. But essentially what it amounted to is we had an AUIR that was like this, a snapshot look at it, and the determination was that if we were okay on segments of roadway for concurrency, that everything was fine for another year. So I could have a roadway that, because it was very close to being at capacity and other things that have been approved would bring it beyond that capacity and well beyond it even during that year, it could go from being just at capacity, okay, to well beyond being okay before the next time we looked at an AUIR, and then we're way behind the curve. And the analogy I gave when I said, this doesn't seem to make sense, you're only looking at once a year on roads, whereas my daughter, who was then in college, asked her how she's doing for money, and she's goes, I'm in great shape, you know. I've got so much in my bank. Well, how much have you written and how much is outstanding? Has everything cleared? What do you mean? Well, you've written a whole bunch of checks, from what you've told me. Have you checked those against your balance and know where you really stand? Well, no. I called the bank, and they said I have this much money in the bank. That's effectively what we're doing by looking one time a year, not considering everything we had approved and how it likely is going to come online. So we worked through that process, and that's what we're doing right now, real -time concurrency. Everything we approved, we look at a time frame for how quick it comes on. Basically you've done that as what we called vested trips, so you do the actual traffic counts out there. You look at your vested trips, bring some of those online, and as we look at new development, we consider not only what the counts are today but also what we expect from what we've committed in the past to be around as we look at the Page 8 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUH?/CIE "Special" Meeting concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue about vested trips being counted on the road system to meet the requirements of real -time concurrency, it makes sense, just like the checkbook does. But if you have a check that's written and you know it's not going to be cashed in ten years, you've still got that money in your account. You could utilize it for something somehow, as long as you know in the back of your mind you've got to have that reserve. That has occurred a lot because of the economy. We have piles and piles of vested trips out there that are not real. We have projects that are 90 percent off their sales marks. Roads are being put in to sustain those vested trips that are not really happening. What effort are we going to to bring real -time concurrency real? MR. FEDER: That real -time concurrency was brought to you right after about 2000 with what I said. We're now obviously in 2011. There's been adjustments over time. We have not brought on vested trips for a number of years now, recognizing that -- just that situation, that the trips aren't coming on as fast. What you're talking about is almost ghost trips. We have developments, as the chairman's pointing out, that came in for 699, maybe because 700 was the DRI. They came in, got approved for 699, they built 399, and the whole built area is already built out. So the 400, we've started trying to take those into account and understand that those are trips that are not likely to come onto the network. So we've tried to respond to that in the process. And when we talk about concurrency, we've driven it by "growth pays for growth," because impact fee is how we pay for our capacity in transportation. So if we don't have growth, we're not paying for it, and yet the good news is we're not having concurrency problems because we're not growing. That's what you're going to see in our presentation very shortly. But, essentially, we do acknowledge that while we're trying to make it real time, we're trying to make it real real -time. So we haven't assumed -- and, Nick, am I correct on that? For the last couple years we haven't brought on MR. CASALANGUIDA: We only keep approximately one- seventh of vested trips. If a project had, for a round number, 700 trips, we keep a static one - seventh of that, a hundred trips in the trip bank spread out through all the links in that project, recognizing that they're not growing that fast. The goal was to keep them in there for a period of seven years and then have them all in and then stop, but we stopped doing that. We just kept a static one - seventh in there and wait till the project builds out as kind of a placeholder to see how they're doing, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's match real -time concurrency with a real -time occurrence. What did you do with Hacienda Lakes? They showed an -- a reasonably high absorption rate that was their ability to show. I mean, it's hard to dispute absorption rates. And it seemed unrealistic, but they got in, and their -- I think their buildout was seven or eight years. So did you accept their buildout process, or did you accept a hundred units per year; how'd you manage that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And it's a good question, because it clarifies a good segue. This commission never sees concurrency. Concurrency's done at the development -order stage. What you see is consistency. That's what the Planning Commission reviews when they do a DRI or PUD. You look at the five -year program, and then with the DRI you look out even farther to see what's existing, plus committed. That's part of that Question 21 for the DRI. So you only see consistency. Is the project consistent with the future plans of Collier County's road program, if you're using roads only as an analysis. So that's what you see. If along the way, the DRIB become vested and they do that reanalysis, we would plug in those trips at that one - seventh and then see how they materialize every year with those development orders coming against our road program. But you're not looking at concurrency when you see a DO in front of you as the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But because they put a schedule on the table that gave an absorption rate that was considerably higher than what you're now saying you would normally use as a proportionate share of their vesting, say they could perform that and they hit the roads, or say they're -- you don't know it, but they are going to be able to do that, how do you then judge other projects in the area for concurrency that may add more to the road than would be allowed by what they said they would do, even though you didn't necessarily take that to be the truth? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We -- there's two questions. It's concurrency and consistency. For concurrency, I only look at real -time, what's on the road, and I look in the future for a DRI, that one - seventh, approximately, what Page 9 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting they would develop annually. For consistency, when a rezone comes in, they have to look at other projects in consideration. So they would have to look at Hacienda in its entirety in terms of approved projects coming in. So if a rezone came in across the street from Hacienda, we would not look at -- not only look at our concurrency management system, projected out five years for consistency with our CIE, we'd also ask them, well, you realize Hacienda's coming online as well, too. They have a traffic report. Consider that in your impacts to the roads as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got two systems going on simultaneously. One is concurrency and one is consistency. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. That helps. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Does what you say about -- also help protect for redevelopment, I mean, so that -- it does not? MR. FEDER: If your trip is not out there, it's assumed already -- it's already gone through the process, so you're looking at your background trips plus what we think is vested. One of the concerns is that vacancy rate, because it's assumed that it's in that background trip because it's already developed, it's already out and done, and in reality it's not going to come back again, and so that trip's going to come on the system and it's not going to go through any review process or any application to improve the facility to meet it. So that's one of the issues we've raised as a concern is that vacancy rate. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your change of use -- there are two things. Right now the board has exempted that impact fee as a waiver right now. What we do is we look at, if a project comes in and develops, is there new net trips to the system? We still they would still be subject to concurrency because they've not waived that requirement in our Growth Management Plan or LDC. So if a commercial building came in to redevelop another -- you know, that building, if it was more intense and that road was failing, we would not allow them to develop under the concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. I appreciate it. Mike, I'm going to move through the pages then, if that's okay. You had talked about impact fees at one point. What comes first, the impact -fee study or the level of service determin- -- the level of service that we set? MR. BOSI: They're separate. The impact -fee study, those comes first. The impact -fee study basically assesses what assets that general purpose county government, Collier County Government, has for that one facility and what is legally able to classify as capacity, and it sets that capacity. And it says, this is -- your capacity is at X. All new people who are -- come into the system have to provide their proportionate share to make sure that we maintain X. So that's your level of service -- that's your level of service that's established with your impact fees. Your Growth Management Plan establishes a level of service and tries to be equal towards what are impact fees, but sometimes it could be -- sometimes it's -- sometimes it's higher than what it is. It couldn't be lower -- it couldn't be lower than your impact -fee level of service, but it can be higher. And you've got that case in some of the various areas such as -- EMS is one of those prime examples where the level of service for the impact fee -- because of leased facilities and other issues such as that, the impact fee is much lower than what the adopted level of service is. So the impact fee and the adopted level of service are two separate components, but the level of service identified within your impact fee needs the AUIR to make sure they were maintained in that X of what we're charging against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You ever hear about Alice in the rabbit hole? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was just going to --the commissioner asked the question, the chicken or the egg, which comes first. Your impact fee has a component as a variable level of service. So, you know, the board sets a level of service, we do the calculation to set the impact fee. Based on the impact fee that you set, you collect revenues, you build, and then you -- you know, you establish -- so it's a circular question, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one that may come up in some of the discussion today, and I kind of wanted to get your snapshot on it before I went into those issues, so I appreciate it. On Page 2 of your report we're talking about Category -- on the top of the page we're talking about Category Page 10 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting B facilities. Does the new legislation change anything in regards to Category B facilities? MR. BOSI: Not to my knowledge, that it has any relationship in terms of the financing for the AUIR/CIE relationship to the Category B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we do have impact fees related to Category B facilities. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those impact fees are as a result of what we've determined to be levels of service for those Category B facilities? MR. BOSL• Those impact fees are -- those impact fees specifically determine their own level of service. Those impact fees -- every time we update our impact fees, Tindale Oliver, or whoever the firm is, goes out and makes the assessment, what is our capacity, what is the level of service we're providing. It's not always -- it's not always -- it's not in agreement sometimes with what our adopted level of service is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Through the Category B, if everything -- if we move things to Category B instead of Category A, what is the significant difference? MR. BOSI: The -- well, one -- the obvious is, it's no longer going to be included within your Capital Improvement Element update. It's no longer part of that schedule. And I guess one of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, would Nor n have -- would Norm be upset if he was called a Category B from now on? MR. BOSL• No. If we moved it to Category B, but what -- the question is, are you going -- are we going to move it to Category B and eliminate concurrency? That's the question. Because the CIE is a local document, as the AUIR is a local document. So if it's in the CIE or if it's only in the AUIR and we move transportation to a Category B facility but we still maintain concurrency, the relevant significance is minimal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why wouldn't we want to move transportation to Category B? MR. BOSI: Well, I guess the better question, what benefit do we gain by moving it to Category B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. You've got two categories in front of us here today, and I'm trying to -- I understand what the headers say, but in practical application we don't seem to have any regard whether they're A or B. MR. BOSI: It does. It does have a practical application because you remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm trying to get to. MR. BOSI: Remember, Category A facilities, those are the concurrency facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're not required to be anymore. MR. BOSI: They're not required to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: No. But if we're -- so if we -- if we would drop concurrency for any one of those components, we'd move them to Category B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And they still would have impact fees -- MR. BOSI: They still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we still could apply real -time checkbook concurrency? MR. BOSI: No. No, you couldn't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm getting at. So what would we lose? We'd lose the real -time issue. MR. BOSL• We'd need to apply concurrency at the DO -- at the plat and at the SDP level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you can't apply concurrency in Category B, then how do you enforce the level of service? MR. BOSI: We don't enforce the level of service. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you collect impact fees to regulate or to make sure you're consistent with the levels -- MR. BOSI: As I said, those impact fees -- the adopted levels of service, that's what the board says, this is our ideal. It's only expressed in the AUIR for the Category B facilities what that levels (sic) of service is. In the impact fee, in the impact -fee study, they say -- they express what your real level of service is, what your capacity -- what your capacity is, what your system is at, and that's what you're allowed to charge against. Page 11 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting Example is your EMS station. Your EMS station, your impact fees -- your impact -fee study says -- has a rate about one unit per 34,000 people. That's what's in the impact -fee study. That's the level of service in the impact -fee study. The board has the level of services that is one unit per 16,400, much higher -- a much better level of service. That's an aspirational goal. If we don't make that, it's just the Board of County Commissioners saying we have to do a better job making that goal. But the impact fee -- the impact -fee study is -- identifies your actual level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Category B gives the local municipality more flexibility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm wanted to say something. And the reason that's important is, some of this insistence on a five- or three -year timetable on all the Capital A elements to the extent, like roads, if we had some more flexibility without having to come back through and go through the hoops that maybe Category A requires versus Category B, we may be better off with Category B to provide the flexibility when projects in selected areas don't meet the levels of buildout they expected and we have ten -year buildout instead of one -year buildout. And Norm has been wanting to say something, so -- MR. FEDER: I'll hold on the last statement, Mr. Chairman. But what I will tell you is -- to your question. Originally, the Category A was where concurrency was required by the state, so your element's in there. B was set up because this board decided that it wanted to encourage a level of service for certain attributes, and the other was a required level of service that they set for attributes. So that's the difference in many respects between Category A and B is the state set up what was required in your CIE to have a concurrency process which is now changed. It's now optional at the local level. I'm not sure Category A or B sets you greater flexibility under where you are and where you're moving but depending upon what you're trying to accomplish, and I'm not sure I know what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to ferret out what -- now that we have additional flexibility -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- offered to this county -- MR. FEDER: What are the options? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is the best way to go. Because every time a project comes forward and issues come forward, we hear different reasoning based on how stringent it has to be because of concurrency. Concurrency's a good thing, but the problem is concurrency is real hard to management when you don't have consistency in the absorptions that are going on in this economy, and we don't even know where we're going to be going in the future. If you read a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, we're still the worst place in the country as far as sales go. So the probability of us needing six -- a lot of new six -lane roads until some of the vested trips catch up, I would hate to see us tied to a Category A facility for concurrency because it is a Category A, whereas, if we could put it in B and then decide as we go forward if we still need to keep it in that window of opportunity or not because we have more flexibility, we still get the impact fees, because the best thing out of concurrency is the fact we get impact fees. And you're saying no, so that's what I'm -- okay. MR. FEDER: I'm saying no because concurrency is trying to make sure you have infrastructure concurrent with the impacts of development. The impact fee happens to be a way to try to fund that. So I wouldn't tie those exactly the way you're hitting it. What I will tell you is, we probably ought to go through the road section, because I think what that's showing you is as we slow down as we have, the program has slowed down, you're not developing six -lane roads, we don't need it, and even your concurrency map is not showing it. I've only got two major projects in the next five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of those is only your major project because you're dedicated to have to do it by contract. MR. FEDER: Which is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oil Well. MR. FEDER: Already underway. I have two in the next five years. One is 951 between Golden Gate and Green, and the other one is 951/US 41 intersection. Those are the only two major capacity projects you have in the Page 12 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting next five years. You've got one proposed to come in at the intersection of Golden Gate and Wilson -- and we'll talk about that a little bit -- but other than that, you have no other capacity projects to construction in the next five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we have got items in Category A that are regulated by strict concurrency as our rules apply but Category B is not so much concurrency, can we look at moratoriums as solution to growth if it wasn't in A but was in B because it pulls it out of that required concurrency level? MR. FEDER: I don't think you could, no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the discussion gets into the Growth Management Plan/LDC. I think now with concurrency being reduced in terms of requirement, a lot of what's in your book could be modified very easily. But I think you're -- what you're asking is could we modify the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code to eliminate when a road is deficient or what -- how many -- when the next new road coming in, it has to be in that two -year window or three -year window or five -year window. That could be amended through an LDC change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I don't want to see happen, Nick, is as we go down the road, we have -- this county's going to have terrible funding for a long period of time. And we've heard various issues where a project's -- if it goes in and we allow it to go in because we have to, we can't impose a moratorium. We have to create the roads that were in our system or were allocated to be created so that project can go forward. I'm trying to get us out of that obligation if there's a way to do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand. You're asking the question. If we say no to somebody right now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- then we have to come up with a reasonable solution in a reasonable amount of time by our own rules, which were the state rules, which are no longer in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we undid that and moved us to a different category, would we still have to abide by those same state rules? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You -- it's not as much the category. It's what's written in the Growth Management Plan and the LDC you change. That almost becomes irrelevant. You would just be changing that. The only caution I would tell you is one of the -- if we do do that, I think we'd want to vet that with the public because a lot of people were concerned that, you know, if you don't have that capacity in place -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying to do it. All I'm trying to find out is what happens when we're completely out of money. And this county is heading in that direction with the drop in values again for -- coming up for next year and the sales still staying slow. It's a real concern. You have fire departments out there -- Golden Gate had just asked to -- they're looking at asking for another increase in ad valorem base, which is absurd. They just did it a year ago. Now they're looking for it again. What happens if the county does that? What happens if every municipality does that? The taxpayers in this county are going to be broke, the bubble's going to burst. And I'm trying to look ahead and say, okay, how can we put enough flexibility to take advantage of every piece of flexibility that we have so that if we have to move fast we can. MR. FEDER: And just the point that you're making is what is already happening. When I go over transportation, what you're going to see is, not only have you pulled away from capacity -- and actually your concurrency problems have pretty much dissipated predominantly as well -- you're trying to move what dollars you can -- which is not impact fees, but they're not coining in either because there's no growth -- to your maintenance. That's really where your issue's going to be a major concern is -- in the future's going to be the maintenance of what you have out there -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Right. MR. FEDER: -- because in a no- growth issue, it isn't capacity; it's maintaining what you have, both populations and just pure maintenance of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will have a lively discussion in transportation, because I do have some concerns over -- MR. FEDER: Be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some of the issues you mentioned. Page 13 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. FEDER: Be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll try to move quicklier (sic) through. And I apologize to this board. I'm -- I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get this stuff on the table. Go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I just want to make sure -- because the tendency when we're in situations like we are now with what's happening with our economy is to overrespond the other way, and I want to make sure that that does not happen, because back in -- before 2000 it seems like that was the way we went, and we tried to correct for that. That correction has been going along pretty well. I don't always agree, but it's been going along pretty well. And I just want to make sure that we don't try to overcorrect, because that's the tendency in government is to overcorrect in one way or the other. So I just would caution everybody to -- not to not look at these things, because I think they're all valid things to be looked at, but just not to overcorrect and destroy what we do have here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm? MR. FEDER: To Commissioner Caron's point, I think it's very well taken. Again, I can talk to transportation. And there's other things you're going to be discussing today. But in transportation it takes about six to eight years to bring a project from start to completion, to actually end of construction. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you have the same thing in your water /sewer district -- MR. FEDER: That's what I said. I'm just talking transportation. But the point is still well made. I'm trying to make the point that what we did back in the savings- and -loan crisis of the late 1980s and beginning of the '90s was to say, gee, everything's slowed down, nothing's going to happen anymore, and we didn't do anything through the decade of the '90s. When I came in 2000, it was under an emergency declaration. We are somewhat repeating history right before our own eyes, because now we've decided, it had gone from job one to job done, and what we're doing is we're wiping out in the work program those production phases that will bring something in in years eight, nine, and ten when we're actually going to need another project. There's only two, and then the cupboards are bare. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One added comment and we'll move on. Commissioners, if you make no changes at all, because of the House Bill 7207, the board at any time, if it manages a system as it does right now, decides that, you know, we have a facility that's failing, but we feel we don't have the money to do that, we can move it out and modify the GMP, the LDC, at any point in time they want to, without any repercussions from the state. Before it was -- MR. FEDER: It's not a growth management change. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Before it was, you had to send it up to the state for approval. No longer. Now it's a local decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. On Page 2, Item 3, Mike, you mentioned deferral or development issuance will occur for development not vested by statute. What is a deferral of a development order? What is that? I mean, someone submits a development order. What do you do when you defer it? Do you just -- MR. BOSI: You defer it means until the capacity -- until the capacity situation for -- related to the concurrency, because that's at -- that's at the concurrency application. You defer and say, you have to wait until the facility meets within the criteria for you to get the green light to move ahead with your project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long could you defer to? MR. BOSI: That I would -- I'm not quite sure of the -- because I don't apply concurrency on a regular basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, take the word "deferral" out and put "moratorium." Is there any difference? MR. BOSI: Oh, practically? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Probably not. I don't know if legally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't have moratoriums, I understand, right? MR. BOSI: I think legally there is a difference. Page 14 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, can someone explain to me how you can defer something indefinitely and not call it a moratorium? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can't defer it indefinitely. MR. BOSI: I mean, I don't think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then when you defer a development order, what's the policy for the length of what -- how long you can defer it, and who has had that happen to them in this county, and were they abided by the time frame that you're about to tell me? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have --we have deferred projects on 41, zoning projects for the --under consistency and said you're not able to go forward because there's no capacity in the five -year program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That is not an issue. We have said no to development orders along 41. And what the state has told us -- which the state no longer is involved -- is you have to have a plan. Now, definition of a plan, you start to design, you have a plan to acquire the right -of -way, and you have, you know, something coming down the road. It's got to be reasonable is what the state would say. So at 41 we had the PD &E, we had a developer contribution agreement, so the state said that was okay. I would imagine we would apply it the same way. If we said no to someone, they would say, well, what is our response? How long do we have to wait? Definition of reasonable would probably be a legal review, but we would have to have a plan to fix that deficiency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 3D, developer constructed improvements guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement. If there was a -- can you have a DCA for something that was in the Category B in lieu of a Category A? Are DCAs independent of concurrency? Are they independent of levels of service? Are they just general agreements in contracts between a development and municipality? MR. FEDER: The answer is yes. But practically speaking, you probably don't have a DCA if you don't have concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: What would be the impetus? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now that takes me to Page 3. The last sentence on Page 3 was -- I wanted to ask you about. It says, the recommendation sought from the CCPC related to the school district's proposed CIP is for a recommendation to include the district's CIP by reference within the CIE that no inconsistencies are contained within the district's CIP. This is a prelude to what we're going to get to in that tab for the school system. I didn't see the CIE or the CIP in my book. Do you know where the CIP is? MR. BOSI: Yeah. It -- I believe I had indicated in the staff report that I was going to include it within the CD within your packet. I did not include it in the CD in your packet. I sent that email to all of the planning commissioners with the link to the school district's CIP online. It's 197 -- it's 196 pages. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, Mike, we set a policy a long time ago that if it's over 10 pages, we get it hard copy, and we didn't. So I have a problem approving something I have not been able to read. So we'll get to that when we get to the tab then. But I wanted to point it out -- MR. BOSI: Last year there was provided by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't here last year. MR. BOSI: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, Mike, I don't know about everybody else on this board, but I did not receive a CD. MR. BOSI: No. As I said, I did not include the CD, and based upon that, I provided -- the link is an electronic copy, as the CD would be. So I apologize for the oversight on my part. But -- and, Mark -- and I guess you don't have to take my word for it, or Tom Eastman who works with the school district -- there are no improvements within the five -year program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no improvements on a lot of the -- a lot here, but if you notice, I have tabs on almost every page. I -- still doesn't mean we can't have questions, and it doesn't mean if there's no improvements we can't figure out ways to make things better even though the improvements aren't needed. There's other things that could be looked at, so -- and I've had questions about the school board, which normally I don't even mess with, Page 15 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting because that's a whole'nother messy arena in itself. But because I had questions, I couldn't answer them, and I thought, well, that's odd. I wonder why we even got this, and then I find out that it isn't even -- to get it, I have to go online -- MR. BOSI: You have to remember, concurrency related to the school district is not something that's applied by general purpose county government. That is a system that's administered by the school district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing you're asking us, though, is that there are no inconsistencies contained within the district's CIP. Did you personally read that entire CIP, 197 pages? MR. BOSI: I read the five -year -- the five -year -- the five -year window of improvements, and there were none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, did you read the entire 197 pages? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did not read -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody on staff read the 197 pages? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sounds like the healthcare bill. MR. BOSI: And I would say that it's -- I have -- the relevancy of the 196 pages of the school district's Capital Improvement Program are related to the facilities. And, Tom, you maybe want to help me out. But my purview and review of that, I don't know if that's -- that would be appropriate based upon the relationship. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't care if it's -- I don't really care too much about the school system in the sense that we can do a lot about it. I mean, they have their own rules, they have their own board, and they have their own everything. To jump into that would take as much time as this board has to spend constantly. So I wasn't looking forward to that. The problem I have is, if I personally have to say, yes, I agree, I'm recommending that the -- there are no consistencies (sic) contained in the CIP, I can't do that if I personally haven't read it, and I haven't, so that's where my problem lies. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically the only thing we looked at -- and, Tom, I want you to jump in. The only thing we focus on, in the past seven years I've been here, is that inconsistency with roads and schools. And where there are no capital improvements for schools, there isn't a conflict for us. So that's what we focused on as county staff. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chairman, the only improvements of a capital nature that we would make that would force an interaction between the county and the school district would be a new school or a major expansion or some type of change in our capacity of the school that would affect -- it could be utilities, it could be stormwater management, it could be roads, it could be something of that nature. But given the slow growth that we're having, we have none of those major capital improvements that would force an interaction between the school district and the county. Our major capital improvements relate to roofing projects, AC projects, things that are more internalized to the school district site that do not involve impacts external to the site that would involve the county. So albeit it a good point that you did not have the document to review in its 200 -page nature and that no one has reviewed it exactly for that, it's a safeguard, and certainly a quick -- an assured way to know that there are no inconsistencies, because every capital improvement would be internal to the site without county involvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the school board has a portion of our millage allocation. The state sets the maximum millage allocation for each municipality, or all the municipalities. I don't know what that number is. More municipalities within there that get pieces, including all the independents, all the separate municipalities, all the independent agencies, they start adding up to that top number. So if the school board has an opportunity to save money but doesn't or the school board has an expenditure that either retains or increases their millage rate -- and I'm not saying you're doing that now -- but retaining it instead of reducing it, that's less that other municipalities who may need that millage could possibly have as we approach that cap. So in a way you affect the county no matter what you're doing. But I certainly would like to review it myself before I tell anybody, and including the board above us, that it's not -- that there's no inconsistencies. Page 16 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting And I understand -- Tom, I respect your position, but I have many times read things and found them to be different than what others have read them as, and I would want to continue to read things myself. So, anyway, I appreciate it. On Page 4, your first paragraph has got some bold typing in it, and after that it says, it should be noted that public utilities, stormwater management, and transportation have developed a more complex storm area for the system of maintaining level of service, which dictates capital expansion. That means the simple example you showed us doesn't apply to those agencies because they've got their own -- especially like solid waste, I notice, has got a pretty unique one. So -- okay. Under level of service and impact fees, the fifth line down, local government cannot -- does not dictate that a local government cannot adopt a level of service that is higher than the achieved level of service. So if we get to a level of service that we have and, say, we've achieved that because that was our goal, we can still set it higher. What would be the motivation to do that? MR. BOSI: Increase the availability of that service to its population, increase the quality of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're assuming then that the achieved goal we were getting at was insufficient, so we would increase it. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, there could be a myriad of reasons why they may want to go beyond where they set the goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we lower it? MR. BOSI: Can you -- you can't lower it beyond what your impact -fee level of service is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the impact -fee level controls -- not the AUIR? MR. BOSI: It controls the floor of your level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can never go below that floor? MR. BOSI: Well, if you do, you have to drop -- your official level of service has to be correspondingly dropped to whatever was adopted within the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your statement on Page 5, 2011 provides the third year in which the annualized growth rate is projected at under 2 percent of the total population. This continued outlook is emerging as a new - growth reality for Collier County. Mike, I agree with you, and that's why I've expressed the things I have so far in just the beginning of this report today is because even though there are -- a lot of the report has not changed, and the attitude I saw coming in today was, oh, we should blow right through this, nothing's changed. Yeah, you're right, it hasn't. We haven't gotten any more money, and maybe it could change in a different direction than what everybody thought these meetings are about. So I'm going to be probing more for ways to reduce, not maintain. Anyway -- MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom of Page 5 you start a sentence, what is noteworthy about this fact is that those demands will not be accompanied by the impact -fee revenue associated with new units -- with units newly added to the market and, therefore, additional funds will not be generated to satisfy the increased demands placed on the system as units become occupied. Correct, because we shouldn't need them because we used the impact -fee funds for improvements already required by those supposedly- vested trips. Is there a problem with that? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: What that statement is intended to let the advisory boards, the Board of County Commissioners, the general public, know is that when those units start to fill back in, the system's going to experience some increased demands. It's going to get a little bit more difficult to get around. Well, there's not going to be impact fees that are associated with that increased demand that's traditionally associated with new units because these units have already paid into the system. And as they fill back in the real -- the real exertion, the real demand exertion that those units can provide will start to be experienced at its more -- at its more full level, when the vacancy rate hits more -- or starts to be reduced a little bit. So what that means is that we may start feeling a little bit tighter on the roads or may feel -- the libraries may start feeling a little bit more crowded or the parks may start feeling a little bit more utilized, and -- but there's not Page 17 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting going to be impact fees associated with it until those new units start coming on. But these are people moving into houses who have already paid with -- into the system. And just so -- and I guess it's kind of sort of the message that Norm was providing. We'd never want -- and I guess we're extremely cautious. We don't want to give the false sense that everything's going to be okay and the system can last forever that -- but there are -- there's more demand -- there's more demand out there than what we're experiencing right now. There's more demand that can be turned on like that then what normally would happen. Normally that new unit's going to have to be constructed. It's going to have to be built. All that process has to go through. All that has to happen now for the vacancy rate is someone has to move in, and then they start demanding the services that a typical household would. So we can see spikes, if the economy starts to improve. As our vacancy rate starts to lower, we can start seeing spikes within some of the experiences of the systems, and there won't be those corresponding revenues associated with it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's -- the discussion we've had as staff, it's the appearance of level of service, and especially prevalent for roads. If you say that based on the impact fees collected and what we've built this is the level of service you should expect based on what you funded, that's not the case. If we have a 30- percent increase in traffic throughout the county, you're going to see a demand for infrastructure. You're going to see people say we're crowded. We don't like this level of service. We're going to say, well, that's the level -of- service standard that we have. It's E, and we're functioning at E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, have you ever put a number -- population number on the vacancy rate or a percentage or something? MR. BOSI: Well, the census had a 32.5 percent -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty percent. It was about 30 percent. MR. BOSL• -- a 30- percent vacancy rate, and it was about 3 percentage (sic) higher than what was allocated in 2000. Just from personal observation, I think that it may be a little bit higher than what it was in 2000, but I haven't -- that translates in terms of number of units. It's -- I think it's about 64,000 units that are either vacant or held for occasional use, and making that determination between the two sometimes gets a little cloudy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, seasonal is within that vacancy number. Did you have any guesstimate of what would seasonal and what would be an actual vacant home, unoccupied home? MR. BOSI: There was -- there was a rough attempt out of that 64,000 -- 64,000 units that they had classified as vacant. I believe it was -- it was close to about 65 to 70 percent that was classified as held for occasional use. Now, the -- where the -- you know, the true accuracy of that, I mean, I think there's some flexibility within that. But in terms of the true number of vacant units that aren't prescribed as occasional use, probably about 20 percent of the -- probably about 20 percent of those 6, so probably 15- -- or around 12- to 15,000 units that are just vacant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And with the population, that would be about 45,000 people that are -- MR. BOSI: Yeah, right around 40 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would move in here without impact fee? MR. BOSI: Yeah. We could experience upwards of 45,000 people moving in that are just moving in to occupy the units and then exerting the systems, on the school system, on the park system, the library systems, the roads, and the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those built and unoccupied units, though, are paying their fair share of taxes so that the maintenance and operations of the road system is completed. It's the projects that have pledged to build higher amounts that don't, but we have maintenance and operation -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't let that go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got to keep you alert. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was going to say, you're not letting me sleep today. That's a negative. Page 18 of 91 no September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting Our General Fund contribution and maintenance right now is almost -- is very low, if not zero. So let's -- you know, we need to be very cognizant of that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- you can't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 5 on that Page 6, again, you have said something that sounds like a deferral, but here it says, do not issue development orders that would continue to cause a deficiency based on facility's adopted level -of- service standard. Now, the reason I keep pointing this out is, is if that is an option -- because this board was told we cannot refuse a development order for a long period of time. There's no moratorium allowed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's twice now you've referred to that as a possibility, and I'm a little surprised, and I want to make sure I understand what it is you're insinuating by those terms. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would think this Planning Commission and the board would want that flexibility. Now no longer are you required by the state to have that in place, but I think if it's a -- if it's a facility -- whether it's -- public utilities is different. They're still Category A and concurrency required. But let's say roads; it's an easy example. If you're in an urban area and it's -- that road is deficient and you say, we don't want it to get worse, and it's deficient 24 -- during that 12 -hour day during the a.m. peak, during lunchtime, during the p.m. peak, the board may say, we want to maintain that deferral, and we'll have a plan to fix it, but we don't want to let anything else to go forward. If we use Golden Gate Boulevard as an example, where it fails predominantly for almost one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon, under our concurrency system, it may be considered deficient. If the board said and the residents said, no, you know, we want that shopping center or we want some commercial development or doctor's office to go in, exempt that road from that requirement, the board could make that decision. Because it's not deficient all day long. It's just that one hour, and the people may say, we're okay with that. MR. FEDER: And that development might change patterns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we do that already with transportation exception areas, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they're outside of TCA, the TCME -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you just move the boundaries. I mean, seriously, that's -- you know, they just bring it to the board and say, you know, we need -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We no longer have to ask the state. The board can say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to understand what this board's options are as we go forward. And you guys are presenting some verbiage here that makes it appear as we have more options than we've realized in some cases, but I understand better -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. MR. BOSI: And clarification, that is strictly from our Capital Improvements Element. That's Policy 2.9, so that's existing language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know it's there, but we have limitations on how we use it. That's the point. Page 7, No. 3, transportation concurrency management database. What is that? MR. FEDER: That is our real -time concurrency that we do. We look at what the actual background trips are, putting on the one - seventh of vested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what does it tell you, like Project X has a certain number of vested trips per year over a long period of time so you can see how things pop? MR. FEDER: You can show that as to what's in the vested trips. Basically it's showing on a link, what is the current service volume, what is the current volume, as you have in your table in the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can send us a link that we can tie -- all of us can have so that we can tie into it and look at it when we have projects coming up; would you do that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I'd like to peer into that periodically just for confusion. Page 19 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: Keep them on their toes. MR. FEDER: Yours or ours? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we'll ever be able to do that, but -- MR. FEDER: Chairman, was that yours or ours in confusion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. FEDER: Was that for yours or our confusion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My confusion, then I can ask questions, see? That gets us through the staff report where we can start on the first item, but I notice that, Mike, you have suggested taking them out on a different order than is in the book. And I don't have a problem with that. We've just got to remember we're not going to go tab by tab. And before we go to any of them, it's 10:15. Why don't we take a 15- minute break and resume at 10:30 and go from there. MR. BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Have a live mike but nobody seated. That's fine. Okay. Thank you, Mike. And based on your schedule that you've got for the agenda, I think we're moving to Category B, Isle of Capri, first; is that right? MR. BOSL• Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want to give us a page number since there's not tabs? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One sixty- eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One sixty- eight? COMMISSIONER CARON: One seventy -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One seventy -one. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I've got 168. MR. BOSI: One sixty -eight is the beginning of the section. One seventy-one is the summary page, the traditional beginning of the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You -- oh, hi, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I forgot. You're not -- yeah, okay. I was looking at one of those guys in the fire uniforins to stand up, but there you are, okay. MR. SUMMERS: Good morning. I'm Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. Chief Rodriguez had a family emergency this morning, could not be here, so I'll pitch hit. If you'd like to address Isles of Capri and Ochopee both, Chief McLaughlin is here with me from Ochopee, and Captain Purcell is here from Isles (sic) of Capri. I don't have anything -- any additions or corrections to share with you this morning regarding the report, and I'm here to ask (sic) any questions that you might have. I might also just say, I thank you for putting these fire departments up front in your agenda this morning so they can get back on station today and even might ask if it might be appropriate to consider EMS as well if your time allows instead of later today, but I'll leave that up to you. But I am available to answer any questions, Chairman or the commission, that you might have at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we still in hurricane season? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know the answer to that, so that's why I think -- I definitely think you ought to be D on the list. So I have no problem moving that up after Ochopee. And you can thank Mike for the first two, so -- MR. SUMMERS: I understand. Thank you for that indulgence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll knock the first three out then. I guess we'll take it a section at a time. Does anybody have any questions? Let's start with the Isle of Capri Page 20 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting Fire Control. Does anybody have any questions with that segment of our pack? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, on the -- Page 171 under the level -of- service standard -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have a one - unit -per- four - minute response time. Is that time for ALS and fire or just for fire? Is that the -- MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we're measuring this only for the fire protection in this particular component. Now, you understand at Capri that is split, obviously, between four - minute response time on the island versus four - minute -- in excess of four minutes to get up to Mainsail. But, no, this is -- this measures fire only. Now, we do operate ALS personnel on the fire. But for the purposes of this measurement, this is fire only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 172, I found a really interesting statement that I hadn't seen before. A gentleman during the break kind of helped clarify it for me. It still is absurd as what it reads to be. It says, it should be noted that the East Naples station is located within the two -mile radius of Mainsail Drive location -- I guess that's the radius you need for your response time -- but due to ISO policy can't be accounted for as providing coverage to that area due to the area being the primary area for the Isle of Capri. Now, what I think that's saying is -- and I know where all these stations are. Just up the street from Mainsail is that East Naples station on 951, and it's minutes from Mainsail, yet even though it's that close, ISO can't acknowledge it, and we, the taxpayers, have got to pay duplications for side -by -side stations practically? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I don't believe that's the indication at all. What we're trying to clarify for you here is that there are scenarios in these ISO ratings where the rating levels are split. For example, the mainland or the island of Isle of Capri might, because of the hydrant system and the immediate close proximity, have a rate, okay. The rate becomes split, which happens all across the county with different levels -- with different districts, different locations, different geographical boundaries. So the Mainsail is not -- and I don't have a particular ruling on this from ISO, so this is subject to some clarification on our part. But I would tell you that as a -- to take advantage of all of the Isle of Capri's ISO rate, Mainsail's geographic proximity to Capri's ISO rating means why they don't get the same rating as the island proper. It does not reflect either that there would be an improvement if you were to redistrict that or rezone that, so to speak, with East Naples. There are a number of factors. It could be hydrant availability, could be the number of high- rises, et cetera. So what we're trying to clarify for you there is that these are -- there are scenarios countywide where there are split rates in the rating. We work cooperatively, mutual aid and auto aid so it is not reflective of the response time. We have great cooperation, great mutual aid and what we call auto aid, meaning that Isles of Capri and East Naples in that Mainsail area would be dispatched simultaneously. In some cases they might beat us there. But we're strictly talking about the element here associated with split ratings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: And, really, we don't have -- that really falls back to the ISO -- to the rating organization and their governance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's the rating organization's perception of these district -- these separate districts that's driving the need for a station there? MR. SUMMERS: Well, it does drive a need in that if you -- if we were able to receive funding or were postured at some point in the future for Mainsail, what you do have is an improvement in that ISO rating back to proximity as just one factor. The other may be water flow, it may be an aerial apparatus availability if there are high -rises or elevated structures. So I can't tell you it's one factor. It's a multitude of factors that come forward with the ISO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ISO rating benefit's a reduction in insurance value -- premiums, right? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would seem to me that the community down on Mainsail would tremendously benefit from the station you're proposing to put there? MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and the benefits are in that that auto aid is there, but the difference, again, might be these other rating factors that go into the index for Capri in these districts where they are split. East Naples, I'm sure, Page 21 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting has multiple split- rating districts as well. The two -mile proximity, we're identifying that to you as an auto aid in terms of the service being automatically dispatched there, but it is not a reflection necessarily on those ISO rates because of the two different districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the ISO rate would be positively affected if you created another station within the Mainsail Drive area, because that's within the territory of your district even though there's another one just up the road? MR. SUMMERS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the result of that would mean there would be a discount applied to the insurance premiums for those people living in the Mainsail Drive area, most likely? MR. SUMMERS: Most likely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that seems to me an absolutely perfect scenario to go to them as a community and ask for an MSTU to provide a service that's only needed and isolated to their area. And I don't see why anybody in the county or a county taxpayer would want to look at that when they're already covered practically by the East Naples station. MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, they're also -- there's some other ramifications there in that there was some scheduled additional either high -rise construction or even opportunities within some of that highrise planned activity that obviously has not occurred that would provide land and future impact fees for that. And, of course, we're at this point and juncture now where we don't see that on the horizon anytime soon. So I will tell you that it does warrant review, but we have certainly sort of hit the wall, so to speak, on all of these potential future expansions due to the absence of growth and construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that is an old PUD/DRI, and when Westinghouse went in there and got the variance or the permission, let's say, the amendment to the PUD/DRI to put those five, I think, towers in there, there was a lot of discussion about all the utility and services needed. Commitments, I believe, were made. Has anybody on staff checked to see that the -- whether the timing of the commitment for the fire parcel, to see if it's met or hasn't been met? MR. BOSI: Well, there's a provision -- and Chief Rodriguez mentioned it, I believe, two or three AUIRs ago when it was first proposed -- that the timing of that Mainsail is really tied to the construction of the fifth high -rise. And making space available and providing land is corresponding to when that PUD moves forward with that final high -rise relationship to when the provision for the space allocation for the Isle of Capri is provided for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll -- hopefully staff will look at it too, but I'll certainly check the PUD to see if the timing -- how flexible that timing is. But if he's got the land, then it's a matter of just paying for the facilities and the operations within that area, and then that would be potentially subject as an MSTU if they wanted to look at it that way. I mean, I'm just trying to understand -- it's kind of like a community- development district. If a -- if one of those is formed and it only benefits a specific area, that area's the one that's taxed for it. This is obvious -- this appears to be no different. So I'm just trying to explore whether or not you guys --and since the chief isn't here, maybe you wouldn't know, but have they gone out, have they explored the idea with the community, have they had meetings to see if they want to establish funding for this facility so that they're benefitting from it? MR. SUMMERS: Right, sir. And they do have an advisory board that does have representation throughout the district. So while I think they're keenly aware, the other burden, if you will, would even be in the immediate future if the land became available. Of course, equipment and personnel facilities right now are just not anywhere near on our radar financially, but we'll certainly have the advisory board revisit that, and we welcome an opportunity to do some further research on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, I was sort of going the same place, because I was surprised that in here it said that it -- the Mainsail location was contingent on this land donation. And there are not very many PUDs, certainly not DRIB, that go through this county that don't make that kind of thing a requirement. So I was kind of surprised that it was still iffy. Now, as Mr. Bosi said, if it's tied to the fifth tower, then I would caution anybody writing up these agreements again. It shouldn't be tied to the fifth, because what if they only do four? They'll still have a really significant impact, and you'll never get your land donation. So you've got to be careful in the language that's done in Page 22 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting these -- when these commitments are made. And -- but, secondly, I'm with you. I mean, somebody needs to look up that PUD and find out exactly what that commitment was. Unfortunately, where it's an old one, a lot of the stuff that was supposed to be transferred to those PUDs oftentimes did not make it into those PUDs, so you may have to go back to transcripts as much as anything else, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dan, what is the ISO number rating for that? MR. SUMMERS: For -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isle of Capri. MR. SUMMERS: -- Isle of Capri, I believe it was just rerated at a four, for the Island of Capri, and the Mainsail is maybe a six. I need to check on Mainsail. Probably a six. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's not really good, is it? I mean -- MR. SUMMERS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not really a good number? MR. SUMMERS: No, that's pretty good. That's a pretty good number. That's a very good number when it goes to ten or not being rated. So they're not like other areas where -- no, that's not a bad operation whatsoever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, if the land is up for grabs, try to get a site closer to 951, because that would be a great place -- you know, the sales office is sitting where an excellent fire station would go. MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and I think honestly that was probably the intent. Once the sales office went away, this might be an option. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SUMMERS: But, gosh, it's been -- it predates me from '03, so it's going to take some research to go back and revisit. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To get up on the road would be good. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? If not, Dan, on Page 177, in that table where you talk about your responses, the second one from the bottom, move up to other fire departments, 168. Last year you had 12, and the year before that you had 14. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, what, is East Naples out of business and you're taking care of all their area, because-- MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. It really is -- there are a number of factors there. Number one is associated with some changes in protocol in our computer -aided dispatch this year, as well as -- a lot of the departments, we have a function called auto aid or a mutual aid. And in this particular scenario where we had changes in computer -aided dispatch, that means how 911 dispatches the call out to the fire districts. There were move -ups where if Marco Island, for example, became -- all of their apparatus became committed on a call, there's a move -up procedure that we do all across the county where we will backfill their station or bring personnel from the next available into or closer to the central part of their response district. So we had a lot of move -ups into auto aid into Marco Island. Now, we have since revisited that where we might be alerted that Marco is apparatus or committed, but we don't actually physically move the -- start up the vehicle, go across the bridge, and just stand by until their apparatus is clear. So this is a high number. It is indicative of a lot of mutual -aid or auto -aid backups into Marco. You'll see that number decrease this year because we have changed some of that activity and protocol. It doesn't mean that we're not there standing by ready. It's just determining as to whether or not --if they get an alarm call, for example, sir, at Marco, we were automatically moving closer to the bridge to provide aid to them. Now, we may not engage in that unless they get on scene and find out they have a working fire. As you know, probably 30 or 40 percent of those calls were false alarms or, in fact, were not smoke or structure fires. So we've retuned that auto -aid process, and you'll see that number decline next year. Page 23 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you use this statistical information for? MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, it's a -- everything, everything that we do in terms of what our demand -- I mean, really it is a measurement of demand, structure fire, inspections, vehicle accidents, HazMat, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it factor into level of service; do you know? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I would say that a lot of that -- I would say more of our level of service is somewhat ISO rated to some degree in terms of pumping capability, firefighter resources that they bring on scene, as well as structural hazards, hazard vulnerabilities within the community. So it -- I would say it really lumps all of those together. What we do for fire reporting -- this is typically the menu that we have for fire reporting. It matches the menu of the service calls that would be -- that we would receive through our sheriffs 911 dispatch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why you would jump from 71 medical calls last year to 247 this year? Because it wouldn't now -- in fact, you couldn't use the same argument that it would move up to other fire departments because that one increased from 12 to 168. So why the jump in medical when we have a smaller population than we used to? MR. SUMMERS: Well, we have also engaged more our advanced -- having advanced life - support capability on the engine. That helps provide service in terms of the first responder pre - hospital care intervention as a component of either ALS transport or in some cases where our ambulance may be coming from a different zone from EMS, and we've engaged in that medical call. It's not unusual to see that kind of variance, in my opinion, in the medical -call scenario. Also some of those medical calls are duplicative when it comes to, say, automobile accidents, et cetera. You may have a vehicle accident where fluids were spilled and they just responded. You may have a vehicle accident where fluids were spilled and medical care was a part of that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you -- MR. SUMMERS: Grammatically (sic) it's not -- it's not a big difference in what we're doing. I think what you're seeing here is some clarification and codification of our run types and 911 dispatches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're EMS for the county as well, and you happen to be standing in Chief Rodriguez's spot today. In your level, understanding of EMS side, you guys charge when an ambulance goes out and transports somebody. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because Medicare pays for it if the patient has that kind of insurance or their insurance companies pay for it, and then deductibles aren't paid, and you separately bill individuals for that. MR. SUMMERS: Well, not because -- that's not -- that's not our option, sir. That's board - directed policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm fine with it. I'm just -- I'm trying -- that's what you do in EMS. You do the same thing for the 247 calls here? MR. SUMMERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? MR. SUMMERS: We have been -- we have had that discussion with the legislature off and on for the last six or seven years. A couple of counties across the state have tried billing for fire and medical component service. It's not successful generally, and insurance companies have pretty much told us they were not interested in engaging in insurance claims for fire delivery service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's go back to medical. Your fire departments are trying to do a lot of medical lately. They send an ALS or whatever, amb- -- whatever you call your ambulances now, and they pick people up and move them to different places. When I was in the hospital twice in September in the emergency room, the fire guys were bringing people in, and they're -- so, if they can bring someone in as a medical response and yet the EMS, the ambulance that you have on the other side of the plate can charge for it and it's not fire related, it's a medical response, why can't they charge? Why -- how does it -- why don't these insurance companies see that as medical instead of fire? How is that reclassified? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, let me clarify. Probably -- you may have seen a firefighter and a Collier County EMS individual on a Collier County EMS transport vehicle, but you did not see fire transporting anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they don't transport then? Page 24 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. SUMMERS: No. Fire does not transport. They're only initializing, only beginning initial aid. There's no fire transport -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: -- in these districts, and there's no fire transport in Collier County to date now. But you do -- you do see -- you will see combination uniforms in many cases on our transport vehicles. You may see a firefighter driving, a Collier County EMS paramedic attending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- in the room they were bringing people in. It was fire guys bringing them in. I was surprised, so that's -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And it's not -- or there may have even been two Collier County EMS personnel and one firefighter as a third individual depending on the magnitude of the patient. So -- but, no, the fire units themselves, the fire entities are not transporting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does your department -- your fire side of your departments have any kind of transport basis? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that table, if you were to look at percentages, if you take out the medical and the move -up to other fire departments and the canceled en route and you look strictly at the responses that are fire related, you're less than 8 percent of the overall total, 40 percent of which are medical related. Now, that's a duplication of services in a lot of instances. Is there some way of knowing how many of that 247 you were first on scene? MR. SUMMERS: First on scene on the medical or on the structural fire? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the medical, on the medical. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, there is a -- it would take some research, but there is some resources that might can be done to evaluate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we have a lot of -- you fall off a bicycle now, you get two squad cars, you get an EMS, you get a fire department, and I'm surprised the utility department hasn't figured out a way to respond. We have a lot of abundance of response, and I'm just wondering if it all needs to be duplicated as much in these more stringent times. MR. SUMMERS: Well, there is calls for -- we do extensive review within the county. I mean, the Bureau of Emergency Services, Capri, Ochopee, Collier County EMS and, of course, MedFlight. The other independent districts within the county, I don't have the authority to direct their response protocol. But you have to understand in Ochopee and Capri, you're essentially -- you're only going to get one vehicle, and that may be -- that one response may initiate with a heart-attack call where a Sheriffs Department deputy may arrive first quickest with an automatic external defibrillator followed by, in some cases, the advanced life support or the ALS engine that has a greater complement of resources for that patient care, followed a few minutes later by ambulance. So there is -- there are very significant advantages to a first- responder capability, meaning the ambulance is not always in quarters. Our ambulances -- and I think a lot of times folks forget that our ambulances are much more transient than are apparatus that originate their call from the fire service. So while I can pull that data, just understand that that particular component is really an apples- and - orange -type delivery, and it is -- we do have first- responder programs here, and the engines complement that scenario, because not always is the ambulance in quarters leaving at the same time as the fire apparatus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason I asked about the separation for the first responder was to find out -- that is -- I agree with you, that's the most -- that is important for the first responder to get there as quickly as possible. MR. SUMMERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just wondering how many times it happened to be the fire department was the one. MR. SUMMERS: I think we could go back and take a look at that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On Page 176, the land replacement costs per station. I see the footnote down here, but I'm just not seeing what that means in Table No. 2. There's a --almost a million dollars here toward that land replacement cost per station, and I don't know what that means. Page 25 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. SUMMERS: Michael, if you want to address that. The original fire station is essentially on a donated covenance, lifetime donation on the property, and then the following is an estimate that should we have to buy back, or should we have to go to some other location I think that was the estimated land cost based on a -- denoting the fact that the original property was donated. But I'll defer to Michael on that one. MR. BOSI: That's exactly what it is. It's -- one is a cost with land being donated, and the other is cost where the district would actually have to acquire the land through purchase. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So -- but this would just be if you had to go get anew station. That's not a figure -- that's not a budget item or anything else. It's -- MR. BOSI: It's just an estimate just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just an estimate for the purpose of providing what that replacement could potentially be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa? correct? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just a followup on that. That value is derived from the impact -fee study, MR. SUMMERS: I'd have to defer to Mr. Bosi on that. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a -- what do they call that? A leading question. Makes it easy. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other thing, Dan, and probably this applies to both fire stations. Do you guys contribute to the centralized fire review process here in Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: Where -- the East Naples as the Office of the Fire -- the Office of the Fire Code official's office? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just built a $2 million building out of cash and -- that they had kind of laying around. Do you guys contribute to that money? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Because if you did, I was going to recommend that you not. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of -- before we go on to Ochopee? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move -- we got -- we were going to vote separately each one, so what I'd like to suggest -- is there -- anybody want to make a motion in regards to the Capital B element of the AUIR for the Isle of Capri Fire District? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to ask is, I would like to see a follow -up with that donation of land issue as part of the recommendation that staff be instructed to research that donation of land to make sure that the timing of that donation is what it needs to be. If we can get it there quicker, I'd rather see it on the books than not, and that way -- that will set the stage for how it's to be funded as a department later on. Is that okay for the motion maker and second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's good. COMMISSIONER CARON: That totally makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Page 26 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and it carries what, seven -- seven to nothing. ** *Next item up is the Ochopee Fire and Control District, and since you did so well on that last one, you're going to stand in for this one too? MR. SUMMERS: I will, and I can phone a friend if necessary, so we'll go right ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on the Ochopee? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why are fires, structure fires, increasing so much this year? Is there older buildings, or what's happening? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, one of the --one component the chief was just reminding me of was what a tremendous spring wildfire season we had, and we were heavily involved in the state and national forest efforts there. And there were structures -- again, we'll refer to some of those as camps -- but there were structure losses in those -- in those preserves where we were augmenting state or national forest firefighting operations there. So -- but they are within the Ochopee district, so some of that camp loss that occurred in the spring fire season contributed to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I know they're having trouble building back. Why, the station on 75, would you actually put it up on 75 as opposed to around the intersection of 29? Yeah. MR. SUMMERS: The 75 -- the -- you're referring to the discussions ongoing with FDOT about Mile Marker 63-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. SUMMERS: -- discussion? Just briefly, sir, one of the key components, one of the big -- first of all, Ochopee is the largest fire district in the State of Florida, and one of the big challenges for us at -- while we refer to it as a fire station, one of the biggest challenges we have is the tremendous call demand that the Alley places on the Ochopee Fire District and really the residents of Ochopee from the sake of their funding, their ad valorem funding, as well as the resource draw that occurs with the number of accidents, car fires, hazardous materials incidents, wildfires adjacent to the interstate and that burden on Ochopee. There's tremendous response time out there for any of the Collier County assets. In some cases our helicopter is really the faster deployment. So our goal here -- it's been a goal since I came here working with Mr. Mudd -- was to get some additional coverage on the Alley due to the magnitude and the call volume of the accidents out there. The state legislature has approved and has endorsed joint efforts to get a facility out there fully burdened by the State of Florida, FDOT, and the tolls. And we're in discussions with them right now about putting resources on the 63 mile marker, again, because of its remote location, its -- that section, that 10 -mile section either side of 63 is really where the road gets boring, and that's where we really have the major accidents out there and would provide an invaluable level of service. And, really, I don't want to say service. What we're really trying to do here is add to our golden hour of trauma and so -- where we can get out there and make a determination to the extent of injuries, have the appropriate extrication tools, the appropriate medical support, and make a wise determination as to whether we need air or medical support rather than automatically dispatching the aircraft. Page 27 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting So it is, I believe -- in some cases out there from the Ochopee station, it's what, 33 -- a 38 -mile ride -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Up to 50. MR. SUMMERS: -- up to 50 to cover the outside of their district. So that's another scenario there where it's not really our choice. It is a choice location for us, but in terms of being able to partner with FDOT and get through regulation, zoning, and free land, that's just the best -- that's a win -win scenario. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that station would essentially be dedicated to 75? MR. SUMMERS: It would be dedicated to 75, that's correct. But as we do anywhere within the district, if there is demand, there is move -up and replacement strategically done and tactically done by the chief. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Ochopee? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a follow -up. So you're saying that you're getting resistance from the state? MR. SUMMERS: No, no. We finally have it -- it was finally enacted by the legislature -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: -- this year, so we're pleased. The County Commission and the legislative delegation has statutory movement. I guess that's the appropriate word. There's a program in place statutorily to get this station moving. There are no timelines yet. There's no -- there hasn't been any cash received to this date for equipment or personnel, but it is -- the legislature is -- and the FDOT folks are working with us on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the ISO number for this district? MR. SUMMERS: It's split, so, Alan, I'll -- Chief, I'll let you address your rating. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The district is split due to its size. The areas that are covered within -- where we're stationed within five miles of hydrants is a six. The areas outside that are nine, like in the areas that have hydrants, like Copeland. Outside of those areas it's a ten. Ten being the worst and one being the best, to answer your question earlier. Your highest ratings on ISO come from ten down to five on residential, pretty much, and from six on down you get your commercials, and then your industrial's really one and two and three, so that's your -- where your benefits are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's what I thought, because when we discussed Capri, you said it went from four to six. That's not a good thing, correct? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Four is actually a very good rating as far as residentials, and it's also very good for the high- rises. You can improve that rating in the residentials to a five in that area. They would get a benefit in the residentials. But after five -- you really don't start to see a large benefit after five in residential. It pretty much becomes commercial and multi- -- large multifamily commercial, so forth. So I can just say that, like in City of Naples when the reductions happened over the years -- I was with them for 20 years -- and we went from a five, four, three, a two. The hospital, the mall, they saw those large reductions from a four down to a two. Those were the biggest dollar savings. The residents saw the biggest dollar -- really see the biggest dollar savings anywhere from a nine down to a five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few questions on your Page 187. You set your level of service on a per -unit cost based on your Everglades City building, three million, two seventy -five. And the building replacement cost in Everglades City is even higher than the one on Isle of Capri. How did you -- how did that come about, Dan? MR. SUMMERS: Two options that I'm aware of. We can get into some more detail with the chief. But the county -- the building that they're currently in is actually owned by the City of Everglades, so we are not a landholder to that. Should we have to relocate that, one of the big cost issues associated with that would be floodplain management. Where would you actually go to a point where you could have an elevated structure or meet some of the BFE elevations associated with a fire station? It's very challenging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's a good point, because the trucks would -- well, the trucks wouldn't have to be up, but you're -- everything to service the trucks would have to be up, so you're almost forcing them to be up Page 28 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting rather high. MR. SUMMERS: We're in -- right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. MR. SUMMERS: We're back to the coastal Carolina -style elevated fire station, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you lost the location you're at in Everglades City, you'd have to buy a new location. So you didn't put land replacement cost in your Everglades City model that you used. MR. SUMMERS: Well, I think the thought process there was a desire that you would not -- elevation does not preclude relocation. So it might be that that would have to be worked out with Everglades City. They would probably want the fire station still in downtown Everglades City. That's their desire. That's been their tradition. But should it be lost, then you're re -- rebuilding, pardon me -- rebuilding on that site with elevation, I believe, was our thought process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you also have a station, a donation on the Port of the Islands of the 1.2 million for the land. That's considerably higher than the land donation that you had allocated for Marco Shores, which is right here in the more urban area. So just out of curiosity, how did the land value be higher for Port of the Islands than it was for the land -- the 919,435 you had on -- for Isle of Capri? MR. SUMMERS: And I think that's, again -- one is comparing what we might be able to find. One is comparing what is current -- what we would replace where we are currently. We are -- currently own the Ship Store at Port of the Isles in a cooperative agreement with our park service. So the fact that probably -- that that is at the marina, there is boat access -- which, again, was an interest of ours from a marine firefighting and response component -- not one that we have now but one we'd like to have in the future, so I think that probably is indicative of the fact that it is adjacent to the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to move forward with a new facility, which one of these is the most likely model that you would use? Because you used actually the one from Everglades City that doesn't have any land - replacement cost, but yet I read in your article that you're looking -- hoping to get one along 1 -75. If you did that, would you have zero land cost on that site? MR. SUMMERS: On the I -75, the intention was zero land cost, because we're going to co- locate at the rest area where there were existing resources, primarily permitting and water and sewer resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see the building replacement cost on a site like that comparable to the Everglades City value or comparable to Port of the Islands' value, for example? Because you'd have a probably more spartan building on 1 -75, I would think, than you would need in the city. But the only reason I'm asking is, your level of service is set at the Everglades City level, and I'm wondering if you really need that to where you're trying to go in your next anticipated building. So -- I mean, especially if Everglades City basis doesn't have any land- replacement cost per station as far as land goes. So any thoughts on that? MR. SUMMERS: But, sir, just to come in. I'm not sure I'm totally clear on your question. But I would say that really the service - delivery component on I -75 is really not anything that you could equate to current typical municipal fire - service- district response. I mean, it is really an issue out there of accidents and providing that initial care and stabilization. So your point's well taken, but I think the I -75 corridor and that desolate area there for the delivery is really just hard to compare in terms of what we're doing in municipal -type fire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I was trying to get at, simply that I don't think you'd use any of these models for the valuations you set on I -75. You'd probably have it -- you'd have different site parameters, you'd have different utilities access and even a different style building. I'm just wondering if the number you use is accurate for that location, because that most likely will be your next location if it works out that way. MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and, again, because that's 100 percent funded by the state, we are not going to be -- our goal is the FDOT resources and the associated service level just for the Alley. So while -- yes, this may be an estimated number but, in fact, we are not burdened -- we've counted it, but the burden, the full burden of this service to the Alley is to come from FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they'd pay for the building and -- Page 29 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Fully burdened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then your unit cost under the level of service should be zero. I'm just kidding. MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and, again, we're so early in the discussions, I will tell you it is a little hard for us to quantify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that is interesting, though. I would rather -- to be accurate for your benefit as well as the taxpayers is to provide an estimate of what a building of the type you would need next would cost with any -- let's say it's not 1 -75, but the real cost had it go there. That might be a better way to approach it than to use the valuations of buildings that most likely wouldn't be duplicated. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. And I -- without a doubt, when we get some traction here with FDOT in the movement of this program, we'll be able to give much better numbers. But conceptually, as we got through the legislative process and found a program resource with FDOT, we are estimating at best here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got a bunch of really difficult people working for you in the Ochopee Fire Department. MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. I've got a fine group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not even -- they have no move -up cost, so they must not help anybody. MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, they do, they do. But honestly, they have a ways to go to get there, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they do any move -up cost? Because I notice that's missing from your sheet. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you might want to add that. It would help. MR. SUMMERS: We'll add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: And part of that move -up, too, I think, is appropriate for us to note to you -all, that a lot of that is cooperatively with state and federal assets in the -- in the preserves in the forest areas there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They still have that -- I think we used to call it -- Big Bertha, that big truck? MR. SUMMERS: I thing there's baby -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Baby Bertha. MR. SUMMERS: Bertha 2 maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I worked on Big Bertha when I was a volunteer, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Retired two years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was an awfully interesting machine, so -- Okay. I think we're -- anybody else have any questions? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. How long does it take to get to Chokoloskee? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: About four minutes. MR. SUMMERS: Four. Just for the record, reporting four, five minutes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I mean, it shows itself pretty far out of the four - minute circle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pretty much of a straight shot, though. MR. SUMMERS: Straight shot, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Oh, go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a question with the I -75 with the FDOT. Should this become theirs and they pay for the -- I know they're going to pay for the facility and I know it's early, but will they be paying the salaries? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So -- MR. SUMMERS: It is proposed and is written in the legislature that it is, as we call it, fully burdened. Now, they have some time -- they need -- there are a lot of agencies that do pull money out of FDOT, Water Management District being one of those. So while the legislature has assigned that function, our board took it to the legislature as fully funded -- fully burdened for that effort. The Ochopee district, I believe, close to 30 years has been providing that service. So finally at this point Ochopee will get a little bit of relief. But the full- burden cost is to be made available through FDOT and its assets. Page 30 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've been holding a question for Jamie. Is he here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He just poked in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. Nick -- You saw me. I saw you trying to leave, Jamie. You didn't want to be entertained anymore today, huh? Okay. Brad, did you have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the Ochopee AUIR as presented with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Thank you, Dan. ** *And we'll go right into EMS now as long as you're -- MR. SUMMERS: Okay. Well, Chief -- Interim Chief Walter Kopka is here. I'll have him stand by, and we'll move forward. Thank you for having us up early. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything you want to start out with? MR. SUMMERS: Let me get to the right page myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes the less said the better, but that's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page? MR. BOSI: 146. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's -- who should -- MR. SUMMERS: Chairman, Commissioners, on EMS, I'd -- I'll stand by for any questions that you might have. I think we've provided you a very thorough documentation, and we continue to provide, in my opinion, world -class service in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can attest to the fact you do charge. I keep getting these little bills in the mail. I think, wait a minute. Insurance is supposed to cover this, but no. Anybody have any questions starting on Page 146? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, you base everything on peak season. And as we've learned, everybody goes home and we have a lot of downtime between when we're really busy to when we're not. And I know we've asked this question other times, so could you just refresh us on how you handle the excess units when peak season goes to dead season. MR. SUMMERS: Sir, a couple of --just a couple of observations in terms of how we handle. We have had a little bit of flexibility in se- -- what we call seasonal demand where we put some ambulances up only for a 12 -hour period as opposed to a full 24 hours. So there's been some -- I don't want to use the word freeboard within the service, but we do have some day -to -day adjustments that the chief does make in season. That's been helpful. The other thing I would tell you is that the other challenge that we always have is what's referred to as the Page 31 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting concurrent call. So while you might look at hours of utilization per ambulance per shift per day, the thing that really is always a challenge for us are back -to -back calls that may occur within a zone while ambulances are moving. So before you -- before you say necessarily that there may be some excess within the system, what we have a very hard time showing you is the continuous movement for zone coverage for these ambulances, the potential for concurrent calls coming down in the area. The other component here is, just don't forget how massive this county is in terms of drive time. So when you're looking at 7 -, 8 -, 9 -, 10- minute discussions running emergency traffic, think about the geographic placement of our vehicles and the fact that when a call does come down in a particular zone, we're getting back in a vehicle and coming back to straddle those two zones for that coverage, and that in itself takes time. So while you would look at us, if you just said we were providing an urban -model delivery, you might think -- you might have second concerns about the number of units. I'm quick to point out and have a hard time quantifying for you just the geography here, the normal drive time, and continuing to provide that level of service within the response times that we've indicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of your predecessors had gone into great detail with us about how they -- I guess they moth - balled or didn't use some of the units during the off season and they had them -- but they had them available when the peak season came in. And I just was wondering if we're still maintaining that kind of operation or not. MR. SUMMERS: Well, if you mean that in terms of reserve vehicles for maintenance, or are you talking about reserve capacity staffed during the day? The reserve capacity today is really only the 12 -hour resources that we put up during peak season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the adjustments you made because of our population today, which is far different in where it's going from before, are reflected in here, because you used peak season BBR -- BEBR. So, I mean, the fact that we've got a lot of empty homes out there, does that affect you any differently than -- MR. SUMMERS: Sir, my contention to you -- and, again, I probably can have Chief Kopka discuss call volume with you. But one of the things that we are seeing is that people don't necessarily drive themselves to the emergency room anymore. We've become more of a first responder for basic healthcare as opposed to emergency healthcare in many venues. So, you know, I think it's indicative of the economy, I think it's indicative of our demographics of an aging population to some degree, and I think we've actually become more of a frontline care provider necessarily than an emergency care provider in some cases. That doesn't mean that those are not medical emergencies when we get there. It just means that folks have probably thought twice about going to their physician, and then they wait too late or have waited too long to drive themselves to the emergency room and call upon us. So while we might look at that as population, again, we kind of have to switch that to demand, to demand - driven type programming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your revenue category, where is the revenue you receive for your transport from both insurance companies and from private -- the, you know, deductibles, let's say? MR. SUMMERS: I think our revenue -- I'm sorry, Michael. Go ahead. MR. BOSI: I wouldn't -- not knowing specifically the finance, but I wouldn't know if that would be utilized to finance your capital improvements program. MR. SUMMERS: No, it's not. MR. BOSI: And remember, this is only -- this is only a depiction of the capital improvement programming associated with growth or replacement of added facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. But could it be used for that, just out of curiosity? MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, since it doesn't come anywhere near close to funding our full operation, it is only -- it's board - driven policy in terms of the fees that we charge that range -- that barely collect between, say, 43 and 56 percent of our costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your collection rate is that low? MR. SUMMERS: Our collection rate is one of the highest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- but 40 or 50 percent is one of the highest, really? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. Oh, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if I didn't pay you, you wouldn't come after me. Page 32 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. SUMMERS: In all jest, I dare not make any comments on the record, but the manager is probably watching. COMMISSIONER CARON: We'll be specific. If it's Commissioner Strain, they will go after him. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sure that was a board - authorized -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, it's not me, actually. It's a member of my family, so I haven't been the one using your services, although they've been excellent the times you've responded, so -- MR. SUMMERS: I understand. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on EMS? This is a rare -- or I wasn't here last year, but I know the year before it was real difficult. So I'm pleased to see it's coming together so well. MR. SUMMERS: We're hanging in there, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're doing great. This is a much better presentation. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the Emergency Medical Services AUIR with a recommendation of approval as presented. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, second by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: You -all have a good day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's 11:30. Now, that means we can get into the next item, which is really a short, quick, easy presentation by roads, I'm sure, which I can assure you it won't be. We can try to go on to something quicker and get through before lunchtime maybe. Norm, I don't know if we're going to get through you before lunch regardless if we start now. We can try, I guess, so -- because you're going to have to be here whether we start now or not. ** *Okay, Mike. We'll move into the next one on the agenda then. Keep it in order. Let's go to roads. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I don't recognize anybody as being a member of the public. Most everybody I see out there seems to be a municipal employee of some kind. Are there members of the public here that are willing -- or wanting to speak on any particular item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I don't want to forget you. I just seem to recognize faces that I already know to be in government employ somewhere. Okay, Norm. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder. I'm the administrator of the Growth Management Division. On your AUIR in roads, what I'll do is give you a quick overview, then open it to any questions you have. What I will tell you is what you see in front of you is a reflection of, obviously, how times have changed. It Page 33 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting reflects the fact that we have only two major and one intersection additional project for construction in our capacity program over the next five years. Those projects, those two major projects, are only retained in the program because we have major grant funds attached to them, as is the project that is under construction right now, which is Davis and 951, which also has 20 million coming back from the state as reimbursement. So our capacity program, the above - the -line that you'll see as we get into this program -- and I'll call your attention in particular just to give you the overview on Page 20, which is our five -year program where you see on Page 20 that there's 85 million shown as the total over the next five years for major - capacity projects. As you look down at the funding sources, you will see that both impact fees with the COAs, the developed consortium, the grants, and the interest on impact fees, those four categories effectively total that same amount so, therefore, the only thing I have in capacity is impact fees and grants. And none of your gas tax, ad valorem, or any other funding is going to your capacity program. What you also will see here from prior years is below the line where I have some program areas that are pulled out but are part of my broader operations and maintenance, in particular intersection improvements, the bridge program. I now have almost half of my hundred bridges that are 50 years old or older, that I have now moved more and more of my funding to the maintenance program in an effort to try and respond to all that we've built, another 250 lane miles, and all that that needed to be maintained that didn't get done as part of that massive construction program we had during the upswing in the last ten years. So the program has changed considerably. The focus, as is established when you have growth pays for growth, impact fees is my source for new construction; since there is not the growth, we don't have wider new construction going on. Commissioner Caron made a good point. The unfortunate part about our nature of funding and sustainability of that is that we don't have major projects as you look through here. We pulled funding out of a lot of the projects. What little bit we have in some right -of -way is in the outer years now, is not getting anything production -ready for year'6,'7,'8, possibly'9, which is saying that if we continue with no major growth, we're okay. If that growth starts to come, we are going to be -- every time we don't add these phases or bring projects forward -- further behind, much like I experienced when I came here in 2000. And that's just a quick overview. And I think from what I'm hearing there's a lot of questions, so why don't I open it to that. And if you'd like to, we can go page by page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick asked us to particularly focus on transportation because you were presenting it today. MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. I'm sure he wanted me to have that opportunity, and I'm here at your disposal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I love you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody -- why don't we just work our way through the whole document at once. I mean, I'm not sure we need to ask page by page. So, Commissioners, do you have any questions? I can certainly start into it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Attachment H. And since you updated the thing, it does point out the fact that some intersections, like Wilson and Golden Gate, which you showed deficient last year, you moved them to five years. So, as an example, what happened that reduced the demand on that intersection? MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, what you saw was for the past -- we spent 2004,'5,'6, and'7 -- and I believe I'm correct in those statements, and in particular I believe it was in '6 and'7 -- showing over 20 percent a year increase on Golden Gate Boulevard. We had almost three years of close to 20 percent or greater increase in volume, pure volumes. I'm not talking about our concurrency. I'm talking about actual vehicles on the road. Then we saw a number of years were dropping, and we're still seeing a little bit of that. So what we're saying is that need is still there. It's at capacity, but it's not nearly as great a need as we once saw when it was moving at 20 percent a year of just background - traffic increases. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the next question is, you know, we're going to build essentially a trunk line, ultimately, down to Desoto. Have -- where are we on having -- the bridges? Because this is a major grid layout. There are those that believe -- Page 34 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'm kind of one of them -- that if you do have a grid you don't end up with arterial situations, and it's a much better driving, so -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. We -- right now we're having to concentrate particularly on capacity -- I mean on maintenance of our existing bridge system, but we do have a couple of the bridges that we've identified, some 10 or 11, to try and make the grid pattern out in the Estates and try and bring some of that into -- in more function by establishing bridges in about ten locations. We have a 23rd as well as 8th and 16th that we're looking at over the next five years. Some of the pullback on that is waiting to see what comes out of our inspection. Our bridges age. So when you see that bridge project there on Page 20 that I mentioned, those are both in trying to get to those new bridges in some areas, but it's particularly working on maintenance. The new bridge, as this group asked and as the board agreed, on 23rd there's a maintenance of traffic for White bridge replacement. The new bridges are impact fees being used on 23rd. And so right now we don't have a lot of impact fees being collected, but that's the focus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, how many canals are being crossed or are bridgeless at this point; do you know? MR. FEDER: Well, you've got -- we identified, I believe, is 12 specific. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's ten locations with two study areas. MR. FEDER: Study areas, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is that the majority of the roads that are not bridged, or is that -- MR. FEDER: It is the ones that we feel would establish a pretty effective grid. There is a grid out in the Estates. It's something we didn't have here in the urbanized portion, but it's got the canals that are eliminating its viability for movement. So in answer to your question, the ten plus the two study areas are geared at addressing what the emergency- response folks, EMS, fire, school, and others identified as the most critical crossings that would allow them to use that grid more effectively. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't the design of these bridges essentially the same? I mean, they're -- MR. FEDER: Yes. We're in the process right now -- we went out -- when we did 23rd and White, we went through a standard design so that we could utilize it in the following ones. Obviously you still have to hit it in site issues, and some of it's permitting, too, as far as elevations or clearances. But generally we're looking at one kind of span design, because there's a lot of similarity in those crossings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Then maybe when the economy comes back, you can allow advertising to be embedded on it and -- people buy stadiums, why not a bridge? Anyway. MR. FEDER: We'll have the rumble strips that sing out spurting (sic). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the important thing, though, is that if we opened up the grid, we really completed it, we might be in better shape than building a big trunk line through the Estates. MR. FEDER: And I know where you're going on that. It's Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. I might as well say it while you're raising that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. FEDER: I think what you're going to find is, yes, the grid is going to help you considerably out there in movement, and that's why our focus all along has been on trying to get those bridges defined and to move on them. But you only have two major east/west connectors: One of them being Immokalee Road, which we're continuing to try to complete; and the other one being Golden Gate Boulevard, which is already constrained down to four lanes and which stops at 951. So the demands that we're showing through all the modeling, through the MPO process, is not only to utilize the two -lane grid, to try to avoid major thoroughfares out in the Estates, but is to have another major, as you say, trunk line, or however you want to define it, another major east/west corridor to serve overall county needs, and that is shown repeatedly along with an interchange at 75 and Everglades, in that vicinity, as items that are needed. So that's part of the long -range planning. It's been addressed in that way. And the identification of that corridor, for which you'll see in here we've pulled most of the right -of -way out, and we're sitting at only buying where we're keeping people whole, where they come to us. We're not actively pursuing it. We're not going into any condemnation Page 35 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting proceedings, but we have acquired ten -- I mean, excuse me -- 19 of the original 23 whole takes, anyone that wanted to be taken and addressed. We have acquired some other parcels, but those are ones that came to us. Some came because they saw the property values going down and asked us to take what we could now, and we did. But we're not out there actively pursuing it. But having said that, we now took people that, through a whole corridor, were being held hostage as to where this thing was maybe going to go in the future, we've defined it. That corridor's being protected, and we're not aggressively pursuing it, but it's out there for the future as it's needed. We are trying to pursue the bridge and the effort to use the two -lane grid as best we can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHARMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions at this time? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Norm, were there any developer contributions in the current revenues? MR. FEDER: Yes. You've got -- first of all, on US 41 and 951, you've got a little bit over $8 million in developer- contribution agreements, 8.2 towards that intersection and maintenance project down on 951. That's the biggest that I have right now in the program is that developer agreement. COMMISSIONER AHERN: What category are those listed under? I just didn't see them in current revenues. MR. FEDER: Well, you see in revenues here -- you see DCA consortium, down in revenues, back on Page 20. Now, what you're seeing is the balance of the last of that because the other funds have come in. COMMISSIONER AHERN: I see it. MR. FEDER: But the overall is about 8 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Attachment C, it seems like all of the areas that are showing a 20 percent decrease from 2010 were all areas that showed a 20 percent increase from 2009 and 2010. What changed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that, Norman, if you'd like. MR. FEDER: Go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we do these things in quarterly counts, some things that you'd notice back was that Immokalee interchange opening up. So it's that traffic redirecting itself, because we do these quarterly, and everybody's goes, what's going on, you know. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of a sudden, one road went way down, one road went way up. A lot of these just are facilities that just opened up. And remember, it's a lagging indicator. They're done quarterly counts, so you're going back four quarters behind us. So when you looked at last year's it was even -- you know, two years ago, of counts. So Immokalee Road was one of those that was -- everybody was avoiding the interchange. When the interchange opened up, you know, Vanderbilt decreased significantly now because people that were avoiding Immokalee Road are now going, you know, back to Immokalee Road. One thing on that exhibit I'll point out to you, if you took at the urban -- or I should say the coastal urban area, what we noticed is that seasonal population had big increases this year. It seemed like the coast did really well, and I think that reflects to what the Tourist Development Council reviewed in their numbers as well. We've had a big influx along that 41 corridor, which shows the increase, but we still continue to see decreases through the rest of the county. MR. FEDER: Overall you did see a little bit of decrease. The reason I hesitate on that is because we're looking at it over the last few years then, because of all the construction and new ones coming on or people avoiding during construction, it changes so rapidly. The good news is, as we get stabilized here, you shouldn't see it as much. But it is -- when you're looking at overall trips, it's moving around, so that's why you have up and down, and a little bit down in this case. COMMISSIONER AHERN: It seemed like, you know, some of them changed, you know, a slight bit, but it was just kind of ironic that -- almost identical roads. MR. FEDER: Yeah. And you look at it, it's -- Immokalee opened up before, but then Vanderbilt opened and Page 36 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting people converted their trips and -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just kind of re- -- converted. On the next page, Attachment D, there was one listed, the Tree Fann/Wood Crest. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: And that's Advanced Construction. And I didn't see where that was on previous. MR. FEDER: We had set up to develop a Radio Road with major development that was going in and what I will call the northeast corner of 951 and Immokalee Road, going from Tree Farm and Wood Crest on up. There's a bypass through the major intersection, and recognizing a lot of development going in that area for a while there. It's slowed down, obviously. As we had that development going in, we had them working with us towards developing that Radio Road. One of the developments had come in and put up a bond for what they were going to do in development. And this represents those dollars in the bond that we held. It has to be used on that project, and that's why it's so indicated. But it is basically calling that bond of what they committed relative to their development that hasn't yet developed there. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a -- how do you denote that, though? How would I know that, or how would Melissa have known that? I mean, you can't tell that by this. MR. FEDER: No. What we did is we showed the dollars on that project. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see. MR. FEDER: And it's pretty hard for us to show you every dollar and the history of it on one of these forms. But, yes, that's what that is. It is dollars that were held aside, and the question is, why didn't I have a design phase? Why didn't I have any other phase on it? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just went right to advanced. MR. FEDER: That's -- yeah. It's sitting there being held. It has to be held there on that project. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, let's start with Page 15. MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gas taxes. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You went up in gas taxes $10 million, which is well over 10 percent from last year. Why? MR. FEDER: That's over five years. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Over a five -year period? MR. FEDER: Over the five -year. Basically because of what we're experiencing. We saw gas tax going down a little bit and ratcheting down a little bit and then coming up, and the other one is, some of the commitment we had against our gas tax, which was on the SIB loan, is going away, so we're going to see the additional gas tax without experiencing that another year out. We had 2 million a year being contributed to that. But the answer to your question is, the feeling was that, in fact, we're seeing a little bit of increase in vehicle miles traveled again. Even with the population a bit slowed down, people are traveling more, and even with gas tax high, people are still doing it, because I don't get more by price of the gallon. It's by gallon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So gas tax is being high, but gas itself being considerably higher than it was -- I mean -- MR. FEDER: People are still traveling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2009 you had 95 million in gas taxes for five years. In 2010 you dropped that down to 85 million. Then in this year you bumped it back up to 95- again. So you're -- MR. FEDER: Yeah, because what we saw is a -- it looked like a trend that we're going down. The trend's coming back up, so we've gone back to where we were. Page 37 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a person in the room that takes credit for that. She's -- she likes to hide. Susan Usher, she can wave. She's from OMB, and she does a very conservative analysis, and she drives a lot of that, and she will tell us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So she was too conservative last year? MR. FEDER: Well, in '9, when she saw a little bit of a decrease, that was the push for us to go down. It came back up, then we went back to where we were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Page 17. You have a third bullet which is a rather lengthy paragraph about two- thirds of the way down. The line starts with "miles to the system," then the next sentence says, the prior aggressive program to add capacity allowed existing system mileage to be rebuilt and the mileage to be maintained throughout the construction cycle by the contractor. The limited non - impact fee resources have been pulled out of capacity improvements to cover the O &M shortfall. What does all that mean? MR. FEDER: Okay. Basically what we're saying is when we came here in 2000, you didn't have a lot of money in your maintenance budget and you didn't have a lot of effort going in your construction program or a lot of money, because you didn't have your impact fees at their full value. They hadn't been updated since '92, when we came in 2000. What basically this is saying is, is when you went after your aggressive construction program, the county, the development community -- because they paid 50 percent up front, 50 percent within three years -- everybody to try to address this major shortfall in transportation together, basically, as a contractor was out there working on that two -lane roadway to make it four or six, or that four to make it six, they took charge of that roadway. They were doing the maintenance during that construction time, because they control and own the right -of -way, and more particular, they were making it all new. So a lot of your maintenance needs for either resurfacing, striping, signage, new signal upgrades, were being done as part of your major- construction program and, therefore, you didn't have to address them under a maintenance program that wasn't necessarily fully funded at the time. Now, of course, you've built a lot more, and you haven't really increased your maintenance budget, and that's why for the past four or five years, if you look at your AUIRs -- which I know you do very closely, Chairman -- you're going to see that we've been raising this same issue about maintenance, that while this is basically a capacity- driven discussion that we were concerned that we got to look at the life cycle of what we build and we've got to maintain it as well -- and that's what we're raising. And the fact that my bridges, up until about three years ago, I didn't have a bridge program. I didn't really need it because every single review by the state, when -- every two years they look at every bridge in the state, including the local bridges, the conditions weren't bad. But I knew my age was getting there. Now I have over half of the over a hundred bridges over 50 years old. Life expectancy of a bridge is about 40, 50 years. Now, we don't have major problems, but they're starting to be found. We had five bridges that we had issues on. That's what the dollars started in a bridge program. So what I'm telling you when I went over Page 20 -- again, I'll reiterate -- only impact fees are being used for capacity. My gas taxes have all been brought down to go into an expanded bridge program, expanded resurfacing program, intersection modifications, almost to the point where it's as big now below the line there beyond my regular maintenance program that it's almost as big as my capacity program, and it needs to be expanded and continued, because right now operations and maintenance are the most critical part, as we're seeing no real expansion or demand for growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you put a road in, you're relying on the surrounding tax base to provide the General Fund with the -- your needs for operation and maintenance? MR. FEDER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any road systems that you've put in that cannot provide according to that terminology or policy? MR. FEDER: Well, we'd have to go back to your definition of what you're trying to do to operate and maintain. And what I will tell you is, when I came -- and it's in better shape today now, but still, you did not have sufficient maintenance to meet your needs. As is noted here, you didn't have a resurfacing program. When I interviewed for the position, the first thing I noted was, looking at an annual report, that roads that usually are eight to ten years on arterial and maybe 15 to 20 years, let's say, on a non - arterial, looking at the number of miles, looking at the budget, my first note in my interview was, gee, you have wondrous roads down here, because Page 38 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting based on what you have for a budget, they obviously last over 50 years. And I've never seen that anywhere. What I was pointing out is, obviously, that you're not maintaining your system. We're doing better now, but we still have a ways to go. Obviously the critical maintenance issues, though, we're getting to. None of those bridges are going to fall down. You don't have major potholes. So we're meeting the most critical needs, but we've got to continue to focus on that and make sure that we address the life -cycle cost, and that's what we're doing along with the utilities to try and go at asset management to be able to do that, not only for the major ones that we do have good information on, like bridges and resurfacing, but also sign reflectivity, pavement striping reflectivity, and a lot of the other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the roads aren't put in until they're needed, basically? MR. FEDER: Roads aren't put in until they're needed. They're built based on a long -range plan to meet not only the immediate need, but some future need; that's why there's extra capacity on some when they get built. Unfortunately, they don't get all put in at one time, so that's why sometimes they'll get built with extra capacity and it will go -- get consumed very quickly till, as was pointed out, the next one gets built and somebody moves over to the next one. But generally stating, yes, there's a long -range planning process, a very concerted effort to try and make sure you only build what you truly need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only exception is when you make a commitment pursuant to, say, some other kind of contractual DCA or something like that. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 18, your notes, Note No. 2. It says, there's still concern that the artificially low background traffic or volume as compared to several years ago will allow additional development approval, which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor. How does that happen if the currency -- current vacancy rate factor is included in checkbook concurrency? MR. FEDER: Basically because the assumption is that one - seventh of that development that's gone is reflected in the background traffic, and you've moved away from that, so you assume that your background traffic is covering what's out there, and yet you have more that can come and very quickly impact it, as was the discussion previously about the vacancy rates that I think Mike went through with you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We also -- Commissioner, one note. This board and this Planning Commission made a decision that we -- when typically we CO a project, we pull the trips out of the trip bank. We've been more conservative to say, well, if it's CO'ed, say, a shopping mall, is anybody in there? So we've tended this year and last year to say we've CO'ed the shopping center. Typically that comes out of the trip bank, and it's caught in the background traffic. Well, there's nobody in there, so there's no background traffic to catch. So we've left them in the trip bank longer to kind of offset that. It's more work for us. We have to go back and check to see when they CO, but it's more accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's it mean by the next sentence then? Is this a result in the addition of unanticipated trips in a network? They're not unanticipated. You know they're there. You just haven't included them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. The vacancy rate is a combination of not only approved projects that were part of the concurrency system before, but also projects that were never in the concurrency system before it was started. There's a lot of properties within Collier County that were never accounted for, you know, in tenors of a trip bank. MR. FEDER: Some that have developed without ever paying impact fees. COMMISSIONER CARON: Concurrency only goes back how far? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably about eight to ten years, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, maybe ten, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: So especially in the urban area, there's a lot of stuff that's not accounted for at all, so -- which means we need to be doubly cautious when we're approving things in the urban area to account for things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one's going to go on for quite a while, but it's probably a good break time if we want to go to lunch, come back. Does that sound -- then let's come back at 12:45, and we'll resume with Page 39 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting transportation at that point. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all back from lunch, and I just found out that lunch was abruptly taken from in front of a girl that worked hard to make it, Karah Lewis. Thank you again, Karah, for your lunch. It helped us all sustain the afternoon. So we certainly appreciate your fine cooking. With that in mind, we'll move on. We left off at the transportation issue. And during the break I found something else, that we are going to lose a valuable county asset in March, and he's standing in front of us. His name is Nonn Feder. He's part of the DROP program, I guess. And, Norm, we're going to miss you. You've been an asset to this county, and you've sure been a -- really well responsive to this county, so thank you very much for all the efforts you've done with us. We sure appreciate it. MR. FEDER: Appreciate that very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FEDER: Just file (sic) for me after the kill, I can tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just going to say, I started that out so you wouldn't -- I'm not doing this to get you mad. If I tell you that first, he's not quitting because of the questions, so -- Okay. We left off -- and anybody else have anything that they wanted to ask that came to them over lunch? I'm sure your entire lunch was dwelling on this subject. If not I have a few follow -ups. And then Page 20 is where I left off. And, Norm, I kind of looked over your list, and you've got Vanderbilt Beach Road on there. What is the total cost of Vanderbilt, not just construction, design, and permitting, but also right -of -way acquisition? How much budgeted money was going for that extension? MR. FEDER: Okay. We've had a couple of estimates in the past, and I don't have that full figure right now. What I can do is tell you basically in right -of -way we've already spent almost $13 million, and we have an estimate of about 22 million remaining on the right -of -way. I don't have the figure right now for the construction estimate, but I can get that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many properties have been affected by that right -of -way; do you know that? MR. FEDER: The figures I have right here in front of me, there's a total process of about 162; 34 have already been acquired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 162 properties? MR. FEDER: Total properties, yes, parcels. That's from Collier over to Wilson. Wilson to DeSoto is another 395. So you've got 162 and 395, are almost 400 -- 500 parcels -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 500 -- MR. FEDER: -- 550. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- parcels and you've budgeted about 35 million to collect them? MR. FEDER: As we stand right now, we've got 35 million, and there's 2 million that's been spent to date on the Wilson/DeSoto. What I don't have is the remaining of that figure. So there's two parcels. So let me make sure I'm accurate in what I say to you. Collier to Wilson, 200 -- 162 parcels, of which 34 have been acquired. That 34 included 19 of the 21 to -- now saying 23 whole takes. So we've spent a little over 11.4 million; 22 million left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just in that first segment? MR. FEDER: Justin that first segment. Okay. So that was that 162 parcels, 34 acquired, 19 of those 34 were whole takes, which is the first priority you asked to go after on voluntary acquisitions, and we've spent about 11- and -a -half million, not quite 11- and -a -half, estimated about 22 remaining to acquire all the rest of the parcels, the 119 remaining parcels in that segment. In the segment from Wilson to DeSoto, 395 parcels, only 15 have been acquired. We spent 2.2 million to date; that includes one or two of the whole takes and some people that have come to us and asked to be taken. I don't have the estimate for the rest of that, but I'll try to get that for you before I leave today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Okay. MR. FEDER: So it's an expensive corridor. Again, though, as I said, you can see here we've not put a lot of Page 40 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting dollars into it. We have dollars, though, are set so that anyone who comes to us and feel they want to have their property taken now, that we can deal with them. That was the direction from the board from the start. After, I don't know how many meetings, some 50 -plus meetings that we had, years of study and everything, and the board finally, after an awful lot of discussion and some pros and cons from the community -- we know that -- decided that they had to acquire this corridor, set it for the future, and they set on an alignment rather than keeping everybody waiting and wondering when it's going to happen or where. They asked us to go out and get the whole takes first. We did that to everyone that was willing to be purchased, a whole take, and we've taken others. But, again, the dollars and what we've taken and the dollars that you see here, 200,000 a year starting, not in even next year, but the following year and out, are generally there so that we can respond to anyone that comes to us and say they want to be taken. We're not going after condemnation. We're not actively pursuing acquisition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the rate that you're purchasing and at the rate that you're funded and at the rate that you still have to go, this is going to be on the AUIR for long periods to come, if I'm not mistaken. MR. FEDER: You'll have the opportunity to bring this up every year for many years, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to get an overall picture now, because it's --I mean, we're just taking it little bits at a time. And I understand why. I mean, I understand that. MR. FEDER: We're just trying to make people whole that asked to be made whole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is this any kind of priority over any other projects in the county? MR. FEDER: No. As a matter of fact, as you know, an agreement was made that plays priority over this project and over Golden Gate Boulevard relative to impact fees in the two districts. And our priority, as I said right now, has moved pretty much from capacity, and you'll see that as you see what concurrency issues are right now into ongoing maintenance and operations, particularly the bridge program. And I think one of the commissioners already raised the issue there, both in some level of expansion out in the Estates, but also in maintenance of what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did -- Nick, did the Big Cypress reactivate its DR] application? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not that I'm aware, sir, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any idea when that may be coming back up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I know Vanderbilt extension isn't linked to it, but I'm trying to figure out how all the pieces -- because there's a potential for contributions coming in of a significant nature once big DRIB like that come into play. MR. FEDER: Well, probably Big Cypress is one of their biggest areas of assistance when and if they come forward -- will be our effort to get a multi -lane connection between the urbanized area and Immokalee, which we did on Immokalee Road six - laning all the way out to Oil Well. We then were looking at a PD &E up Oil Well and out on -- I mean up Immokalee and on Oil Well, when all the issues came forward, and all of a sudden we started committing to Oil Well donations and issues there, but that connection is still needed. What we're looking at, the ideal is Randall with some connection across that property out to Oil Well, and that's still the desired line to get that multilaning to bring all of the Immokalee community in with the urbanized area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One other note, Commissioner, Chairman, Golden Gate Boulevard alone, as it's constricted to four lanes, wouldn't be able to handle the Estates alone at even halfway through buildout. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. I mean, all that background, I'm fully aware of it. I wasn't criticizing. I was trying to understand total evaluations and the timing needs, because the timing needs are what's going to hit this county the hardest over the next few years while our -- we have a depressed valuation. So that's -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where that questioning was coming from, and that's where the rest of my questioning will be. MR. FEDER: And what this program does is it keeps some dollars for responding to needs, but it's not pursuing actively that corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your -- on the same document, you've got some references to roadways that have no values to be spent in the next five years. What is the purpose of having that on this schedule? Page 41 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. FEDER: Okay. The first -- are you talking about the items up on the top? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ones on the bottom, too. I don't know what SS -- SBB Copper Leaf to Green -- it was Santa Barbara, probably, to Copper Leaf. MR. FEDER: It was Santa Barbara. It was on there. It's just to show you the year before I had some dollars in there. It got pulled out. And so it's still shown there. That was one that was originally budgeted and got pulled out, but there are no dollars on that study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we show something on the five -year schedule, does that give any preference to arguments that it's on the five -year schedule in regards to concurrency or when a development can move forward if it's along one of those corridors? MR. FEDER: It shows I have some level of production that I've done on it, because you see it up top. I bought the right -of -way. That was originally set for construction out in the fifth year, and it got pulled out as dollars went down last cycle, as a matter of fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much money -- I mean, most of these, do you -- like the Copper -- the Santa Barbara Boulevard to Copper Leaf to Green, do you know what that will cost us? So you -- I mean, it's on here, so it's some -- do you have a ballpark idea of what the total cost of that segment will be so we know when we have funds that can pop back on? MR. FEDER: It was 17 to 19 million for the construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've got a general idea of what the costs are? MR. FEDER: Uh -huh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You just -- I hate to throw out numbers. We've got a general idea, but every time we do an engineer's estimate, they change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your general idea of I -75 interchange and Everglades Boulevard with nearly 900 parcels that you're going to have to buy? MR. CASALANGUIDA: From the interchange itself, it's 40 to $50 million, depending. The widening -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's going to force a corridor. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The widening from the interchange up to Golden Gate Boulevard will probably be -- you know, and these are estimates -- 60 to $100 million, depending on how wide we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the need for that during this, let's say, rather depressed economy where Golden Gate Estates is one of the highest vacancy rates in the community, why would we want to put those -- why would we want to risk that until we know where some of the other developments in the east are going, like Big Cypress? Because Big Cypress was already going to look at an alternative to that that wouldn't have cost us as much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But you're not. And notice, there's no funding identified there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why is it on here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've left them on there as projects that are in the past. We can surely take them off. I mean, that's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is that one in particular on here when the decision on how that's going to cost this community and every taxpayer in this county has not been analyzed, especially when I have in front of me a document that's titled "Methodology Letter of Understanding" between Big Cypress and, basically, and Collier County, showing the I -75 interchange? There's currently a proposal for an I -75 interchange at Everglades Boulevard. Project organizers are suggesting alternative interchange for their new yet -to -be -named road. And it has a road coming down from Big Cypress interchanged at I -75 that they would participate in and that is mostly on their land and affects no homes, basically. Why wouldn't we -- looking at this as an alternative if you're looking so hard to add one on Everglades Boulevard and I -75? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know you want to have fun, so I know this is why you brought this up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I didn't bring it up for fun. I'm looking at savings. Do you -- based on the right -of -ways that you guys are already talking about, we're getting into fortunes. MR. FEDER: Let me handle this one. First of all, two things I need to make clear. One, the area that you see up here, these without items on them, usually you don't see it down below, but you did because we took the dollars out. Those are shown to remind you that we have projects underway going, but there's no new funding coming to Page 42 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting those projects. That's generally what that's showing you. To the issue on the Everglades -- the interchange, the fact of the matter is, there was a lot of discussion as shown in modeling and needs for an interchange. That interchange can't be approved at an area with no connection. So let's say today if you're trying to get approval of an interchange through the federal process, if you look at Everglades, and then a better opportunity comes in the future, maybe an alignment that is brand new. Once you've got an approval for an interchange, it's easier to modify it to that new location, but you cannot take a location for which there is no DRI, there's no development approval, there is no roadway, and get an interchange approved to connect to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for the sake of the people who live on Everglades Boulevard and are basically in the lurch on this, is there a reason we have to include the word "Everglades" on there? Just say 1-75 interchange." I just don't like the designation, because the way I've seen other departments or even -- tend to use designations is that, okay, it's been on the books for all these years. Why -- that's why we're doing it. And then all of a sudden it falls back as to being the default. I really think the research on that needs to be done before any position is taken. If this turns out to be the best one, so be it. But right now I don't think that research is -- can be completed until we know where some of the major developments are going out there who may be players in the future, one of those being Big Cypress. Their own documents portrayed that. MR. FEDER: And that's being evaluated quite heavily now, more from the enviromnental side, but being evaluated right now as to different options and impacts and issues out there. So there will be a lot more study before this ever becomes a reality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chainnan, I respectfully disagree. I think a lot of study's been done. I think an analysis study for need has been done. I think a cumulative- effects study is underway. We've had public meetings with residents that live on Everglades Boulevard. They recognize that. I think when you move this interchange over, if you could, even with an application, you'll have significant impacts on DeSoto and Everglades to connect to those -- that new road that you're talking about. So it surely can be looked at, and if a project of substantial size comes in at any point in time that we're in the application process for either -- for the PD &E, the IJR, or the design, we could -- we could definitely reload and relook at it. But until that comes forward, I think, board's given us direction and the studies have shown there's a need out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I don't deny the need. In fact, if it was there, I would be using it. My concern is the cost, the cost of where it could go versus where it may end up going because we've defaulted to a position. I just want to make sure that doesn't happen, and that's the only concern I have. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Big Cypress steps forward and says, lookit, to sweeten the pie for us to get approval, we want this -- we'll pay for a certain X amount of the connection, we'll provide the right -of -way; my goodness, what a windfall that would be. I just want to make sure we keep that opportunity available. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And have that available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it doesn't happen, you're right, we need an interchange somewhere, and it has to happen. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have that available -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. This county's history has been one that it has tried to capitalize on those opportunities as they come forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only comment -- and this will be mine, not necessarily everybody on this board. I don't mind -- I understand why you've got it on this thing, but from my perspective, I would suggest we leave it just "I -75 interchange" and not reference a specific location until we know that is the absolute best default location we have, and that's the only comment I have to make on it in regards to that issue, so -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Didn't we change the GMP language to specifically say Everglades? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was changed when the Golden Gate Master Plan was originally discussed back Page 43 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting in 2000, and at that time it was the only known alternative, and it was before the RLSA. COMMISSIONER AHERN: But, I mean, last year when we did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we changed it. I think it's -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: We did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We argued about it, but I don't think it got changed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in the GMP referenced as Everglades. May I make a suggestion only for clarification. The chairman's point's well taken? The project ID number is for an application that is at Everglades right now. That's what's a funded project in terms of an IJR. If you don't want to show projects that are not funded within the five -year program, that I understand, because they're not showing any funding, and that would lead someone to understand -- why are they even on this list other than they're production -ready or they're in some sort of cycle. They can be shown as -- under another attachment. I believe it's on Page -- Page 29. If you flip to that, we can eliminate them in Attachment D and just show them on Attachment A, which is an activity report of projects either under contract or funded through another means, so -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. They are shown on 29, and that's an issue. These have always been shown every year to show what is still outstanding because that was one of the concerns, what is outstanding, that you had before. But what I will point out to you, to your concern, your CIE, or your Capital Improvements Element, is the key thing, not this five -year work program, that we use for our efforts. And your Capital Improvements Element, starting on Page 31, only shows those projects that are funded. And so I think that gets at what you're going to, Mr. Chairman, in that it is not addressing those others. We're trying to do that to keep full disclosure of what we're doing in working on projects and what we have still outstanding. But as far as your Capital Improvement Element, you do not see that project there, nor any of those others that don't have any funding in the five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. So under Attachment D, you have no objection then to dropping, under summary of projects, any projects that don't show funding within the five -year period? MR. FEDER: I would say that in that five -year program you're trying to give full disclosure of what we've been working on and what's still out there. I will tell you we've done that for many, many years. If it's this board's concern, we'll raise that to the Board of Commissioners. If they concur, I don't have any problem. But my understanding, actually, is about four or five years ago that this group asked specifically, what are the projects you've been working on that still have dollars from prior years? Are you still constructing? Because the construction phase takes a number of years. And so we identified those. Then it was, well, I didn't see the dollars there, so then we -- Attachment -- I thing it's J, but put that in to give you an idea of how many dollars still are outstanding relative to those. So now you're going the other way on me and asking me to take them out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall that, but what I do notice, that the title says five -year work program, dollars shown in thousands. MR. FEDER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be a cleaner attachment and exhibit. For example, on the top, what, there's seven or eight up on the top. You only have one that's funded -- that's going to have work on it in the next five years. MR. FEDER: And that's because we came in with a change order and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we only -- MR. FEDER: -- for another year, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we showing the other seven or eight, or seven or six? I mean, it just -- MR. FEDER: Do we have a problem? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think Attachment J serves that purpose. So if you want to put all active projects MR. FEDER: Yeah. We can pull that out and just keep Attachment J, because it shows that purpose as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. That's active -- the projects that are funded -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think for CIE purposes it would be fairer. MR. FEDER: And CIE you don't have it in there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be consistent with the CIE. Page 44 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 21 you have your impact -fee revenue FY 12 going down in FY 13 yet the population, we had about, I guess, a 2 percent increase. How did you figure it would be going down? It's a small amount, but, just, what made it MR. FEDER: We had a couple of impact -fee repayments that came in this year, and without them we wouldn't have been as high as you're showing, so we assume that it's going to stay flat again next year. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've also changed the way you collect impact fees. Now you get one -third down and then the balance at building permit. So until that regulates itself, you're going to see we projected a little bit of a decline in the upcoming year as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 29 -- MR. FEDER: That had a 42- percent reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 29 you have two references to Oil Well Road, but you failed to put in a third reference. And wasn't Phase III required to go in before -- as impact fees were generated from that traffic district as well as to adjoining? MR. FEDER: Once sufficient impact fees were generated -- the two sections you see here represent the amount of impact fees that are collected from the agreement. I believe it was April of 2004 till we let the construction. We sized, actually, the project on the eastern end to come in to what we thought and what turned out to actually be the bid amount. About 38 million, I believe, generally, if you'll bear with me on that figure. We haven't yet generated sufficient funds. The agreement was that in '10 -- the other was in 7. They weren't designed, and we were ready to go until after'9 (sic). The middle section then, at that time the original agreement was impact fees, once they're sufficiently collected, to do that middle section, a ten, or until that date. Right now we don't have anywhere near that impact -fee collection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't think then within the next five years you're going to have the impact fees in order to start that middle section, so it's off for at least -- MR. FEDER: If it took me from about 2004 to 2009 during heavy development times to generate about 38 million, I think I'm safe in saying that probably in the next five years I will not generate 33. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the next five years you can't do that Phase -- you're not going to start the Phase III then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got Phase 1 and 2 completed, which are coming out to be really nice segments. They're wide, they've got plenty of room, then they bottleneck down to Phase IIl, and it's going to sit that way for five years? MR. FEDER: We met with the board Tuesday of this week, two days ago, and we are putting in a safety project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I get too frustrated watching those meetings, so I didn't see what went on. MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, the good news on that one, I can tell you, is we've met with them and told them because of just that same concern that I've got expanded on both sides, and in the middle I've got 10 -foot lanes, not 12 -foot lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. FEDER: No paved shoulders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: That we had a real concern about that period of time with no improvements. We're going in, and we're going to do a re- -- a widening paved shoulder safety project in that middle section so it will bring it to 12 -foot lanes, 3 -foot shoulder on one side, 5 on the other, acknowledging that it will be there for over five years without those. The only thing the board wanted us to do with that bid was to make sure that the folks, and Barron Collier and Ave Maria, who we have the agreement with, were agreeable that within five years they didn't expect there was going to be multilaning in that section, just as you're raising. Page 45 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the agreement, I believe, requires the impact fees as collected to be accrued and then used to complete -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Immokalee Road -- or Oil Well Road before any other areas. MR. FEDER: I'm not using impact fees on what I just said, but yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means the other two adjoining traffic zones aren't going to have any improvements until that third phrase is done? MR. FEDER: You do have an item on Page 20 here that shows Wilson Boulevard, an intersection improvement, it's assuming some impact fees, and that's the other issue that we're trying to get concurrence with the folks on that agreement. But since it's going to take quite a while to get the 33 generated to be able to do the middle section, that we have an extreme need right now, and to allow us to move forward on that. That's shown in here, but it does require -- and that's what I was going to make is a note on that. It does require that we have that agreement not to be out of contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you can't get enough impact fees to make your commitment for the middle section, other than the Wilson, if you get an amendment to allow that to happen, then in those traffic districts that are part of this impact -fee deal, there would be no other improvements then allowed from impact fees in those three districts, really. MR. FEDER: Yeah. Nor as you see are there any concurrency issues other than Golden Gate Boulevard, and that's what we're trying to address with that exception. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is this Wilson? I don't see the Wilson dollars on Page 20. MR. FEDER: On Page 20. Let me call your attention to Fiscal Year'l5 where you see D /C, CV and construction phase. It's in the middle. It shows Golden Gate Boulevard. You see one has Wilson to DeSoto, and then you see one that says intersection -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. MR. FEDER: -- which is a subset. So while we continue in the future to try to get the right -of -way out there on Golden Gate Boulevard, we are trying to do an intersection improvement. We've estimated about five million, and that's one that would come under that discussion we just had. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Now -- and the Oil Well shoulder safety enhancements that are for that middle section -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: --that are showing in FYI 2, those are not impact -fee related? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're just making those -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Gas tax. MR. FEDER: That's gas tax. It's for paved shoulders and safety that we would have to do, since it's going to take us more than five years to get to that middle section of Oil Well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. So you can't use the impact fees -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for those improvements. MR. FEDER: Not when you're not adding capacity. COMMISSIONER CARON: Those safety improvements. MR. FEDER: Not adding additional lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the fun I can have with you. MR. FEDER: Well, that was pretty good, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Nick, at break, asked me to calm down a little bit. MR. FEDER: I appreciate that, Nick. Page 46 of 91 l September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said, Norm's retiring. Don't give him a hard time until March, please. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not what I said. I said, let him have it. He can take it. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- COMMISSIONER CARON: First time he ever listened to you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I know. I'm sure it's the last, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything -- anybody else? If not, is there a motion on the transportation section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward the transportation 2011 AUIR with a recommendation of approval as presented. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Barry -- Mr. Klein -- Commissioner Klein, I'm sorry. Now, discussion? The only thing I'm going to ask is would you guys consider adding the stipulation that those projects that don't show a funding in the next five years be removed from the five -year table as we discussed with Norm and Nick. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a problem with that, Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, somebody does. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We need to do the CIE at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, you've got -- MR. BOSL• Well, as well as the AUIR, we're asking that you would recommend approval of the CIE to be for -- the update of the Capital Improvement Element schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're recommending approval of the road AUIR as presented with the exception of that five- year -table correction and inclusion of the results of that into the CIE; is that your motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER Al ERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Thank you, Norm. And you're staying here for drainage or -- MR. FEDER: It was so much fun the first time, I'm back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, this one's done quite differently. So this will be interesting. MR. FEDER: Okay. This is very different. This one is starting to get into a full- fledged program as we've discussed over the years, yes. Again, for the record, Norman Feder. I'm the administrator of the Growth Management Division, which includes, as well, stormwater. Your stormwater AUIR is a bit different in the methodology and the like. What you'll see on Page 34 that I'll bring to your attention is in stormwater we're trying to manage a resource. The old adage of why did we drain the swamp, we already had that in the Everglades many years ago. Page 47 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting We recognize that we need to address, yes, flood attenuation discharge rates, but we also need to address as well water quality and the ability to have the recharge of the aquifer that we rely upon so heavily. So hopefully when it does come dry season, we haven't made it drier, and in the wet season we haven't destroyed Naples Bay and other areas with too much fresh water. So we are trying to manage it as a resource. You basically, on Page 20 -- 35, excuse me, right now, it has three focuses in the program. A lot of that focus has been very narrowed in because we have gone from .15 ad valorem, mills, from one five mills to .1 mill. So you had a one -third reduction in the dollars to the program, also coupled by reduced assessed values, because it's very directly tied, and so the program's dollar volumes are down quite a bit. With that in mind, you do have three focuses. The first is LASIP, or the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. There are some 27 projects individually in that overall program. We went almost 17 or 18 years to get the permits. We're about halfway through the construction. We've got everything else designed, ready to go, and are slated to have every one of those projects done within the 2015 time frame of the permit with the exception of the improvements along County Barn Road. Now, County Barn Road's improvements were tied into the County Barn Road project itself, but then once we opened Santa Barbara extension and moved from four to six lanes on that -- because it was almost -- I think it was about 2 million additional cost to go from four to six rather than try to add the additional two lanes onto County Barn initially. And so that project has been delayed. Demand factor's down now. The two schools that were going to go on County Barn don't seem to be moving forward. And I'll defer to Tom on that. Overall demand is not there to push County Barn, as we had anticipated before, to construction. So that one part of the LASIP separately permitted under the road project will be delayed, but all the other portions will meet the permit deadline of 2015. So that's the major dollar and activity within the program. Beyond that, though, we still have to focus on what's called NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and that process is a permit requirement on us that we maintain now assessing information to allow both public and private development within this county to proceed. And that is being continued, and they're doing a lot of work on inventorying what we actually have in systems, canals, structures and other things we've talked about in the past. And the third activity is to look at our control structures and the age of those right now and getting back into the maintenance issue to some degree, because we do have a lot of control structures, but we need to make sure we know what condition they're in and how they're operating and what we need to do to make sure we have a life -cycle analysis of that. Basically, the program itself, as I mentioned, is on Page 37. And as you can see, other than a couple of items where we're doing continued monitoring, like at Freedom Park, the NPDES LASIP is the predominant item, and I'll open it to any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on stormwater? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I actually should have brought this up under transportation, but I understand you're telling us that County Barn doesn't need to be widened now because of Santa Barbara. MR. FEDER: Not at this time, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, at this time. But County Barn is, today, not a safe road the way it is constructed. So under your safety improvements category there, other than the Oil Well one, will improvements be made finally to County Barn after all this time? I mean -- MR. FEDER: We did one resurfacing, but your point is still well taken. What you're saying is no paved shoulders and other issues. We're looking at, on the LASIP, do we wait until a multilaning, or do we tie it into what I will call paved shoulders and a safety project on County Barn? So that is being considered. Part of the LASIP provisions on County Barn were parallel to the roadway on the north end. South of Whitaker was in the middle of a future four -lane envision. So we're re- evaluating that southern end in particular. We've already acquired the right -of -way for multilaning and LASIP, so we have the ability to come in and consider how long is it going to be before we multilane, and if it's going to be a while, can we do an upgrade and go into the LASIP feature? So we're looking at that now. It's not in this five. It's still something being evaluated. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So it's not going to happen the next five years either? MR. FEDER: It is a maintenance item, so it wouldn't be shown on your five in the element in here. It would be part of your maintenance efforts, and only when it bears out that it becomes a bigger project, but you do have Page 48 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting intersection and safety improvements as a category of dollars once we break it out into specific projects. Like, for instance, the Oil Well we broke out. We showed you that. So when you see on here -- on Page 20 back there where you saw intersection improvements or enhancements -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. FEDER: -- those we would pull projects out over time and identify them. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean -- MR. FEDER: I'm not saying they can't get to it. Right now we're trying to evaluate what's our best approach given that we have the LASIP features that we want to get done for drainage in the area, and we recognize that County Barn, even though we resurfaced it, is not in ideal shape. The volumes are down on it. The demand is not growing, as I said, with new development coming in there, but still, that's something that we're looking at. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because I -- you know, I don't know. This is one of those that I don't quite get. It's been out there for a long time. It's not a safe road, yet we're all concerned about this two lanes on Oil Well for the 200 people that live in Ave Maria, but in the heart of the urban area, County Barn's been sitting out there forever, you know, as an unsafe road, and it's like the stepchild of the world. I don't get it. MR. FEDER: What I will tell you is when I came here County Barn had been in and out of the program quite a few years, so I understand that statement. The part of the statement I will take a little bit of exception to is the "unsafe." We don't have major traffic accidents, crashes, or issues relative to it. Is it -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You've got shoulder issues there. MR. FEDER: We've got shoulders that are not the most ideal, I agree with you. And I have that in other parts around the county. But I don't see it as an unsafe, so I don't want to characterize it as an unsafe section. But I do agree with you it's not one that is our ideal crosssection; no, it is not. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Commissioner Caron, I'll add. We were doing a surface water master plan, and to Norman's comment, we don't want to do a project improvement over there and yet to find out we have to do some LASIP improvements, so we're having the design team look at what could be done in the interim that wouldn't be throwaway and could be combined into LASIP. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I understand you're trying to combine it into LASIP. My question was, how many more years out are we going to have to go on that? That was all. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Based on funding. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so it's five years or more at this point, and I think that's too bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Nonnan, what --just -- you call this secondary stormwater. What is primary stormwater then? MR. FEDER: Primary is the Water Management District. Big Cypress Basin has it. The primary is your huge canals -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FEDER: -- the major canal system. The canal system that was typically tied to some of your major arterials, Airport- Pulling, others that we develop that go into those larger canals is called the secondary system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FEDER: The stormwater systems in subdivisions or within loca side - street swales is called the tertiary system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then, you know, we have the watershed plan coming up. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have a phrase in here at the end that you're looking for an alternate method to calculate level of service. I mean, over the years we used to do it by mile of canal and some crazy way. MR. FEDER: Mile of canal is crazy, and we talked about that. We did try to go something more specific, which we did do on projects we had permit basis on, on cubic feet and -- cubic foot. But what we are doing right now, as you point out -- and I appreciate that, because I didn't hit on it -- is with the watershed planning we are doing the modeling. We're becoming what I'll call predictive as to where our needs are, much like we do in transportation, have a long -range plan that says, here's where my shortfalls are coming, what projects am I going to do that can meet that. Page 49 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting What we've been doing, like with LASIP, like with the projects we had before LASIP, if you will, were identified where we had problems and study just one little sub - basin. We're trying to go countywide with a process that allows us to predict where we need to be rather than react to just where we've seen that we had basically flooding problems after major rainstorm events. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what your goal really is, to have a -- like you say, a predictable system, a manageable system, that you can tune it, you can tighten up, loosen it up. MR. FEDER: Yes. And Nick's been working very aggressively with some of the folks over there, with Jerry and Max, who I know is -- Max is right back here, and they are trying to work with that watershed planning and the modeling to give us an ability to predict where we need to make improvements given our current system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And as we drive around, we see these -- it appears to be sites off to the side of roads where you have lakes and stuff like that. Are you having water - quality issues with those lakes or what -- MR. FEDER: Retention areas, no, not so much so. But as an aside, we're required to do that to treat the first inch of water off of impervious surface, all that. It's not the most effective way, for me to put retention ponds here, there, and everywhere. Freedom Park was an example. We're trying to look at others to try and come up with corridors where we're actually treating water, doing a lot more than just holding it. It answers your question, no, we don't, because we keep it there. That's the whole idea of a retention is to let every solid go down, and that -- so when we let it off or weed it off, clean it off the top, it's good water going out. So we're not having problems with the ponds. It's just that it's a process that doesn't really give us the kind of water quality like at Freedom Park and some of other things we're trying to look at will give us in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, on Page 37, consistent with what we just asked to have on the five -year table on roads, is there a reason why 510059 is on the Capital Improvement Element when nothing's showing up? MR. FEDER: There is, and there's nothing shown for the last few years. But in your Growth Management Plan you had three specific stormwater projects identified. One of them was Belle Meade. We've not had a project, but it was in the Growth Management Plan as one of three major stormwater projects. You had the Gordon River, you had LASIP, and you had Belle Meade, and that's why I was continuing to show it for consistency with your Growth Management Plan. But it has not been funded, nor for a while now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the Gateway is a reference to the Gateway Triangle? MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what kind of improvements are going on there? MR. FEDER: The improvements are almost completed. We put in -- worked with the Bayshore MSTU and CRA. They added some more to a retention area. We've got a big bowl in the triangle, is the best way to look at it. They bought some more retention area. We built a pump with outfalls, and an outfall to the south now, that in a major rain event we can get that water out of that area much faster because you're below sea level there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How was the 200,000 funded? It's in the Bayshore CRA? MR. FEDER: No. That 200,000 is coming out of your stormwater program funds, but we're working with them. They're doing -- as I said, they helped buy some of the land there that is the retention pond now, and they're working on -- back to the question -- the tertiary system, getting it to that pond area, and then our project was getting it out of that area with the pump and that effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee is currently -- Immokalee CRA is currently going through some improvements in stormwater improvements and others, and I understand they're paying for it out of their CRA side of things. Why are not -- why isn't the Bayshore paying for their improvements out of their side of things? MR. FEDER: No, they are. As I said, they bought land and they're doing the tertiary. The folks out at Immokalee, we helped pay them for the design. They got a grant, and so they're doing some of it under a grant item. We were in there when we had some money a couple years back, if you look at an AUIR, probably about 2009. We showed some dollars going in there along with them to meet the many stormwater issues out in Immokalee. We had to, unfortunately, pull back. We told them we'd provide whatever technical assistance we can, but they're using the grant and they're taking the lead on it now out in Immokalee. Page 50 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The secondary system repair on the next one, the non -CIE -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what is that, just cleaning out swales and things like that? MR. FEDER: Yes, culvert pipe that goes in, other issues of the sort that are problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Swale maintenance and repair is -- MR. FEDER: Roadside swales. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't that under roads? MR. FEDER: Because you're using it as part of your tertiary system, the drainage. They're doing it under roads. We do aquatic spraying, but this is -- the roadside swales is part of this drainage system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it enters the secondary system -- when does the roadside swales become road maintenance and when are they not? I mean, you've got two types of roadside swales -- MR. FEDER: They are road maintenance. Here you're doing specific projects to enhance. If I'm coming in -- one is road maintenance if I'm just taking the swale, maintaining it, spraying it, keeping it clean of debris and the like. If I'm coming in to help change profiles to get a better flow and address issues, then it becomes stormwater. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your closed drainage systems or your roadside systems in the road program, the ponds -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- your open Swale systems are in this program here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these are strictly the open systems then, not the ones that go to retention ponds -- MR. FEDER: Yeah, they're open. And they get maintained somewhat out of maintenance, but improvements to them come out of this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Countywide stormwater improvements. What is that? It hasn't got an SAP number. It's just simply the last project on this list. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was -- MR. FEDER: That's the million dollars coming to us. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. That was added this year. Last minute we had some issues with Forest Lakes -- not last minute. We've known about it. We've been asking for budget for it and working with OMB. They've set it aside. We didn't have an opportunity, even a project number yet, but it is that headwaters at Forest Lakes tied into the LASIP. MR. FEDER: It's the headwaters of the Gordon River. Essentially Forest Lakes, through MSTU, did all kinds of improvements to their drainage system, but their ability to outfall is hindered, which is our system, the secondary, getting it over to the headwaters of the Gordon River, and so this is a project to come in and improve that connection from the Forest Lakes community to the Gordon River headwaters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the problem exist before they did all their improvements? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So their improvements didn't help at all? MR. FEDER: Their improvements helped them, but, unfortunately, are -- are being restricted by us not getting this improvement done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's outside the MSTU boundaries. MR. FEDER: Yes, it's outside of their boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last I had. Anybody else have any on stormwater? If not, I'd certainly entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make a motion. I would move that we forward the county - maintained system of secondary stormwater management canals and structures in the 2011 AUIR with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Ebert seconded. Mr. Schiffer made the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Capital -- Page 51 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The capital improvements -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. Did you say the capital improvements? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I didn't, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He meant to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He meant to. No, you didn't, or yes, you did? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I agree it should have been in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion is to recommend approval of the stonnwater drainage element as well as inclusion of those elements necessary into the CIE. The motion maker accepts that interpretation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As does the second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Yeah, Mike? MR. BOSI: I should have brought the point up when you finished up with transportation. Did you want to make a recommendation regarding the maintenance of the concurrency management system for transportation to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Category A facilities. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would definitely make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion is to maintain the current concurrency management system, basically keeping it a Category A as we've always used it. And there's been no other -- I mean, we've -- I think we've discussed the idea in detail. So I'm satisfied after the question and answer we had this morning, it needs to stay there, myself. Everybody else okay? Then we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 52 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Norm, thank you very much. This is the last AUIR we'll probably see you for unless you come back mysteriously as a consultant or something, but we appreciate everything you've done. MR. FEDER: I can't for two years, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could probably consult for the county, but thank you, sir. Okay. Potable water system. We'll do all the utilities in order. We've got potable water, sewer treatment, and solid waste, and everybody's here. So, Nathan, it's all yours. MR. BEALS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities project manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you relation to the Bealls that owns those big department stores, just out of curiosity? MR. BEALS: No, I only have one L, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, good. MR. BEALS: Sadly, I wouldn't be here. I can answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a great -- I like that presentation. We'll take each element separately, so we'll start with the water, it's Pages 41 to 51, or actually 41 to 53. Does anybody have any questions on the water section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, I think, it would be interesting just to see how we are using the water. In other words, these are obviously all predictions, but it would be interesting, especially to determine, you know, the level of service, if it's appropriate, is how much water is being used based on current population. MR. BEALS: The level of service is reviewed during the master planning process, and we have a -- the last one was done in 2008. Our next is planned in the next 18 months to be in Fiscal Year' 12, which we'll review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's not that I necessarily want to review it, but I would -- it would be good if we had some historical data for the last couple years maybe based on the population of the last couple years on the report to kind of see what we're using as a level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we're using as a potable water level of service? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because I've done some studies and stuff where, you know, I'm not sure the population, what that is. And you're right, we don't want to change it. This is not the place to do that. But just out of curiosity, you know, are we -- you're making predictions here and you're showing usage and predicted uses. It would be good to see the current usage. MR. BEALS: We're not exceeding the current level of service of 170. We are below that. It varies each year depending upon the season demand that we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. That's the curiosity. But anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, if the demand goes down, they just simply change the pressure in the pumps, and then they still can pump the same amount of water as their revenues remain the same. Oh, that's not happening, right? MR. BEALS: We don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I just wanted to make sure we're clear for the record. Any other questions on potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Page 42. Nathan, your first statement on Number 1, the population projections from comprehensive planning increased due to updates to the water county (sic) sewer district map. What updates? How did that change? MR. BEALS: In previous years we -- the water /sewer districts has sections that are exempt from impact fees where we don't plan to expand our facilities in the next ten years, and we did not count the population that is within the boundaries but -- that's within the boundaries and in those exempt areas in the past. We corrected the maps because we need to be prepared to serve everybody within the water /sewer district Page 53 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting boundary whether they're exempt from impact fees or not, because they can connect -- extend a line to connect to our mains tomorrow, and we have to be able to provide service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that brings up an interesting scenario then. So let's take Orangetree, for example. MR. BEALS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have Orangetree under your ownership currently. MR. BEALS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the people in Orangetree aren't using your system. They're using a private system that they've more or less paid for through -- however they paid the developer. You're going to go into Orangetree at some point and take it over, and when you do you're going to charge all those thousands of homes impact fees like they were new customers? MR. BEALS: That is not my understanding. I believe that they're not in our water /sewer district currently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BEALS: And they are already being serviced by a treatment facility, and we will be acquiring that treatment facility. So no new impact fees, as far as I know, will have to be levied for those service areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got some documentation on Orangetree that had that discussion in it. So when -- I'm sure someone from your department's going to be here when that comes before this panel for PUD approval, because that -- there was an issue about the impact -fee payments that will be allocated to the people within Orangetree if the county takes over the system, and I was trying to -- I thought that was -- I'm surprised to hear it isn't, because other systems in the county, when you've taken them over from private, you've actually instituted impact fees. MR. WIDES: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Tom Wides, operations director for public utilities. There's been a lot of discussion over time about Orangetree and about impact fees, whether they'll be assessed or not. All I can tell you at this point for sure is that we've done a lot of investment of time and discussion with outside attorneys, with outside rate consultants, and it would be our general belief at this point in time that there will be no impact fees assessed in this case, but there is no final decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how have you -- and, Tom, you know, we have had other private facilities taken over where the county has imposed impact fees. So how do you justify it for them and not for Orangetree? I'm not saying it's great (sic) that you're going out and doing this to Orangetree, but I'm wondering how you differentiate between the two kinds of entities. MR. WIDES: Sir, let me reiterate. There is no final decision here. This is a big discussion topic, and we don't have a final answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WIDES: We've gotten suggestions from outside resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I hadn't even thought of this until the response regarding how you've increased your population base. So the population within Orangetree, say, now is being counted by you in the analysis that's in front of us for the required treatment needed for water and other things yet you're not providing the services to them, but we have to provide the facilities to them, and they already have the facilities, and we don't know if they're going to pay for the facilities now provided by the county. MR. BEALS: The Orangetree Water /Sewer District is not included within the Collier County Water /Sewer District at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go back to the original question. Where is the district map -- where did the district map increase that brought in new units from a -- that weren't part of the system before? MR. BEALS: It was mostly in the Estates area between Vanderbilt and Pine Ridge from north to south and east of -- I'm sorry -- west of Collier Boulevard. That was previously -- or still is exempt from impact fees, but we, every now and then, receive connections close to the boundaries where we have mains. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's east of -- I mean west of 951 ? MR. BEALS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The people there have not paid impact fees because they've been on water and sewer, but when they choose to connect to your system they still don't pay impact fees? MR. BEALS: When they connect, they pay impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then how is that any different than Orangetree? What's fair for one has got to Page 54 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting be fair for all. MR. WIDES: Again, Tom Wides, for the record. First off, what Nathan is referring to are people that are using wells, okay, because they're too far from our infrastructure. Occasionally we do get requests for service from those folks, and it may be a case of running a water line a mile, two miles, half mile. I have no idea what the length would be, but we do occasionally get those requests. So we continue to monitor -- if someone finally makes that request and they're in the exempt area, they're on a well system today, they're going to pay an impact fee. They don't have a current service provider other than their wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does Orangetree Utilities get its water? MR. WIDES: I'm sorry. Say it again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does Orangetree Utilities get its water from? MR. WIDES: From the aquifers below. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By a well. MR. WIDES: By well, treated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody that uses the water from Orangetree Utilities is also on a well system? No different than the county as a whole? MR. WIDES: You could argue that; however, the treatment is much more dramatic for the people that are on either the Orangetree Utility or on the Collier County Water /Sewer District versus a private well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This issue's going to come up when the PUD is discussed, so I would hope that you've got a more definitive answer on how it comes out, because the people in the audience, of which there'll probably be many dozens, will probably be real curious. That's been an issue with their PUD right now. So I understand you don't have it today, but I think we better be prepared for that meeting. MR. WIDES: I understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Melissa? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Nathan, just a question on what you were saying is exempt from impact fees. A while back you guys started charging impact fees for areas that were not -- could not connect right now, but because they were in the district you were charging them. And the policy was if you did not provide service within seven years they could ask for a refund. Are you not doing that anymore? MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, for the record. First off, it's if we don't provide service within ten years and, yes, if we do not provide service to an area or to an individual within ten years, we will initiate the process of a refund. But in addition to that, what we've added into our process is looking at areas that we just know we're not going to be able to serve in the next ten years unless there's a very special request. And in those cases, we're reviewing to see if we can immediately refund those people, okay, or if they subsequently build a home, we're not going to automatically charge them an impact fee. COMMISSIONER AHERN: So you're doing that automatically? People don't need to initiate that request? MR. WIDES: We will send them a letter, and then they need to respond, and then we start the impact- fee - refund process. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. MR. WIDES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we move on to more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a tiny question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's kind of back to the other thing. What was the -- based on the chart on 45, what was the million gallons per day that you used in 2010; do you know? MR. BEALS: I'm sorry. Repeat the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the actual use, in other words, the historical use of how many gallons per day, million gallons per day in 2010? Essentially what I want to do is draw a little circle on this chart for the actual amount of water. MR. BEALS: I know that our peak demand during the season was approximately 29 or 30 million gallons in that -- in those peak days during season of our actual use last -- this past fiscal year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Twenty -nine or 30 million gallons -- Page 55 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. BEALS: In one day. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Per day. Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 47, Nathan, it looks like you're -- on the middle of that chart, Fiscal Year 2013, does that mean that's when you plan on taking over the Orangetree plant? MR. BEALS: That is the earliest possible date. We have to give them a one -year notice, and we currently do not have a date selected or a schedule for when we will be taking over Orangetree, and we have to give them a one -year notice with board approval to move forward with the taking over. So we're just showing the best- or worst -case scenario, however your angle is, to look at this, that we would take Orangetree over in 2013 at the earliest possible time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like you intend to operate it till 2024, or whatever the years that you're allocated. Then you take it off the -- you take the amount of gallons you're going to be working off the books there, then you add it where? MR. BEALS: The decommissioning or taking -- shutting down of the Orangetree facility would coincide with the northeast plant facility that is currently based on AUIR population and the current level of service to be needed in 2024. And so they're going to coincide, and they're going to -- and right now the plan is to shut down the Orangetree. We would obviously investigate whether or not the facility can be expanded or interconnected and left in place. Those would just have to be determined as we get closer to that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that new plant is the one that's going in the north, the very north end of Orangetree that -- north of Orange Blossom Ranch, that big area up in there? MR. BEALS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your department participate in any permission for that PUD to be changed in regards to your section of that property? MR. BEALS: I don't understand the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That -- properties within the Orangetree PUD, the Orangetree PUD is coming in for a series of amendments. I just -- I can't recall offhand if there are any changes for that section of the PUD that is owned by your department or by Collier County. But has anybody in your department ever gotten involved to see if they need to make any changes or amendments to that plan? MR. BEALS: I don't think so, because we are more than ten years out from doing any improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BEALS: I think that somebody would tap me if I was wrong, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good reliance. I like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think Paul is listening. MR. CHMELIK: This is Tom Chmelik, for the record, director of public utilities engineering. I just want to say we've been involved in that planning process. But at this point it stands the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stands the way it is, whether it's -- if we read it and it appears to be amended -- MR. CHMELIK: There's no -- there's been no further amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on your part -- MR. CHMELIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for that section? MR. CHMELIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the -- okay. I thought there was some -- someone -- one of the -- the reason I'm asking is one of the public speakers said that you -all were trying to put in some wells or something on the property that wasn't permitted before. I haven't checked that out, so I was just asking you if there was any changes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That was the fairgrounds she was talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. I'm not sure, but -- okay. So you don't know of any changes. That's good enough; thank you. MR. CHMELIK: To my knowledge, the wells have always been in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That's even better to hear. Thank you. Page 56 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting On Page 52 you have revenue key and revenue sources down below, and you're looking at water system development fee, slash, impact fees. It's pretty consistent for the next five years. Why? I mean, we've got a -- variable standards for population and construction and we have increases or decreases in our population. How do you think you're going to maintain a perfect scenario for the next five years? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, again, Tom Wides. We don't know what that number's going to be. What I do know -- and I've been here 11 years now working this plan. What we've seen is a great deal of variability year to year, okay. The last two years have been around 3 to $4 million of impact fees. And to try to project anything higher than that would be risky at best. Again, we will have a chance every year to come back and relook at these numbers, and that's really the way we're looking at it now. Rather than trying to predict revenue growth in the impact -fee area, we've just said just flat -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Straight line. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure I understood it that way. So-- you're going to love this question. You don't know if the Orangetree impact fees are included in these or not? MR. WIDES: They are not included, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to ask that, Tom. You set it up too good. Okay. Thank you. That's the only ones I have on potable water. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a -- now, this motion would have to include the potable water as well as the inclusion in the CIE. Does anybody wish to make such a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward the 2011 potable water AUIR and CIE with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'd second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Nathan, thank you. MR. BEALS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to stay here for the sewer? MR. BEALS: I'm going to stay here for the rest of the public utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're like Norm. You're a glutton for punishment. Look out. Well, hopefully these will be all about the same, so -- Anybody have any questions on the sewer element as it -- part of this AUIR? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nathan, same questions on the sewer element in regards to Orangetree. Do you have any idea what you're going to do with impact fees out there for the sewer element? MR. BEALS: Same answers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. And Tom was going to jump up and tell you to say the same thing, so The -- Page 63 you have a 2013 new plant capacity of 1.1 million gallons per day as existing in Orangetree. Is that system intending to be remaining? Because you don't show it coming out of the system like you did the other Page 57 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting one. MR. BEALS: We don't have a plan for the northeast wastewater reclamation facility in the next 20 years, so we would have to operate the Orangetree in place until the northeast plant is necessary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: For how long did you say? MR. BEALS: Till 2031, the 20 -year planning window that we look at during the AUIR process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means the MU /U section of the Orangetree PUD, which is about dead center between the two schools, is where I believe -- is that where this plant is currently? I mean, that's what it would -- it says on -- the PUD says that's where it's supposed to be. Let's assume it is. So that means that plant's going to be in place, then, for -- you're estimating probably 20 years or more, if the county takes it over. MR. BEALS: The existing treatment plant within Orangetree, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason that's relevant is the PUD coming up for review by this board in a week, if it stays on schedule, has alternative commercial uses for that parcel at the demise of the plant. And the way it's written, I'm wondering if you take the water plant out but leave the sewer plant in, would you potentially do that? MR. BEALS: I don't know at this time. We haven't had in -depth plans. We haven't gone in and looked and had -- MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, or the bobbing head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's always good to see you, Tom. MR. WIDES: Thank you. Really, we're at the stages with the Orangetree Utility that we haven't seen any of the infrastructure yet. We don't know the operating condition of that infrastructure. So it's very hard for us at this point in time to even speculate what can we run, how long can we run it? Do we take one piece out and run the rest? Those are just a lot of unanswered questions. The only thing -- you know, the only thing that's really in concrete is that we can't take over before mid or late ' 12. And in terms of when we'd be ready, that's a whole 'nother question, and we've got to have those communications yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the problem we have -- and this board happened to stumble into it, to be honest with you. Last week all this was supposed to have been resolved. We would have made a decision last week on Orangetree. That potential decision could have increased them by another 1,250 units and five times the amount of commercial they currently have on that site. They've got 60,000 allocated. They're asking 332,000. Now, that has a huge impact on utilities. MR. WIDES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you guys don't work the utilities or acquire them or seek the things you need from them during this amendment process, or have -- because you've got an opportunity right now to see that a lot of the groundwork's set for things you need in the future. I was under the impression this has all been fleshed out and you understood all that and you had already allocated within that PUD your needs. But if you haven't, Tom, by all means, you need to do that quickly. MR. WIDES: No. Please don't let me run the risk of misstating. We have expressed our needs. We know what we need in the system, okay. But your question that I believe I heard was what is our plan to take the water -- you know, if we build the water plant, what is our plan in terms of potentially demolishing that so that they can do further building? That we don't know. But we know the footprint we need. We know we've gotten the easements that we've needed. We've been working with them to make sure we've got what we said we expected. But what I can't tell you -- until we go in there and look at that utility infrastructure, I can't tell you that I'm going to keep that water plant there and then just demolish everything atone time. And, frankly, that is --that is not for us to demolish, by the way. That's the property owner, which that property stays with the Orangetree. But I can't -- I can't tell you at this point in time how long we're going to be able to run that, if these population numbers hold up. We could be pushing out farther or coming in closer. Those are the kind of questions we don't know. And you'll remember that we were in lawsuit with them for probably two -plus years, and we couldn't step foot on that -- or weren't allowed to step foot on that property. Now we've got agreements to go out, and they've said, come on in, take a look at our infrastructure and assess it. Page 58 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other part of the question I'm concerned about -- but it's all good we're knowing this ahead and we're having this discussion today, because they did not get heard before us. They got continued. If the intentions to operate all of this new facilities and this expanded commercial and expanded residential that they want in the PUD, it looks like it's going to have to be managed or handled within the plants that are there for X amount of time, maybe the water plant shorter than the sewer plant, but that brings into question the capacities of the sewer plant and whether it can handle a triple, doubling, or quadrupling of whatever the services are that are needed of it and the amount of space that takes over a long period of time. And so that's all issues I hope that you guys can at least try to answer some questions on to the extent that you're involved in it when we do meet on that issue, which will either be the next meeting next Thursday or two weeks from next Thursday. So, Tom, if you guys have needs and you can get them through process, I would suggest you highly, you know, exped- -- you know, let us know what they are so we can recommend. MR. WIDES: The physical needs we have taken care of, but in terms of the whens, the whens are all going to be driven by population numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WIDES: And so I don't really think it's reasonable for me to even ask Orangetree to try to provide me anything more than our AUIR projections. That's when it makes it tough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying -- MR. WIDES: Understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the PUDs are written for future. PUD says how a community's going to build out over a long period of time. All I'm suggesting is, if there's elements in there that would assist in making the transition easier, we ought to be looking at those to make sure they can be carried out. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Wides? MR. WIDES: Yes, hi. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Hi. Is it possible for you to at least go out and take a look at Orangetree before this comes ahead of us so we have a better background on utilities? Because it is very, very important. MR. WIDES: I'm going to ask our engineering director maybe to help us all understand what "going to take a look" really means, okay, because it's not really literally just walking out there and saying, the structure's good. There's a lot more involved. Tom Chmelik? MR. CHMELIK: Tom Chmelik, for the record. To answer the question, we certainly could take a look at it, but there's a lot of analysis and research that needs to be done with the information gathered to really understand what that means from a capacity and life standpoint. Certainly, a quick observation can gain some knowledge, but a detailed study is needed to really understand what's there. And to do that within a week is not reasonable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But it prepares us a little. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that the Orangetree PUD and utility need to provide to this board whenever you hear it the security that the plant can handle it through whatever time period if the county never takes it over or if they -- and they have to operate it from now until the end of time. It is their responsibility, and if they can't do that for you, us, then it shouldn't be approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct, but they'll -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just think they need to be put on notice that it's their responsibility at this point to get us all the detailed information that we would need to make that judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're allowed to have -- they're required to show us that they have the utility capabilities available to them in order to get approved. In our packet, our certifications that those availabilities from that plant are available -- how they intend to expand it in the future, they just -- they can't get -- they can't get building Page 59 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting permits unless the capacity is expanded to the point that it's needed. So that will be -- that is addressed. That will be addressed, and it's -- part of it's already been addressed in the Orangetree packet, but it's buried in hundreds and hundreds of pages. COMMISSIONER CARON: It was -- yeah, and it was not what I would call 100 percent, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's kind of back to the same thing. What was the peak at the north county rec; do you know? And you can shoot from the hip on this. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can hold him to it later. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Right. It's much more fun that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The peak for -- what is it you're looking for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just curious about what the peak load in actuality was at the plant. MR. BEALS: At the north wastewater plant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. BEALS: Off the top of my head, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you wouldn't know the south either then? MR. BEALS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't care about Orangetree. MR. BEALS: I wouldn't know theirs either. I could find it out and bring it back to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, and it's maybe just a quirk, but what would be interesting is since you do show 2010 next year, show like the peak, and then maybe the minimum or something, just so that I don't annoy you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to leave all that up to me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Wouldn't want to move in on Mark's -- COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're doing well enough. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want to get in on Mark's turf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've only got a year of that left, so -- okay. Anybody else? COMMISS "IONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to accept the solid -- not the solid waste. Doesn't Dan wish that. Is there a motion to accept the wastewater treatment facilities AUIR submittal as well as entrance into the CIE? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For 2011, as presented, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry seconded. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And with that, we'll take a 15- minute break before we come back. Thank you, Nathan. Appreciate it. MR. BEALS: Thank you. (Commissioner Ahern left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) Page 60 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. And, Nathan, you're not going to speak for Dan Rodriguez, are you? He's really good at speaking for himself. MR. BEALS: I'm going to give it a shot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow. Oh, that means we have got to have really difficult questions. Are you kind of like involved in everything over there? All -- I didn't know what -- I haven't -- MR. BEALS: I'm the main planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- okay. I haven't run into you before, so it's been your -- you seem knowledgable, and I'm glad to meet you, but -- MR. BEALS: I've been here a few times talking to you directly, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not in the capacity you are today. MR. BEALS: I'm usually unforgettable, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've reached that big six oh, I passed it, so what happens is I forget a lot now, but I try not to. Okay. With that, your presentation was excellent, thank you. It was very detailed. Are there any questions on the solid -waste element? Well, lookit, I'll start then, and as you guys come up with questions, we'll jump in. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Page 71 -- you'll make the motion? Not quite so fast. On No. 1, your last two lines talks about increasing recycling and decreasing disposal as reasons why you've gained capacity as well as reductions in the population estimated -- used to calculate the remaining disposal airspace capacity. Didn't you guys get a height increase? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Seventy -one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that didn't take long for him to jump up. MR. BEALS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He popped up already. MR. BEALS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, didn't you apply for a height increase? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department director. We did, absolutely. The Board of County Commissioners, I believe, back in December approved Waste Management to go for application to FDEP for vertical expansion of our landfill that would provide an additional 78 feet of capacity for our landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Nathan was right when he said no, because it hasn't been approved yet, or maybe applied, but hasn't -- so it hasn't been theoretically approved? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to apply for it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: The application was submitted about 30 days ago. We have another 60 days to get a response from FDEP. So far it's looking good from the preapplication meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the tables that we have in here that are reflecting your capacities over two and ten years reflect the increase in height you're going to get, or do we -- is that just going to be more gravy on top of the distant times we already have in here? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. That will be more capacity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- and more value to our customers, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. That's great. I'm glad it's working out that way. Okay. Next question. The proposed -- it's No. 2. The projected tons - per - capita disposal rate in 2011 solid waste AUIR for 2012 forward is .53. And you --which is a decrease from the projected rate that you're using now of .5 --of 2010, which was .55. I think that's what it's saying. We're at .51 right now, and in 2010 we had .52. So can you Page 61 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting explain that No. 2? MR. BEALS: In the 2011, the .51 is a projected, what we base on what we've seen currently, and we project out through the end of the calendar year, or fiscal year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BEALS: And then we calculate the .53 using the previous two years and the current year to calculate the estimate for a carryforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The .55 -- MR. BEALS: Three -year average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reference is coming from where? MR. BEALS: That was last year's carryforward number that was in the 2010 AUIR as a three -year average carryforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That .55 doesn't show up in any of the tables this year, though, right? MR. BEALS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's eliminated because it's -- MR. BEALS: Because it reduced to .53. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps understand it better. Thank you. You're using peak population, which means year -round -- I mean, which means you've got a higher population for the winter months than you do the summer, but your tons per capita is actual; is that right? MR. BEALS: The tons per capita is actual from 2000 through 2010, with 2011 being the estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so it doesn't really matter what population you used in regards to the multiplier. The multiplier will be always the actual. You're not forecasting the multiplier for the population unless -- until you get to the year in question. But, like, you know last year you got .54. MR. BEALS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a fact. Okay. And I'm trying to figure out fact from projections, because population estimates are projections. MR. BEALS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- okay. Your population increases show an increase year to year of 1.7 percent. That's less than the 2 percent that Mike Bosi pointed out, so that's probably -- these are right off David's numbers, okay. Okay. Darn it. I'm out of questions. Well, I got Dan to jump up at least once, Nathan. That's -- I think I'm out, Dan, so -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: If I may, Chairman, I just want to thank the Planning Commissioners that came out to the new gas -to- energy facility that's up and running, has been since May. That's generating electricity for our community, providing electrical power to over 2,200 homes. Most importantly, it came to the county at no cost, and we're getting revenue for it. Roughly just under $36,000 a month where for the previous ten years we were getting zero dollars. So that will help to offset our cost for disposal in the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your rate of kilowatt charge is the same and matches FP &L? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We wish. Absolutely not. FP &L, they're a tough partner as it relates to getting a fair - market rate for our energy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So yours is a lot less? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's even better. But if we got the plant for free, the cost for distribution or anything else, we're not -- the taxpayers are making a positive no matter what way you look at it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And another important aspect of that contract is Waste Management controls the quality and quantity of gas, and that value that we get for the gas, they pay us for the gas, is tied to an energy index. So as the value of energy increase, so does our gas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. That's great. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Dan has in the past invited all of us to have a tour of that, and I would still Page 62 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting highly recommend organizing something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I've been on one of his tours. The dinners are great. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I didn't go on the dinner one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I've been on one of the tours, and I mean, that's -- I had never seen the facility since the old days when I used to go up in an old truck and unload my stuff. And you drive up on this really smelly high mound, and it's all stuff pointing out of the soil, and it's totally different over there now. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: I remember the smelly days. I was in Naples Heritage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Dan, you're doing a great job, thank you. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, appreciate your support. And one other project I want to bring to your attention. Thanks to the Planning Commission, your support of the resource recovery park that's north of the landfill, we're moving forward with the Site Development Plan, and that's a great opportunity for us to partner with more private- sector vendors to come in and provide recycling activities for our community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent, thank you. Anybody else have any questions of solid waste? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to accept the solid waste AUIR submittal as presented and institute the elements needed in the CIE? Did I say it right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barry wanted to do this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Barry, seconded by Brad. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And I think we're 6 -0. Let the record show that Melissa Ahern had to leave early, so -- Nathan, are you going to do the public schools, too? MR. BEALS: No, thank you. See you next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nathan. We appreciate it. I'll remember you next year. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Amy has been waiting all day to talk to us about schools. She's patient. MR. BOSI: Well -- and when I spoke with Amy earlier in the week, I said, you know, you're more than welcome to come, but with no capital improvements being proposed, I can most certainly handle the presentation that there are no capital improvements scheduled within the capital improvement plan. But I guess I'll defer to Amy if she'd like to elaborate upon that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think she'd like to. I can tell by the look. It's probably safer if we just ask you questions, and where you get stumped, Tom or her jump in, if that works for you guys. I'm not sure there's that many questions. Anybody have any specifics question? I mean, I certainly had a procedural issue, and we opened up talking about that. I have been supplied with a copy of that document. I will read it all, and it will give me enough level of comfort that I'll feel free to vote on this today, now that I have it -- and I'll read it before the board meeting, and if I Page 63 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting see anything that is problematic, Mike, I'll just contact you and let you know. And, you know, then we'll go from there. But I've been assured by everybody that there's no inconsistencies regarding our procedure here, so -- or CIE. I did want to ask on a procedural issue, what value is something passed by another agency that is basically independent, and it's done before we review it so they couldn't take the benefit of any comments that we, or for that matter, even greater, the Board of County Commissioners may have if they already passed it? I mean, are we -- isn't that procedurally out of whack, out of order? MR. BOSI: Well, the way -- when you're looking at the CIP, it's already approved. And I guess there's opportunity for -- if you find inconsistencies within the growth projects that would be in the CIP, that -- you could offer those comments, and then the -- we as the staff would take those to our school working group and through their formulation of the next five -year capital improvement program with the school district, and we could rectify or we could bring those issues, too. Because, I mean, you remember within any Capital Improvement Program, unless it's within this first year, this next year, that project's not going to -- the construction's not going to be initiated. So there is some opportunity for adjustments or recognizing potential inconsistencies. But we fully recognize, and the school board acknowledges, the way that their process is -- and it's tied to their fiscal year starting, I believe, in July 1 st or -- their planning process starts in a different window than ours, that structurally we just can't find the consistency to bring it to the -- or to the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners before the -- before the school district would adopt traditionally within, I believe, September? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. And in addition, we're pretty well experienced as to which issues cause conflict or concern, and when those arise, it's really on -- an onus on staff, on the school district, and the county side to work out a ready -made solution, something that's going to work for both entities. And we try to smooth those out before it gets to this stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom -- or I mean, Mike, is this one of those things that we can decide if we want it in as a concurrency element or not? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on the fact the school board does their own thing regardless of where we are with it and prior to being forced into the GMP which was, I think, just recently last year or two years ago -- they were doing just fine without us -- is there a reason why they need to be in this system since we -- we're after the fact anyway? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, they're -- they are -- they are autonomous, they provide for the capital- improvement needs of their system, and they coordinate their program with the county. This would be one of those areas where I think that if you had -- would make the suggestion to remove from the concurrency management system, I'm not sure if that would -- that that would have a detrimental effect. I think that -- and that would be the reason why I think we would recommend to remain if we felt that there would be dire consequences associated with it. But the school board's still going to plan for the schools, which they need, and be able to provide for -- provide for the coordination elements the way that it's envisioned through the public schools facility element. So I can't identify a downside towards whether -- if you would recommend it to be removed from the concurrency management system other than -- other than we would have to go through the GMP amendment process, and we would be able to provide you a much more clearer answer as to why this wouldn't be a detrimental action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think given the fact that it's already done by the time we get it, the school board has a long history of planning pretty well where schools are going to go in advance of when we even know about it, I don't see the need to push more paper through another system that's readily covered by itself. I mean, less government is better government, and I'm not sure we need to impose more government on another government. So I would certainly think that would be an element to explore removing from concurrency as long as there is no detrimental effect. And I think we have an interlocal agreement with the school board that covers just about all kinds of things, and I don't know why we need different than that at this point. So I would certainly lend that as a concern that we ought to move forward with and suggest to the -- that it be looked at to be removed, unless Amy has an objection, likes being here sitting in the audience for a day at a time, so -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Whatever coordination efforts you need could be handled through the Page 64 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting interlocal agreement, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: As a -- so -- MR. BOSI: And that's what it was before school concurrency came. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. BOSL• We had an SBR and interlocal with the school district before concurrency was mandated, so it can be accomplished through that route. COMMISSIONER CARON: The only thing I'm thinking of is, since these issues are often cyclical and one governor's in office and says, get rid of this, and the next time another governor gets in and says, put it all back in, do we waste a lot of effort if we take out what we've put in versus just, you know -- MR. BOSI: That was -- it's funny you mention that. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just here, and -- MR. BOSI: I was speaking with Chris van Lengen, a recent addition within the public utilities. He was a planner for Comprehensive Planning. He went to the Bonita Bay Group, then was with City of Marco, long -time colleague. And he said, the one caution that you may want to at least recognize and put on the record is, there has been talk that there may be a glitch bill this upcoming legislative session. Now, I don't -- I'm not sure if -- but that potential that we could go through the effort and then it could be changed as you stated. I'm not sure if -- we may be under paralysis if we would operate under that thinking, but there is always that potential. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, I just -- I don't know that we gain or lose anything by them providing us this information. It goes in the books and we say, thank you very much, essentially, but I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, for us to do our job and for the Board of County Commissioners to do theirs and for staff to do theirs, to be honest with you, every one of us should be reading the 200 pages in this book and not relying on others to tell us it doesn't have any -- has any inconsistency. Everybody should do their job. That's just not at our level. That's at every level of government. So I would just like to see this done so that we're not forced to acknowledge a book that we would -- of 200 pages that we're going to have to analyze, we have very little familiarity with, and no control over. So that's kind of where I was coming from is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Well, reading it online was no fun, but I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I mean, that's -- but, you know, when I asked the question, staff hasn't really read the whole book, and I doubt if very many people other than school board staff has, and rightfully so; they should. But when you put the onus on others to verify it, you -- technically you should be reading it. So I don't know. I'd rather see it pulled out. If no one objects to it, I would suggest when we get done we include that in a stipulation or a motion going forward. There are some questions I have on the sheets that are in front of us. But to be honest with you, now that I have the book, I will read it first, and if those don't answer my questions, then I certainly will make sure that Mike, or even Amy, I get in touch with you. I did have one remaining question. Your impact fees, you just have almost a --you have a straight line with a -- looks like a pure calculated increase in impact fees. It looks like it was done the same way that utilities did theirs. I would assume it was. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than get into specifics on population, you just flat -lined it for a couple years at a time. MR. BOSI: Well, it was done by school board staff, but that would be my assumption as well, that conservative approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll defer my questions then, because at some point I'll read that document. And then if I have them still, I'll get in touch. So with that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, what does, you know, including the CIP, the school board CIP by reference mean anyway? Page 65 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. BOSI: We don't -- it's not -- in our GMP, the Capital Improvement Element, the updated capital improvement is an appendix to it. We don't include their CIP. We include just a reference to their adopted documents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. So us referencing it means nothing to do with endorsing it, nothing to do with anything other than, by the way, they have that, too. We're just referencing it. MR. EASTMAN: By referencing, the county is acknowledging that these facilities' plans are slated for the future. For example, if -- which we don't have here today, but if we did have a new school listed here and its location was given, and road improvements were needed for that new school, then we'd either have to have an agreement in place with the county that would address how those road improvements would be done, or you would be acknowledging, this school's coming. We, as the county, including our transportation department, will be ready for that and ready to accommodate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the interlocal agreement provide that, though? MR. EASTMAN: The interlocal agreement provides that, and the process by which you acknowledge it is this process right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you want to put a school in, you tell us -- we know it through -- the interlocal agreement regulates for us how that school happens, but you've got no way for us to acknowledge that you're allowed to put it in? I'm not clear what the value is. MR. EASTMAN: There's a lot of -- there's a lot of review related to a school going in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EASTMAN: First of all, we -- before we even purchase a site, we approach the county from a consistency perspective to see if the zoning is correct in siting a school there. We receive that approval; we move forward with the purchase of the property. And we have that in our land inventory. And when construction comes to pass, we would notify you, then we go through a whole -- a whole SBR school board review process as to the plans. But before we get to that stage, before we get to the actual site development stage, if you will -- it's a separate process known as SBR -- we give you heads -up notice through our capital improvement plan that we're going to build that school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you do that regardless of whether or not we have it in our CIE, right? MR. EASTMAN: We do that with a coordinated effort so that you are acknowledging that that's coming. And the way that -- the way that the state legislature envisions this to work is that the school district tips its hand by showing you what's going to be built, you then are on notice for what is going to be built, and if it requires additional impacts that are public services that the county's responsible for, be it utilities, be it roads, you're on notice for that. And we either need an agreement in place between the two entities that addresses how those are going to be built, or they need to be delivered at the time of the school in accordance with the plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your presence on this board is basically on -- based on your knowledge and experience with the school system. So based on what you just said, it sounds to me like you're advocating to leave this in as an element of the AUIR and the CIE. I'm not in a position to say you're wrong on that. I'm trying to seek a simpler manner in which to process things that have no bearing by our review of it, which to me, if you've already made your mind up that you're going to do things, for us to review it after the fact and after you vote on it, I -- it just seems like another bureaucratic waste of time. I'm not saying it is, but it feels like that, because we have zero impact on whatever we say here today. So why bother with it, is what I'm trying to say. What's the -- if you see a benefit in it and you're telling me there is one, then I'll accept that. But I just want you to be clear. MR. EASTMAN: Well, first of all, I'm really not -- Mr. Chairman, I'm really not advocating for a position to continue this process or not continue this process. What I'm simply doing is trying to outline the purpose behind the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all knew what that was. We all participated in it, but that was changed when 7207 was adopted. MR. EASTMAN: The purpose -- MS. TAYLOR: I have one thing to add as far as the purpose of it being incorporated into the -- Page 66 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Amy Taylor, by the way. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. For the record, Amy Taylor. For concurrency purposes, our CIP has to be referenced into your Capital Improvement Element. It has to be referenced there in order for that concurrency arrangement to take place, because we are a separate entity. So that is -- there is a link there to why we're going through this process in terms of concurrency. What Mr. Eastman is outlining is also a function of that, but it can be -- and can be, you know, included in an interlocal agreement, which it already is. So it can be part of a coordination process. So I think -- I think what Mr. Eastman is saying, he's not advocating one way or the other, it's just, these are mechanisms that we have in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark? MR. EASTMAN: Again, I agree with Amy wholeheartedly. I'm not taking the position that you're incorrect when you say this is duplicative work, this is worthless work, this doesn't add a lot of value. That may be the case. I'm just saying, the purpose -- I'm trying to outline the purpose behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what they're saying by reference is they just want us to acknowledge their CIP as meeting the requirements of our AUIR and CIE. I mean, they're not asking us to go through and edit it, comment on it, doing anything. All they're saying is, this is just a passthrough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me read to you what we're being asked to vote on. The recommendation sought from the CCPC related to the school board's proposed CIP is for a recommendation to include the district CIP by reference within the CIE and that no inconsistencies are contained within the district CIP. That's important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, I'm reading the one that's with this element. It says, recommends that the CCPC recommend to the BCC to include the Collier County Public School District CIP by reference with the 'I I /' 12 AUIR schedule of capital improvements. So, in other words, when I read that --I mean, yours is saying it's a -- you're checking for parody. This one's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and if -- the problem I have is if we're placed in a position of checking for parody issues, say, then by God we've got to check it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not, though. MR. BOSI: Well, there's nothing to check. There's no improvements that are being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you say so. MR. EASTMAN: Well, the -- for example, if we're going to build a school and in order for that school to work the county needs to build a road, then if we had in our Capital Improvement Plan "the school" and you in your capital plan did not have "the road," you would have an inconsistency. When we tell you that there is no additional capacity in terms of new schools or additions, we have no issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would look at it in a little bit reverse, Tom. I think if you put a school in and we didn't have the roads, you got the inconsistency to put it there before we put the roads in. So that's -- MR. EASTMAN: That's not what the state says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. EASTMAN: And that's not what state law says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure if I find it, I would probably weigh in like that, so -- MR. EASTMAN: I mean, that may be your opinion, Mr. Chairman, but that's not the state law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what that would seem to boil down to is that wherever you want to put a school, we have to accommodate it, so then why are we even reviewing it? I'm back to that again. MR. EASTMAN: Because, potentially, you may need to change your budget so that you can accommodate a school that is coming in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the interlocal takes care of that. MR. EASTMAN: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- MR. EASTMAN: And so should -- so should your budget potential, which is what this hearing's about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me try this motion, see if this works, is that we recommend to meet the Page 67 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting requirements of the 2011/2012 AUIR and CIE, that we accept the Collier County Public School's CIP. COMMISSIONER EBERT: CIP rather than -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: By reference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That means we just --well, I am referencing it when I say its name. And then that way we're saying, we didn't study the AUIR. We just -- their CIP travels through as meeting our AUIR requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a second, then we can have discussion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak. Mike, your statement in the staff report required something different than what Brad is now suggesting. What do you need? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, are you looking at the staff- - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm looking at the staff report -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know that, and I read that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read what -- yeah. No, I don't disagree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is good. That one's bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's -- but what does he need? That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. BOSL• What I'm seeking is to include by reference the school district CIP within the schedule of capital improvements. Now, you make -- when you do that, you make a recognition that there are no inconsistencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see -- and there's the rub. COMMISSIONER EBERT: There's the difference. MR. BOSI: But what -- and I'm not sure what the rub would be. There can't be a rub against nothing. MR. EASTMAN: Can't be a rub against nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But who's saying there's nothing? MR. BOSL• The school district -- every individual who has reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan has said there's no new schools being proposed here. There's no expansions to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys just take a different level of interest in stuff that you agree to than I do, I guess, because I won't agree to anything that I can't prove myself or understand myself, and that's one thing I can't. I have not read that document. MR. EASTMAN: Well, there's a summary sheet of our major capital improvements that's in your packet that was distributed to all the commission members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EASTMAN: We have listed there our big roofing projects, we have listed there our big air conditioning projects and another maintenance and capital projects. We have not failed to include a hidden school or any other additional capacity or expansion that would cause concern for the county in terms of its obligations to provide its public services related to a hidden school or hidden capacity. That's why we keep saying over and over again, there are no concerns. There are no issues. There's no new capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, let me say something. We have no other data than a summary from the CIP anyways. There's no presentation other than a summary from the CIP, so that's all we've got to go on. So that plus the testimony, I can't see how we can get in trouble. We -- we're not saying there's any inconsistencies. We're not guaranteeing any or guaranteeing any not, because there's no way -- I'm not even sure if you read that you could guarantee it. But the point of the matter is, is they -- the staff did not prepare an AUIR presentation because the school board gave us a summary of their CIP, and I trust that. We've had testimony; we've had everything else. What kind of problem could we get in? Knowing you, you could probably find one, though, so I guess I should be careful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what are you spending money for the next five -- four years on site acquisition for? MR. EASTMAN: Future schools in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I'm looking for. Page 68 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. EASTMAN: Yeah, future schools that would be outside of the five -year plan. We -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. These are -- okay. But these purchases are being done within the next four years. MR. EASTMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be wise for this board to know where those purchases are so we know -- MR. EASTMAN: Absolutely, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: -- you will know where they are. And before the -- the board won't, but the county will. The board's review is not related to our purchasing of a site. The county's involvement for our purchase of a site comes to, is this site consistent for a school site. And we receive a letter of consistency issued from the county before we purchase, so we come to the county to say, is this piece of land that we would like to buy appropriate for a school. If the county says no, we don't buy that site. Only when we have the letter of consistency that says it's consistent with the zoning, then we buy the site. It's in our land bank. When we want to bring it forward for construction, it falls within the five -year plan. It may even fall within the 20 -year plan, to tip you off, or the ten -year plan. And then when it falls within the five -year plan, now it's become a matter of needing to address it, needing to prepare for it budget -wise, and the heads -up on both entities' side to say, here's a new school that's coming. Let's get all of the public services that are necessary to make that school operate successfully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, did you want -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I just wanted to say, you know, next year we review it. So the point -- we've heard testimony -- is there's nothing on the radar screen. It's a clean radar screen. Next year things might start to show up, and we'll deal with it next year. But this year's pretty easy and straightforward that the CIP has absolutely nothing new in it to worry about whether it's consistent or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We -- actually, we're under discussion for a motion. The motion was to recommend approval and inclusion into the -- acceptance into the CIE. We still -- I would like the motion maker and the second to consider that we still should have staff to decide or review whether or not we even need this process now that we have the option to move it out of concurrency and fall back on the way we've done it up until it got added. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would be an excellent motion after this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you want separate motions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Call the vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking if I have any more discussion on my part. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. EASTMAN: I think that your follow -up motion about considering whether it's needed and concurrency is excellent. We should look at it and see if it's a worthwhile thing to do. It's a mutual decision between the two entities, and I don't think it can be achieved unilaterally. And to look at it is ripe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EASTMAN: It's a very good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to support the motion with the caveat that I'm certainly going to be reviewing the document that didn't come with our packet. And if I see any discrepancies in it, I'll just get ahold of staff and let them know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also that we're going to have another second motion coming up here. So with that, we'll call the vote here. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 69 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Is there a second motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the school system into Category B. Is that the appropriate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to just make a motion to determine if we still need the school in the concurrency category. MR. BOSL• And I think the appropriate motion would be for the county staff to work with school board staff to generate a presentation to the Planning Commission and to the Board of County Commissioners and the school district board on the merits of the -- merits of maintaining the concurrency management system as it exists today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a result of the changes in the legislature with the new legislation, yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 7207. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will that work for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Brad made that motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. That was -- MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- entertaining. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate your input. ** *Okay. The next one would be parks and facilities. I would like to suggest that we do the library afterwards, since that's part of the same department, and then we'll move into the county jail and law enforcement together, and then finally government buildings, if that works for everybody on the board. Okay. Barry, how you doing? MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, good, thank you. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation director. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Just -- you have the packet in front of you, I think. What I'm prepared to do is, with the absence of Nathan Beals around, answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like that. MR. WILLIAMS: Where's Nathan when you need him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good way to approach it, too. Thank you, sir. Okay. It's -- the first segment of the AUIR for parks and rec is -- let's take them separately. The community park's land, Category A. Anybody have any issues with community parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, let me start off, then others can jump in as we move through it. This Randall curve. Page 70 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went and pulled records all the way back to 2008. That was first removed in 2008, and back then there was a total of 499.5 required -- 591.54 inventory acres. We pulled out Randall curve at that point, minus 47. In 2009 we had 544.54, and we pulled out Randall curve. We show it being omitted again. In 2010 we had 591.54 inventory acres, and Randall curve's still shown as being pulled out. Now, we went from 591 to 544 then back to 591, and this year we're at 591 again with Randall curve still going out as 47. In other places within the document, I think it is in the regional category. Randall curve is being added back in, but it seems like it's for more acres than it's being pulled out of community parks for. Could you explain Randall curve. MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the question, I do. I'll try, I'll say that. We did have Randall curve bouncing around for you. And part of the consideration originally had been the 47 acres. And this was a donation that we received from the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust to be used for a park. Unfortunately on the side of Immokalee Road that it was located wasn't what we felt was the best location for a park, and originally our intent was to take those 47 acres. Transportation and the school board had discussions about developing a bus barn at that location. And so what we intended to do was to take the 47 acres from community park land and take the funds that we would receive for the use for transportation and the school board and put it into Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Again, the regional park -- we were trying to show that those 47 acres would be used to support the regional park. What's happened, though, is transportation, the school board, they're not pursuing those plans for a bus barn. We returned the 47 acres back into the community park lands. But now what we're saying to you is still, you know, we really don't foresee a park at that location. It's just not in the best location for a park. We would like to work with the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust to see what we could do with those 47 acres. And, again, for us the best thing to do would be to divest ourselves from it and use it for a park where it's needed. So it's a little bit of follow the moving ball, I understand. And, certainly, if you still have questions, I'll try again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess then -- I was on that land -trust committee when it began decades ago, and I remember the property. I don't remember enough of it, unfortunately. But some of those bigger parcels had reverter clauses in them. I mean, they could only be provided and used for a certain thing. Has anybody verified whether or not this piece is 47 acres? Has -- any kind of reverter clause that requires it to be used in a certain way? MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question. We haven't explored it formally. We have talked informally with the land trust. We did solicit a county attorney's opinion about that very issue. I don't know that we have a clear answer for you, but that is one of the things that we would need to do to see whether the land can be used for any other purpose. That is a definite requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since we've taken it out four years in a row and we've -- isn't it time we looked at that to see if it even is viable in the first place? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can someone get back to us on that -- MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or is that something you could look at? Then we can clean this up forever on the AUIR. And if it can't be taken out, we know it. If it can, fine. In fact, back in -- my goodness. It was back in the late'70s or early'80s, Brenda Garretson, who is our code enforcement magistrate, she was the county attorney working with the board at the time. I wonder if she would have any -- remember this. Probably not, it was so long ago. But, yeah, she used to work in the County Attorney's Office, and she participated in some of these discussions. It's been ages, so -- MR. WILLIAMS: We are attending a land -trust meeting in October. We'll definitely ask that question and pursue that and get back with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm not sure who the attorney is now representing on the county attorney's side, but they ought to take a look at that for deed restrictions, their reverter clauses, to make sure, because I'd rather Page 71 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting see that resolved so we know if we've even got to talk about it anymore, so -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any more questions on community park land? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have anything else on community parks. Is there a -- Mike, we'll handle these separately, community and regional? MR. BOSI: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions, is there any motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion, but how do you want to put the Randall in? How's that going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it stays as it's presented, but eventually -- we can always -- they weren't going to transfer the property for three years. Ironically it started back in '08 as being transferred --should have been done by now, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm suggesting is before we keep it on the books as a potential transfer, let's make sure there's not a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Then I will move the community park land 2011 AUlR forward with a recommendation of approval as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. ** *Let's move on to regional park land. Okay. Anybody have any questions on the regional park land? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, the 47 acres that is coming out of community is supposed to go into regional? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, originally when we had -- some of the moves we made earlier, that was the intent. We had moved it out of the community, put it into regional with the anticipation of it being used as part of this purchase of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And so it still is that way, isn't it? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's -- the deal that we were anticipating was this deal I mentioned about transportation and the school board. When that deal went away, we moved the acreage back into community parks where it is. But, again, we're saying that we want to remove it, take the proceeds, not that we'll get from transportation or the school board, but if we are able to divest and we are able to do that with the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust, we would take the proceeds from that and put it into another park, foreseeably Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, on Page 88 of the community park land, you show that this proposed AUIR takes the 47 out again. If it does, then on Page 92 for regional parks, is the 121 that's there inclusive of the 47 acres that is taken out of community, or where did the 47 go? If you're taking it out, how's it -- whose department gets the Page 72 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting benefit of it if it's subtracted from yours? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, the thought process is that if you were able to divest the monies that are associated with those 47 acres, take those monies, or -- and purchase property in a spot where you do wish a park. That would be the intent. You would remove the acres from community park. You wouldn't necessarily add the acres to a regional park land. Although, as you can see from the regional park description, we do have in the future the acquisition of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park, the 62 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: So if you had funds left from the 47 acres, you might be able to use those funds to purchase those 62 regional -park acres that we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how then do you account for the 47 acres that is taken out as a negative? Basically it says proposed -- in the community, it says proposed AUIR negative 47 acres. You remove 9 million in value from your AUIR inventory. What happens to that inventory, that suspended $9 million? Who's showing it on the books? MR. WILLIAMS: It's not a -- you know, again, this question of the values of these lands is one that we've had in past discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, the $9 million is just a value that's associated with those acres. It's not -- it's not money that we have in the bank necessarily. It's not necessarily what we would get for those 47 acres, market values being what they are. And that's another consideration. If the land trust would allow us that, you know, do you sell in this down market? Do you get sufficient funds to really do significant things with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't, honestly, meaning it as the value that you stated. I just used that because that's what you put there. But even if it was one dollar --or let's just look at the physical part of it. Forty-seven acres is taken out of your inventory. It's in whose inventory then? That's all I'm trying to figure out. Mike, how do you -- where does -- does it -- MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- what they're saying is that 47 acres is no longer going to be part of that park system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So whose books take it into consideration as an asset? MR. BOSI: I would have to say -- this would be a question maybe in Susan Usher's -- the -- will they be allowed to use the revenue that was generated from the sale of that 47 acres? Where could they use that money? Because they -- the money then goes to whoever buys it. Whoever buys it is going to be the owner. And whether it be a government agency or whether it be a private owner who purchases that land, the question is, the value for the sale of that 47 acres that they're removing from their inventory, where can they utilize that revenue? MR. WILLIAMS: Well -- and I think -- the other point I would make just -- if you look on Page 90 and just look at our five -year projection, the consideration is, to our population, what is -- are we meeting our level of service? For community park lands with the level of service that you just approved, we continue to meet that level of service without those 47 acres, so we're still -- we're still where we need to be in terms of our projections of community park land for our population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand. I was -- and I think my question was more of an accounting nature, trying to figure out where -- who benefits from the asset that obviously is still there. MR. BOSI: The question is, it's an asset that the park system has. My understanding would be, they would be able to utilize that, but maybe they -- and I'm not sure what restrictions they -- where they could utilize it. Would they have to utilize it for future acquisitions? Could they utilize it for future facilities? I'm not sure of that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand, and I think I get a -- I've got a good handle on it. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it wise to have that $9 million figure up against that property, too? I mean -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, for the calculations that we use for, you know, characterizing these acres -- and for us, level of service is dependent on the acres per thousand. So the number, the value, I know that this frustrates the heck out of you guys. The values are irrelevant in the sense that we do use the impact -fee indexed average dollar that we paid for an acre in the past, that 197,000. So that 9 million, it's just showing the value associated with those acres. It's not a meaningful number, though. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All I'm just concerned about is tomorrow you find out there are no restrictions and a buyer comes along and says, okay, fine, I'll give you 5 million for it. Does that make it look like Page 73 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting we've taken this huge loss to the county? I mean -- MR. BOSI: No. I think it would be a reflection of the true market value. And it's one of the issues with this process because we have to give estimations as to expenditures. So we have to have an average cost for acreage. So the acreage cost for one specific geographic region may be appropriate, but it's not appropriate for the other area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. BOSL• So there would be no material harm with this allocation. It doesn't upset the free - market exchange that would happen with that sale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: We have tossed that one around every year, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm trying to avoid getting -- MR. BOSI: I appreciate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't know how to keep out of it, so -- MR. BOSI: Mr. Chair is kind of walking around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Anybody else have any other questions on regional parks? Because I still have a couple. Barry, on Page 93, the sixth line down you have 62 acres, which is intended to be the interdepartmental transfer of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Where are you transferring that from? MR. WILLIAMS: These are lands that are currently owned by public utilities. They own a parcel just behind the Palmetto Ridge High School, and so the thought process is that we would purchase some of those lands, 62 acres, to build Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they --just out of curiosity, do they value their sale based on your accepted valuations, or are they going to charge you more than what you normally pay? Or have you -- how does that work, just out of cur- -- I mean -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's a good question. I appreciate that, too. And I'm sorry Mr. Yilmaz is not here. I think that's a negotiation. I think that certainly they would want to get what they paid out of it. Certainly it wouldn't be what our valuation is. We wouldn't -- and nor would they expect us to pay that. I don't know exactly what their -- the amount of money that they paid, but it would go for market value, and it wouldn't necessarily be less than market value either. I mean, they're -- while it's a department within the county, you know, we don't want them to necessarily lose what they've already put into the property, so -- but it hasn't been negotiated, quite frankly. I think part of it has been looking at, you know, this question of -- and for the AUIR, what we're seeking to do is to identify the lands that would be available for the park. The other big thing is building the facilities, and the funding for facilities just isn't there. So it's just not something we've put our pencils to paper and worked out. We are working on access to the lake, though. There is a portion of Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park that's already in our inventory. It's a 90 -acre lake that would be associated with these 62 acres, and we're working to get access to that lake. It's a great -- it's a great location for recreation, we think. Fishing, in particular. Bass fishing is a good -- is good at that location, so we are working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that the Brian Paul Lake? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Brian Paul Lake is the one that you're referring to as the property owned by the utility department? MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. The lake has been donated to the parks and recreation department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's a property adjacent to the Brian Paul Lake? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means that that big utility site on the north end of Orangetree is potentially going to be the property that you're going to purchase, or a piece of it, for a regional park, and then if utilities -- holy cow. This is going to change a lot on the PUD coming up. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, just association -wise, think of Veterans Park and our relationship to the water plant Page 74 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting there. It's not uncommon, I guess, for parks and utilities to be partners, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more worried about making sure that the current PUD amendment that they have going forward can accommodate and make -- it's written right so that we can save a lot of hassle down the road. If this actually would ever come to fruition -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would be good just to plan for it better now. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mike, maybe that's for -- your department ought to look at Orangetree PUD and make sure that the segments that are potentially going to be part of this Big Corkscrew Island Park has the potential to be the park that they want it to be. I mean, right now it's a public - utility site. MR. BOSI: We'll have to coordinate with Kay Deselem to see whatever contemplative changes are to the master plan and within that area in terms of what can and can't go based upon whatever changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be good to look at it -- well, I mean, boy, you guys could save a lot of effort if you combine it into one PUD amendment, got it all done at once, plus the -- it would help probably quell some of the neighbors' concerns that they have up there with your utility plant, so -- your potential. And at the same time, you've got to wonder now if that 47 acres could be used for other things than a park. That would have been a more central location for a utility plant in some ways than maybe the one that you are currently looking at. Interesting. Wow, okay. It's something to keep in mind, I guess. I understand the -- so the 62 acres isn't just the 47, but some of the 47 capital could be used to secure the 62 acres. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further down that list is one that I've got a concern with. It's the 90 acres. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it reads, 90 -acre developer contribution, Big Cypress, subject to BCC approval of Big Cypress DRI. But see, by the BCC accepting this in the AUIR now, regardless of how it's paraphrased, isn't that something like contract zoning? Wouldn't there -- wouldn't they somewhat be acknowledging that this is an acceptable mitigation for the DRI for whatever purposes they may want to construe it to be? I mean, do we need to put that in record before we even get to that review? Because we've not even looked at that DRI. MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing I can offer is that it is out past the five -year window. And I don't know if that's helpful or not, but I -- I'll let -- MR. BOSI: Well, yeah. I mean, it's -- with it being in Years 6 through 10, those -- the certainty associated with that acquisition becomes much more cloudy and nonbinding. I guess the point the chair's making is, do we cause -- do we cause any liability issues with the county by saying that we anticipate this type of a -- this type of a contribution from the Big Cypress DRI? But that -- I guess that -- whether that's -- whether that places us in a libel situation would be determined about, what is the size of the population that they expected and what's the demand that that population's going to exert upon the system in there, what's going to be the contribution that they're going to have to make to satisfy that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we also have a new Growth Management Plan legislation that does a couple things. It's going to look at mitigation and establish a fair method in which the developer is to be compensated for that if that's the -- if it's not required mitigation for the development, above and beyond impact fees. So getting into this discussion now, I think, doesn't help us. Secondly, we have a valuation of land in 74.205 Code of Laws that tells us how this has to be evaluated, and it has to be evaluated before the entitlement is on the property that they're coming in to ask for. All that seems to be disruptive. By putting this in an AUIR document in this stage, I would highly suggest this is the wrong thing to do. Why bind the hands of any preceeding -- board after this and down the road? Let them do what they need to do. MR. BOSI: I don't -- I mean, I would defer to the parks department, because this is an improvement that's planned in Year 9, and basically it's on the far -- that far end of the second five -year window, and you're not really gaining --or you're not really into a tremendous deficit at that time. I'm not sure what hann would be from just removing it, striking it from the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if no one else -- Heidi? MS. ASHTON: Is it an existing developer contribution agreement? Page 75 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. WILLIAMS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They haven't even got an approval. MS. ASHTON: Because I thought that there were some commitments at the time this stewardship district was created by the special act, so that's why I was asking whether or not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know that answer. MS. ASHTON: -- whether it's between the two governments or whether it's actually a developer. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hate to see this put in here and have our hands tied in the future by any legislation that we currently have or could change, plus just the intention of it. It sure looks like we already made our mind up, and I know we haven't. MR. BOSI: Well, you could have -- you could direct staff to remove it. And before the Board of County Commissioners, I can check on the SSAs that were associated with the Big Cypress. And if there was any specific, you know, obligations related to this, then we can put it back in, but unless we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't put it back in for any reason. Why would you put it in if it hasn't been an approved -- if it's an approved exchange, irregardless of the DRI, yes, but why would you want to taint the DRI's approval by predetermining its approval through mitigation that we haven't even negotiated because we haven't even seen the DRI yet? MR. BOSI: I wouldn't want to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's what he was saying, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's saying put it back in. COMMISSIONER CARON: That he would go check the SSA, but if the SSA says it -- MR. BOSI: If the SSA -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then -- MR. BOSI: -- that upon -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then that's one thing. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can only get one at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then you'd still have to change the language, is what I'm getting at. The language refers to the DRI, so you'd have to change that language. Because if it's pursuant -- already done because of an SSA or some other developer's agreement, fine, but don't use the DRI as the bases for it, because I think that document can't -- shouldn't be approved prior to it coming before the public process, or any part of it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mark, it does say that, too. It says, subject to BCC approval of the Big Cypress DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, anyway, I think that's another suggestion that I would -- if we get to -- when we get to the motion part of it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: To remove it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. On Page 103, Barry, your first one, Isle of Capri. That's the kayak site, right? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting a 1,773,000 benefit from that site, but we're not paying for any of it, right? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. It's a -- basically what it will be -- it's not finalized, but we're in the process of working with Rookery Bay to finalize a lease agreement from the state that would become, in essence, a county kayak launch and -- nine -acre parcel, restrooms, parking. It's one of the best kayaking places in the county, actually. It's really going to be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been working on that with Gary Lytton down there for years. I'm glad to see it's finally coming forward. So that's a good thing. But the fact that you are benefitting from the value, does it preclude Rookery Bay or any other state level from benefitting from the value as well? I mean, how many times can the value be used, I guess, is what I'm asking. Is anybody else using it? MR. WILLIAMS: You know, I don't know that answer in terms of how the state values their lands and how Page 76 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting they would account for those. I think that, you know, the ownership would be retained by the state but -- you know, in the lease agreement. And our lease is mainly to do very light maintenance, pick up the trash, you know, make sure the bathrooms are in order, those type of things. So I -- I don't know how that affects the state's inventory, frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to figure out a way to keep the boat trailers from parking and inundating that park with boats and trailers? Because the -- you know what happened to 951 with all the -- that was one of the fears of building that park is that everybody would just park over there for their boats and walk over and inundate the place with people not using it for its intended purpose. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and certainly we'll patrol and make sure that people are where they need to be. I think, though, the one advantage that we see is that -- and we are working with transportation to develop a crosswalk from the boat ramp, 951 boat ramp. One of the big concerns that we've had from people using the park has been the -- you know, having a bathroom once they come off the water. So we do think that we're going to have some traffic that come from the boat ramp, the people, you know, using the facilities and whatnot, but for them to park, put their boat in versus a kayak, that would be something that we wouldn't allow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would doubt that any of those people would walk over. They'll probably drive over and use the parking lot and then -- with their trailers and their boats behind them. And I have a feeling that that park may not be the kayak park that it was intended to be if that happens. MR. WILLIAMS: But I got to tell you, the location, and the kayakers that we've talked to, it's just -- you know, it's just a great location, great fishing, is my understanding, too. I've never fished back there, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kayak out there quite a bit. It's a real -- but I eat lunch at the fire department, so -- it's the only thing that fire department's ever done for me. But anyway, we won't get into that. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's all my questions, I think, on the regional. Yes. Does anybody have any questions on the regional parks in addition? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on the regional park system? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'll make it, but you can add the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got three items to add, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I'll make -- the base motion would be that we forward with a recommendation of approval the 2011 AUIR regional park as presented with the following -- is it going to be stipulations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, recommendations and inclusion into the CIE, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And inclusion into the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert, okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made three notes. One is that someone is going to research the 47 acres in the land trust to make sure it's not deed -- it's not restricted for -- with a reverter clause or anything, so it can be swapped out. Number 2, staff will take a look at potential of savings in time and effort and including provisions in the current amendment to the Orangetree PUD. Since you -all are part and parcel to that PUD, you have -- you certainly have a right to enter into it. Your property's coming into play, so I would suggest that be looked at to see if that can be done. And the third is the removal subject to SSA research or anything else needed of the reference to the Big Cypress Regional Park acreage, so -- and those are the three stipulations that I had written down. Brad, does that work with you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? K61uIu11..9[912111: '4a] 3a:a1 •90 Page 77 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry, thank you. You're not going to do the library, huh? MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Terri, we'll try to break after this, and then I think we can finish this afternoon. We'll run pretty close, but that way we can get done in one day. Hi. MS. MATTHES: Good afternoon. Marilyn Matthew, library director. The library has no planned construction in this AUIR period. And if you have questions, I'd be happy to answer any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Library is on the third one. COMMISSIONER CARON: 131. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 131. MS. MATTHES: 131. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 131. MS. MATTHES: We have both buildings and materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's start with -- we have to do them one at a time, so let's start with the library buildings. Anybody have any questions on library buildings? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just paying for what we've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- under your revenues, you have impact -fee revenues anticipated 1,541,795. MS. MATTHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm trying to find my reference. Yeah, in your appendix, which is on Page 200, if you take the -- see on the right -hand column where it says F 12 to F 16 (sic) -- and I guess, Mike, part of this is your question. Should we be -- the five years we should be analyzing is FYI 1 to FY 15, or FY 12 to FY 16? MR. BOSI: Twelve to sixteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the -- how does that -- impact fees of 1,830,109 relate to the fifteen forty-one nine -- seven ninety-five on the front page? I guess that's the question that I'm trying to remember that I wanted to ask. MS. MATTHES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did a lot of this math when I was sitting at home one night, and I'm trying to remember it all. MS. MATTHES: I've used the calculations that were given to me, and I haven't really looked at Page 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MATTHES: That's done by the budget and management. MR. BOSI: Unfortunately, Susan Usher is not here. The way that you would calculate it is it's FYI 2 through -- FY 12 through 16, and if I had a calculator, I could do it. It's -- to me, FY 12 through '16, it's not 18 or one -- 1,830,109, because that would be including'I 1. Page 78 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you take eighteen -- MR. BOSI: It would be 18 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thirty-one oh nine, and you take off 370,000? MR. BOSL• Yes. MS. MATTHES: Sounds like it, yeah. MR. BOSI: And that still is not squaring up exactly with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not. MR. BOSL• -- the impact fees anticipated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if it -- we need to figure out -- yeah, you're still then at -- one four sixty one oh -- yeah, you're still off. MS. MATTHES: Twenty thousand. COMMISSIONER CARON: She does need to come and tell us, because this is actually new from past years. That column header is, headline, do not touch, formula driven, so it's some sort of formula. It's not a strict addition of the column here. And I don't know why that is, and we've never seen that before. And I had it marked down to ask when we got to the appendix what was going on. MR. BOSI: That's the -- that's the budget workshop. This is based upon the budget workshop. This is the product of OMB for their calculation for how they determine what the impact fees are going to be over the next five -year period so we can project the -- an estimation upon the revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we need to do is point out the problem. You guys figure out a resolution to it, and make sure the numbers correspond, and then we can still move forward. MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a discrepancy that needs to be fixed, because if you change the impact -fee number on the summary page, it's going to fall through all the rest of them. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any other questions on library buildings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any myself. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a -- ah, she showed up. Well, we might be able to get this resolved before we vote. That's good. MS. USHER: Hi. I'm Susan Usher from the Office of Management and Budget. And you had a question about where the one point eight million is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question that the appendix for the five -year period seems to differ from the summary page for the five -year period for the impact fees anticipated. MS. USHER: The library impact fees in two components: One is buildings and one is books. So if you go to Page 131, that's the buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. USHER: And then you go to Page 134, and that's for the books. And when you add up the impact fee for the books with the impact fees for the building, that should equal the 1.8 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The summary in the appendix is for the entire department -- MS. USHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is inclusive of both sub - elements? MS. USHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ali, perfect. COMMISSIONER CARON: But -- okay. Then I have another question, then. Further down on that page, on 200, it says, estimated book expenditure budget. So does that get added in additionally? MS. USHER: No, it does not. That was a way for me to calculate how much money should be heading towards books for future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much you're going to spend in that particular year? COMMISSIONER CARON: That would indicate then that the level of service is going to change? MS. USHER: It's an outdated number. Page 79 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. USHER: But that is not a revenue item, and it's not -- this Page 200 is to help push out revenues, and at the bottom, to help track expenditures for debt service. So the 6.4 million in revenues is accounted for on the two pages, 131 and 134, and then the same thing with the debt. The debt of 6.1 million, almost 6.2 million, all of that is shown on 131, because we don't buy books with debt, with bond money. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It's an odd -- it's an odd thing, and if she can figure it out, that's her job. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you're here to explain it. Thank you. MS. USHER: Yeah. Just take a pencil and draw a line through that 276,544. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Just take it out completely? MS. MATTHES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we had a motion for library facilities, I think. No, we didn't. Is there a motion for library facilities? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make one, that we move with a recommendation of approval the 2011 AUIR for library buildings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with a recommendation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak, made by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. ** *Let's move on to library materials. That's on Page 134. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, motion. I move -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not a motion. We haven't discussed library materials yet. We've got to discuss it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I'm preloading. COMMISSIONER CARON: You said you had no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I meant the previous one. I only had one. The population you use is peak population. Is there any way to weigh the population based on the fact that the seasonal people aren't here during the summer and the library materials don't get used year- round? Does that have any impact on the quantity of materials you need? MS. MATT14ES: It means that if John Grisham writes a book in the winter, we buy more copies in the winter. If he published a book that was due out in the summer, we wouldn't buy that many copies of his book in the summer. We still have a lot of year -round residents. We have a lot of kids' usage. And at some years, we have even had the July circulation equal the January circulation because of children's usage. Because there aren't so many kids around that we see these days, that hasn't happened in a couple years. But there are times when the July circ has equaled the January circ. So we still have usage in the summer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Donna? Page 80 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER CARON: What it means is that for those of us who live here year round, if we go into the library, we can actually get a copy of the book. So it's a good thing to use peak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That kind of helps. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? If not, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the 2011 AUIR for library materials with a recommendation of approval as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry. Oh, Barry had his hand up. Too quick. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Klein seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you again. ** *And now we will move onto county jail and law enforcement. I guess we'll -- MR. SMITH: Did you want to take a break first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. You want us to take a break. Let's see. It's been about an hour -- we don't need -- 2:15 to 2:30. Let's do county jail first. Let's squeeze one more in, then we'll take a 15- minute break. We'll see how long the county jail takes. I mean, we've got about four hours left, so -- MR. SMITH: All righty. Hey, I tried. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SMITH: For the record, Greg Smith, chief of administration from the Collier County Sheriffs Office. County planning staff has furnished the Sheriffs Office with the -- this most recent version of the AUIR. We have reviewed it. We have no problems with its content, and I stand ready for any questions or clarification that I might be able to provide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission on the jail section? And I'm -- impact fees. You know, last year you had 800,000 approximately in impact fees, and this year you're noting 2,130,748. How'd that jump so much? MR. BOSI: That would be a Susan question. MR. SMITH: Yeah, that's a Susan question. MS. USHER: Hi. I'm Susan Usher with Office of Management and Budget. Every year we do the calculation on impact fees based on the amount that we're putting in next year's budget, which this year means for Fiscal Year'12. Based on what we have in Fiscal Year'] 2, as you saw on the -- Page 200 with the library, the same thing happened with the correctional impact fee is that I used the formula with the percentage of population growth, and I increased that income or that impact -fee revenue by the population growth. So every year we look at -- when we do the budget, we look at how much money we've received in the current year, and then we try to project what we're going to do in the next year. And based on Fiscal Year'12, I project out four more years to come up with that dollar amount. Now, we have some -- I'm not sure in this fund. We have some deferred impact fees that are coming due, and Page 81 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting it skewed some of the numbers in some of the impact -fee funds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Susan, what happened, in 2008 your projections for impact fees were 4.5 million. In 2009 they were 2 million. In 2010 they were less than 800,000, which is a huge drop, which understandably we'd had problems in our population, but then we didn't have a significant increase that would get you back from 800,000 up to 2.1 million. And I'm just wondering, what's the significant difference between last year and this year in population or whatever that calculated such a big jump in numbers? MS. USHER: We look at where we are this year and we look at what we're going to do next year. Next year's Fiscal Year'12. Based on Fiscal Year'12, that's where the population growth gets applied. When we were in'10 and we were budgeting for'l 1, the number was a lot less. Commercial had just dropped, residential dropped. I think last year when we were looking at Fiscal Year'11, we didn't think we would collect much of anything. So the number that we budgeted in ' 11 was extremely low. And when you put the population growth an extremely low number, that's why in the AUIR last year the number was extremely low compared to where it is this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it you're basing your impact fees on population changes -- MS. USHER: But first -- the first thing I calculate, though, is where are we this year, and what do I think next year's going to be. And in Fiscal Year'12, if you look at the Fiscal Year'12 budget for impact fees for correction versus what was budgeted in Fiscal Year'11, there's a big difference. In Fiscal Year'l 1,1 had budgeted 152,000. In Fiscal Year'12, I'm budgeting almost $400,000, so that's a big difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS. USHER: When you leverage population growth on 152,000, that number's going to be little, but when you start doing the population growth based on almost 400,000, then the number gets bigger. I mean, that's why there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: I think the reason was they experienced more impact fees this past year than they did the prior year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MR. BOSI: More impact fees came in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but why didn't all departments show that reflection? We didn't have increases like this in any other department. That's a huge -- I mean, I've got all the impact fees for all the departments listed year by year starting in 2004 so I can see the trends. And the trend in this one was different than the others. And I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just trying to understand how it got there, that's all. And I understand your explanation, but it doesn't explain why the others, then, didn't have the same result as you got. Why didn't, you know, transportation? Why didn't parks and rec? Why didn't all the other impact- fee - driven categories show the same drop in increase to the same ratios that you've got? It doesn't pan out. I -- that's my -- that was why I asked the question, so -- And I understand what you said. I'm not sure I think it may be the right way to do it, but I'm going to have to try to figure it out myself. It's not going to hurt anything either way. I just was curious. MS. USHER: I know a lot of the impact fees had rate studies this year, and I don't have those notes. They're downstairs. I'm not sure what this impact fee did, but some of the impact fees stayed status quo. Other impact fees actually went down, and I don't remember what happened to this one. So I can't explain right off the top of my head what the difference is, but if you give me five minutes or so to run down and grab the notes and bring them back up here, that might be part of the explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- the explanation's not going to affect the outcome. I just was curious as to -- I mean, at some other time we can -- I'll catch up with you and try to find out, because this -- I'm just trying to satisfy my own understanding as to how one department can vary so much. But even if you did or didn't, it's still going to -- I think your number's probably more accurate what it is today than it was last time, is what I'm trying to say. So I would accept this one over the last one, but I just can't explain the increase. So I'll catch up with you. There's no sense -- I don't think there's going to be significant play here today based on that. Page 82 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MS. USHER: But all the impact -- most -- I think just about all the impact fees have had a study this year, and all of them -- their rates got adjusted one way or the other; some significantly, some not as significantly, so -- but if you stop by on the second floor in my office, I'll have an answer for you after the meeting. CHAIlZMAN STRAIN: I'll come, but it won't be today. But I'll catch up with you next week sometime. MS. USHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Susan. I appreciate it. Any other questions on jails? If not, Brad, do you want to do what you normally do? MR. SMITH: I do want to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, wait a minute. He doesn't like our motion. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. If you'll turn to Page 113. I think it's reflected in other pages as well in the report. I'd like to call your attention down in the bottom of the page, IJC's inventory, and you see that we have 40 beds in Sprung units, and I just wanted to alert everyone that those Sprung units are temporary structures, albeit they're very good temporary structures. Those are nearing their life cycle. Right now we've asked that the manufacturer's rep come down and meet with us and do a walk- through to see if we can do some mitigation relative to their aging process. But it may well be that this time next year we ask to have those taken out of inventory. Now, I don't know what ramifications that might lead to, but I thought I better give you a heads -up this year in anticipation of that occurring next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got 107 -bed surplus, so you pull 40 out, you've still got 67, so you've still got a better -- bigger facility than what you need based on the numbers you provided. MR. SMITH: Exactly. We're going to be good. I just didn't know how that relates to the inventory on hand and how that, you know, coincides with any of the impact fees and that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'll make a motion. But first, what does sprung mean? It sounds like they jumped out the window. MR. SMITH: Yeah, it kind of does, but that's just the brand name of the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SMITH: It's -- Skip's in the audience. Skip, help us out here. What is a Sprung unit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, it's nowhere near that important. MR. SMITH: It's some kind of polymer that's stretched tight over an aluminum frame. Am I anywhere close? MR. CAMP: Yes. MR. SMITH: It's a real good tent. It's a nice tent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I move we forward the 2011 AUIR summary form for the county jails forward with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Ebert. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 6 -0. That's law enforcement. Law enforcement may take a while. We'll just take -- we'll take our break now and come back at 3:50, and we'll finish up this afternoon. Okay. Thank you. Page 83 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: You have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have a court reporter anxious to take every word down, so we don't want to disappoint her. Okay. We left off on law enforcement. We're just getting into that. I got to wait for Brad to get seated and we'll be all set to go. Chief, did you want to make any grand presentations? MR. SMITH: I'll just open by saying what you have in front of you is the county law enforcement portion of the AUIR, and I stand ready for any clarification if I'm able to bring it to the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you changed it this year. MR. SMITH: We changed it a little bit, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little? MR. SMITH: A little. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we went from last year and the year before and the year before and the year before of having a unit cost on a per -man bases of about 165,000 to now a building square foot cost on a per- square -foot basis, which is a radically different number, because it's $341. And the calculations came out with a valuation of police officers and other things that I'm trying to desperately understand. Your available inventory, which was per building before, is it reflective of the number of officers you have in the field? MR. SMITH: Yeah. I think this is -- and I haven't had that many discussions with Mike, so I apologize for that. But I think this is a direct result of us saying that the only thing we really use this for is not for budgeting or manpower allocation strengths, but to determine how many facilities we build and when. And so then we thought there may be a better -- and you may have missed that discussion last year. I don't remember you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't here last year, and I did miss it, so sorry. MR. SMITH: Okay. So a decision was made to change the methodology to more reflect what those numbers are actually translated into as far as action.? And, Mike, you can take it from there. MR. BOSI: And that's correct. Thank you, Chief Smith. It's always been the issue. You know, 1.96 officers per thousand, but we're really trying to measure the construction of new square footage for new facilities, and there was no direct translation towards that level -of- service standard and what was being proposed for the new facilities over the five- and the ten -year period. Based upon board direction and based upon the recommendations of the Planning Commission to find a more appropriate way to translate that levels -of- service standard towards what the capi- -- or what the AUIR is -- and that's to measure the new facilities that are coming online. Based upon that direction, the impact -fee study has been updated, and it's now -- it's more correlated to the actual staffing of the Sheriffs Office, and then what is the square footage that exists within our inventory based upon that, what is the square footage associated with each officer. So then if we're going to project what our population's going to be over the next five years, then you can take that number against our service -- our levels -of- service standard and find out how many new officers we need. Well, then, we can take those how many new officers we need, we translate that to the square- footage costs, and then we can give you a much better accurate assessment, all right. This will be the buildings that we're coming forward representing what we needed -- or what we need based upon -- based upon the population projections that we are expecting over the five- and ten -year period, to be able to give a little bit more of a coherent and cohesion towards the summary pages than what it was before -- what it was before there was a real disconnect within the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started out just by asking that question, because I wanted to understand your new philosophy. But before I ask the rest of my questions, I'll certainly defer to my board members. Do you guys, girls, gals -- I keep calling gals "girls," whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wanted to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of you have any questions that you want to ask? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wanted to make sure I understand. So what you're saying is that each officer needs 401.2 square feet, is that right, or what is that? Page 84 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. BOSI: That's what the current -- the current available square footage based upon the number of officers that we have in the -- our inventory or on staff translates to 401 square feet per officer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the $341.62 is per square feet? MR. BOSI: Yeah. It's the total value of all the square footage divided down to the square -- you know, to what one square foot would represent within that total value. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if I -- the cost of -- if we had to add a new officer, would that cost be 401 times 341? MR. BOSI: The -- a new officer would be 401 square feet times -- is that what you just said -- 341, correct. That's would be an approximation for what it would cost -- the square footage to accommodate how -- service one new officer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that's pretty expensive square footage. MR. BOSI: Well, I think what -- the reason why that is, is the most recent expansion for -- with the sheriffs operation was the EOC, and the EOC has a degree of technical components, I believe, that have pushed up the square - footage cost to something beyond just what it costs to construct the building. But the computer, the intelligence or equipments, those apparatus, those type of things, the laptops that are utilized within the squad cars and the officers are something exceptional beyond the norm of what a traditional square - footage cost would be. MR. SMITH: Well -- and it's the hardening of the actual physical plant itself, and then the redundancy systems that are built in, and, you know, it's not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you derived a number -- I think a good methodology. But -- so each new guy gets a 20- by -20, you know, office with -- that 400 -- $340 a square foot. That's -- but that might make sense. MR. BOSI: And from what I hear, it was actually utilization within. The officers spend most of their times out on the road patrolling. That's some of the square footage associated with the EOC, the back support system, those COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SMITH: Well -- and what you're detailing out, too, is the 911 call center. That's being attributed to every deputy and, you know, the mechanics, the bays, the garage and fleet, you know, are being attributed to each deputy, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not against it. And, actually, the demonstration I gave isn't fair, because the guy's not going to -- MR. SMITH: No, actually, it's very good for clarification purposes, because there may be those watching that don't understand why you get there, and that's exactly how you get there, so that's an important point to make. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on law enforcement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my questions all center on that. Your impact -fee issue is still -- is similar here, but I'll take that up with Susan Usher when I catch up with her, just to understand it better. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The thing that I -- with the clarification, you explained the square footage. It's now understandable. But you went from 949.9 officers based on your other methodology, and at the time you needed 771, so you also had a surplus. And I looked at this and said, wow, he's down to 647 officers, which means you laid off 300 people. Well, that's interesting. And then your requirement, though, went up, and I thought, well, why'd you lay off so many? So that's kind of -- Mike? MR. BOSI: Well, what happened, we reset everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured that. MR. BOSI: That 947 -- that 1.96 officers for a thousand, that was a number that -- the Sheriffs Office, they saw it on the thing, but that had nothing to do with how they staffed, how they operated. And what we did with the Page 85 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting direction, to say, make this more straightforward, more relevant towards what we're doing. The impact fees -- at the time that they developed the impact -fee study for the update, they looked at the staffing, the current staffing level. So what you have here was -- based upon that time that the impact -fee study was done, was that 647 was their staffing level at the time. So there's not this fictional need of 900 officers when there -- actually only needs for their operations. So they reset everything, so now going forward it looks like there's need within the system, and we will coordinate with the Sheriffs Office to adjust the next unit of improvement. Will that be needed before those 2019/2020, you know, projected -- next projected improvements, or will this staffing level maintain appropriate? Those discussions will have to go on. But what we did was we really reset everything towards the current staffing level of the impact fee of that 2010 impact -fee study, and that's why you see the drastic changes. MR. SMITH: Yeah. It's going to give us a more measurable baseline. And going forward, we're going to be able to better communicate not only to you, but to the board, exactly what our staffing needs are and how that space is allocated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I would agree. MR. SMITH: It took some real good work on the part of planning to do that, and I applaud them for that, because it took a lot of work. MR. BOSI: And Amy Patterson apologized. She was going to be able to provide a -- much more detail than the clumsy explanations that I've provided, because she's worked with the board intimately on this issue to be able to give it a little bit more meaning and relevance. But she apologized. She wasn't able to make it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- I forgot my train of thought on that. Hold on a second. I'll -- it will come back to me. Anybody else have any questions in the meantime? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just while you think of what you were going to say, perhaps there should be some explanation based on Mr. Schiffer's conversation to say what's involved in making up that number. Since it is a new number, it might be good for the board to just have it here saying your unit cost is based, you know, on -- and what constitutes that are things like the portion of the EOC or the portion of the 911 call center or the portion of whatever, and that way -- MR. BOSI: And my conversation with Amy is, those issues were -- this was -- it was put forward when the board approved the impact -- or the law enforcement impact -fee study, that this was the direction that we were going, that this was how these calculations were made up, that this is why the square -- why you saw the cost associated with it. Maybe it's higher than what you would normally anticipate. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why I'm just saying a reminder might be, you know, a good footnote. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this square footage is gross square footage? MR. BOSI: I have to check the impact fee, but I believe -- I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the jail -- I know this isn't the jail, but the jail is one of the -- I imagine is one of -- is one of your buildings. Does it factor into the gross square footage needed for law enforcement? MR. SMITH: Only the booking portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, by the way, I know we should have asked this last time. Is the jail used by Naples PD? MR. SMITH: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they contribute to the cost? MR. SMITH: Through ad valorem taxation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through ad va- -- okay. So the residents in the City of Naples pay a portion of their ad valorem tax to Collier County, and that does cover the jail? MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's all I've got. Does anybody else have any more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just, you know, you're showing a major -- you know, we're way below inventory available versus population and inventory required. So what are we supposed to do with that? I Page 86 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/ClE "Special" Meeting mean, it appears that, middle of the year, we crossed over. MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- I think that's a recognition by this advisory board and the Board of County Commissioners that when they adopted the new impact -fee study and the new methodology, that we were -- we were aligning the need with the requirement at this base year. And as we move forward, there's going to be a divergence and -- between that, and it's going to -- it's going to appear that there's a greater -- that there's a greater and greater deficit that's being created, which may be the case, and it stresses that the communication between the needs of the Sheriffs Office and general purpose county government and the Board of County Commissioners will need to be maintained to make sure that next - needed improvement is going to be correctly timed. And that -- and I understand your point was, before we were -- our levels of service that we had was satisfied well into the future. Now we set everything to meet each other at year zero or year one, and every year you move forward, each population's going to be another need. So it gives the appearance -- and I think what is going to happen is probably as we see the population trends further define themselves and the operations of the Sheriffs Office define themselves, there may be a need to bring those improvements in a closer year. But until that case -- until those conversations or that realization is brought upon, we're going to leave these next improvements in towards the outer years. MR. SMITH: Yeah. And a good example of that would be the Orangetree substation that we have -- that the sheriff has funded out of his budget although -- and I think everybody's aware of the fact that the sheriff, by statute, cannot own real property. So he's dependent upon the board, and the sheriff certifies the need, and then the attendant facilities are constructed. We still have identified the need, you know, several years ago, still waiting on a facility. We all understand the reasons why it hasn't been built yet, and they're acceptable. But, you know, at some point in time, the residents who live out there deserve a permanent law enforcement presence, and those are the comments I intend to make in front of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do -- does the fact that the Orangetree is increasing 1,250 units that are not vested and five times the commercial from 60,000 to 330,000 have any impact on law enforcement? MR. SMITH: Absolutely, they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And have you reviewed the PUD that's coming before us to see if there's any possible way that you might find a location that might be granted for a substation out there? MR. SMITH: We have not, but we would review any location that the county staff brings to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a week in which to get together with Kay Deselem to take a look and see if there's anything there that works for you and the developer. The developer might find it a wise addition to his community to have a more secure community and pacify people who are concerned about security out there, because that is a big issue. MR. SMITH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So something to consider. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're correct, Mark. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me go back to Mike. Here's the problem I have. You're saying that we don't need any more money to get us through the level -of- service needs for the next five years, and then we have a chart that shows that that's not the case. Asa matter of fact, it shows as we meet we're out of compliance. So--just to make me feel comfortable that that chart is, you know, protected -- MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the Board of County Commissioners can look at that and say, well, let's -- this is our own decision as to whether we need to make sure that this chart is always mirroring our need with our available inventory. Now, if they made that independently without consultation of the Sheriffs Office, I'm not sure if that would be an appropriate decision, but they're entitled to do that. This is a Category B facility. This is strictly us saying, these are the rules we're setting for us. And we're setting at Year 1 and we said, we're going to align the available units with what were needed. So we know -- we've made that recognition, so we make also -- with that recognition we have to accept that each year that goes forward we're going to have a divergence between -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. I mean, your response should have been, nice observation, but we don't have to -- we don't have to be that way. Okay. MR. BOSI: That was a very good observation. We will not have to meet that obligation. Page 87 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You want to make a motion, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we forward the 2011 AUIR law enforcement as presented with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Barry Klein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. SMITH: Thank you for your service to the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. Last but not least will be the government buildings. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Camp. MR. CAMP: For the record, I'm Skip Camp. We have no plans to do anything for a long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that doesn't explain the buildings you lost. That's a good thing. MR. JONES: For the record, Hank Jones, if you've got any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any plans to expand? MR. JONES: I don't have any plans if he doesn't. C14AMMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's good, both. Any questions of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say -- I mean, do we have vacancies within buildings? I mean, obviously -- MR. JONES: We do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we could be bowling in some of them. So the intent is that we've got plenty of buildings for a while, relax. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. MR. JONES: And we have no rental facilities right now. We're not leasing anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Donna. MR. CAMP: With few exceptions. Usually for the tax collector, it's a necessity or convenience for the taxpayers location -wise. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just going to say, on Page 64 we have several leased facilities, so MR. CAMP: And the one that's not -- does not fall in that category is a long -term lease with the State of Florida, transportation. It's a dollar a year for 50 years or something. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, that's right. That was on it last year, wasn't it? Did we take it off just because it's a dollar -a -year lease or something? MR. JONES: No. MR. CAMP: It's in there. MR. JONES: It should still be here. Page 88 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's on there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah, FDOT. MR. CAMP: Yes. MR. JONES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I said, "You lost some buildings," you've got 12,000 feet you lost. Where'd it go? MR. JONES: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, last year you had 906,000 square feet. This year you have 894 -. It's rounded off to about 12,000. MR. JONES: Well, part of the impact -fee study last year, we went through and scrubbed all of our inventory just to make sure we were using the correct square feet. So between myself and Amy's group over there, we scrubbed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get a little closer to the mike. MR. JONES: I'm sorry. We scrubbed the inventory to make sure we had the same square feet on every building. And some were using gross, some were using net, some were using inside. So we scrubbed it all out, and this was the net result. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you used gross? MR. JONES: We're using permitted gross square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you break out the square footage of the EOC? MR. JONES: We break it out by room, by office, by usage space, and then we prorate the hallways and common spaces based on the aggregate of different departments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which departments do you work with on that breakout? MR. JONES: Let's see. The 911 center is separate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be the SO? MR. JONES: It's in the - -1'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be part of the SO's -- MR. JONES: Yes, oh, definitely. Part of the Sheriffs Office. It's a substation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out of the square footage, how much is the SO? I mean, SO says they've got 44,133 square feet of the total square footage. MR. JONES: Forty-four, and I think the rest in this -- I think there's a note in here it's 57,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two seventy -four. MR. JONES: Yeah, I don't -- I think it's about 50 -- right, the 911, sheriffs substation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just from department. So you've got two departments involved in EOC. MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got government buildings and you've got Sheriffs Office. Who else? MR. JONES: And EMS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How much square footage does EMS take? Because I didn't see a breakdown in their -- well, let's take a look and see if there is a breakdown. MR. JONES: I don't have the big spreadsheet with me, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JONES: But I can show you on the spreadsheet exactly how we've done it. But we've broken out all those individual groups and then prorated common spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- see, in years past, occasionally we would get different kinds of breakdowns, but I don't see one for building square footage or even a reference to the EOC in the EMS categories that are in front of us here. I find units, but no building size. And the reason that's important is I'm trying to get to the total square footage of the EOC. Do you know what that is? MR. JONES: About 134,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's interesting, because in the law enforcement facilities inventory that was done to update their impact fees, they have a total square footage of the site for the EOC at 8075 Lely Page 89 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting Cultural Boulevard as being 154,388, and of which they're using 44 -. If you pull the plans on record in SIRE, you come up with 129,543, which I probably think is closer to the 130- you're referring to. But yet your guys are claiming 57,274, with the 44- to the sheriffs. That leaves 30,000 unaccounted for. Is that what you're telling me the EMS people use? MR. JONES: Yes, probably about -- that's about right for a magnitude. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as far as the EOC goes -- because that was one of the buildings that you've got in here, I wanted to make sure of -- all of the square footage was accounted for. So eventually when I get around to talking to the EMS, they're going to be able to verify that they've got about 30,000 square feet? MR. JONES: Absolutely. The parties have all agreed upon the split -up of the square footage as well. MR. CAMP: And we actually -- every month, because we have to prorate all the utilities, we'll get you that spreadsheet that shows exactly the amount of square feet that's assigned to each department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that would be great. Just email it to me, and that would be -- all of us. That would be great. Actually, send it to Mike. He can distribute it. It would be easier than trying to figure out where nine of us live, and emails. Your impact fees, you kind of did what the Sheriffs Department did. I'm curious to see what your explanation was. In 2009 you had 3.4 million in impact fees, dropped -- was 7.3 in 2008. In 2010 you dropped down to 2.3, and then in this upcoming year you're predicting 3.5. Do you really think -- oh, they got -- Susan, I can come down and talk to you about this later then. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Chair. I should have -- all the impact -fee projections come from OMB. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He just wants every penny accounted for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we've got more money out there, now's a real good time to know about it, so-- And that's almost -- I think that's everything I've got on government buildings, yeah. Everything else looks status quo. You're not building anything new, thankfully, and -- except for all those $10,000 desks, but we won't talk about that. Anybody have any other issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make a motion that we forward the 2011 AUIR for government buildings as presented with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert made the second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. I know you've waited patiently all day. We appreciate it. Thank you. Mike, that brings us to the end of a glorious day. It's been entertaining and fun. Thank you. Page 90 of 91 September 29, 2011/ 2011 AUIR/CIE "Special" Meeting MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate the time, diligence, and the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And before we leave, I want to say one more thing. Ms. Caron, we are going to miss you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It has been a real pleasure working with you. And I hope that if you reapply it all works out. I know how things work sometimes and they don't work. But you have been an asset to this community and this board. So thank you again for everything you've done for us. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I appreciate it. It's been a pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll be looking for you as a consultant for one of those developers in the crowd out there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, not a heckler. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let Donna make it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I motion we adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With everybody in agreement, we're adjourned. Thank you, Mike. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:17 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION G' MARK S RAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on til ' 3 l , as presented or as corrected V TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER ANDNOTARY PUBLIC. Page 91 of 91