Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/18/2001 S (AUIR)December 18, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DECEMBER 18, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VI CE CHAIRMAN: JAMES D. CARTER, PH.D JIM COLETTA DONNA FIALA TOM HENNING FRED COYLE ALSO PRESENT: TOM OLLIFF, County Manager DAVID WEIGEL, County Attorney Page 1 NOTICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING Friday, November 30, 2001 - 2:00 P.M. CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 18, 2001 -9:00 A.M. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold Special Meeting on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2001 at 2:00 P.M., in the Board Meeting Room, Third Floor, Harmon Turner Building (Administration), at the Collier County Government Complex, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. The Special Meeting will include, but may not be limited to, the following: Presentation of the 2001 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR) as required by Section 3.15.6, Collier County Land Development Code. The meeting is open to the public. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record incl~tdes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk December 18, 2001 CHAIILMAN CARTER: We are live. Good morning, Commissioners. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Merry Christmas, and happy holidays to everyone here and to our listening and viewing audience this morning. This is a continuation of a workshop from November 30th. But for those of you joining us and not understanding what we're doing, it's called an AUIR workshop. It's an annual update and inventory review of our -- of our facilities and what we're going to do with them. But since it is a continuation, but as is our tradition, I would still like you-all to ,join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: As we start this morning, I would like to share a couple things with the new commissioners who have been here for a year or less. This is the third year I've been through this process. I will say the first time it was confusing, perhaps the second time even a little more confusing in terms of how you put into perspective what an annual update means in terms of your facilities as strategic long-range planning. This is the first board that has ever engaged in a plethora of workshops. I believe, Mr. Olliff, as we will finish tomorrow night, we have met 62 times this year, pretty close to that. MR. OLLIFF: Actually, it's 64 by the time of the end of the year comes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: By the end of the year. That's 64 times that this Board of County Commissioners has met for all of our meetings. That should demonstrate, I think, to everyone that we are very dedicated and sincere in trying to resolve the problems that -- that face us as a county. As a little background to this, when I first came to this board in Page 2 December 18, 2001 1999, to my left -- I'm going to show this morning two volumes. It was called facilities planning for Collier County. It was a very detailed study. I find pieces of that integrating itself into the system. But I am not proud that the board at that time probably gave that study a grand total of ten minutes, and I'll never forget the -- Skip Camp, our facilities director, coming and briefing and working with us on that. And I was really excited because I thought that was a long-range plan for Collier County, and we want to integrate that into everything we do. It got blown off. And ! was shocked, but later I saw little bits and pieces come back into the process, but that's not what we need to do as a Board of County Commissioners. That study was probably worth a couple hundred thousand dollars. We went out, and we did a study on community character. I don't know how many hundreds of hours are in this study, but I will tell you it's about $400,000 bill here coming up with the balance that we're looking for in this community between what we call quality of life and economic feasibility of getting these things to work. Our transportation plan, I -- I have no idea how many hours Norman Feder and his group put into that and what it cost us, but it was an enormous amount of time, energy, and effort at the request of the board to come up with a 20~year plan for transportation. We have the plan, and it will be a major part of our discussion this morning. We cannot ignore that kind of dedication. The only plan that I saw come in front of this board that was addressed immediately and with great respect and took action on was the water and sewer treatment plant, and I think that was at a crisis. Mr. Mudd brought all this to us. We're under -- we're under order by DEP, and, gee, we got to do something. But we did it. It's in place with great action by the board. But crisis management is not where we need to be, and if we don't stop doing crisis management, whatever we decide today is Page 3 December 18, 2001 going to be nothing more than a train wreck four or five years out. And I think I would be ashamed as a commissioner to say four or five years from now when I'm no longer on this board that, gee, I didn't do the job back in 2001 because it was short-term thinking or political expediency or, frankly, the lack of guts to do what needs to be done. And I would tell you this morning whatever we do as a board, we will do it to the best of our abilities and I'm sure with the resources we have to work with. I have communicated -- I know other members of this board have communicated the needs of this community. Somewhere along the line we have failed to point out the cred -- the critical need we have to get the infrastructure in place. People tell me stop growth. You tell me how. Anybody, tell me how do you do that? How do you stop people from coming to an area they want to be in? You can't do that. You manage growth, and that's what we're trying to do is manage growth in a logical way, in an economically feasible way to provide all of these facilities that are necessary. Frankly, my position this morning as a commissioner is I'm tired of studies. It's time for action. And if we don't do what we need to do, it's just going to prolong the agony for this community. So it's tough decisions in here this morning. But I believe this board will do it. I thank you, Board, for your patience and your indulgence with my comments this morning. A million dollars sitting here on the table, ! think it's time to lay the blacktop. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of your annual update and inventory report session. What we would like to do, just in terms of sequence this morning, is to cover the other elements prior to transportation and then take transportation last because I -- I believe that's where the bulk of the discussion and focus needs to be. So if-- if the board's okay with that schedule, I'd just turn this meeting over to Stan Litsinger, your growth management Page 4 December 18, 2001 director. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Stan Litsinger. As Tom said, this is a continuation of your November 30th annual meeting on the annual update inventory report on public facilities. Just to refresh your memory just a little bit, as you'll recall, in addition to our lengthy discussion on some of the options you have available to you on transportation-related matters which we will continue today in this meeting, we also covered the water and sewer portions of your annual update inventory report. Today what we would like to do is start with -- I'm going to have Aaron Blair of my staff project up on the screen the pages of the report that we'll be referring to as we go along. We'd like to start with recreation, parks and recreation, if you will, and go through the rest of the facilities and the recommendations that we have for you on each of the facilities. Before we start, I will tell you that, generally speaking, we feel that as we go through these facilities, we will have some specific recommendations, but we are not anticipating any particular crisis- type situations of the facilities you will be reviewing. What I will do is give you the highlights of each individual facility type, and maybe we'll have the facility manager answer any specific questions that you might have. We have Marla Ramsey here today from parks and recreation. Up on the screen, which corresponds to your page 22 of the notebooks we have provided you at the last meeting, is what we call the facility summary form. Very simply, what it does is it states the existing inventory. It shows the required inventory at the adopted level of service standard and a dollar value, a constant dollar value that will be required over the next five years. It shows the planned CIE projects that we are proposing and Page 5 December 18, 2001 asking for your recommendation to include in the next CIE update and amendment in February. It also gives you a dollar value and the .proposed or in-place funding sources in order to fund these revenues. Now, what you will see on each of these presentations and No. 1 where we show existing revenue sources, that means that the revenue sources are believed or estimated to be in place and no additional revenue sources are required. If Aaron will turn to page 24 on the presentation, we are -~ what you'll show here is that Marla's plan for the next five years, it shows a tracking of a level of service standard similar to the one we showed you with water and sewer, planned facility additions of approximately $40 million over the next 5 years to be paid for with impact fees and bonding of impact fees over that period of time. We also have for your information, if you would like to look at individual facilities that add up to the $40 million on page 25, the individual year-by-year detail of the parks' capital facilities. A further recommendation we have in parks is upon analysis and considering that we have not changed the level of service standard since 1989 when we adopted the plan, we're recommending that you give us direction to amend the level of service standard from $179 per capita to $240 per capita which is more in keeping with current values and current costs of facilities. But as you will see from the chart, the graph that we just showed you, we are proposing the 240 -- go back to the graph a moment, Aaron -- oh, there we go, the $240 per capita level of service standard that we're proposing, we still are in very good shape as we go out into the later years, FY '09 and 'O 10, 'O 10, FY '10. And, of course, we would again be bringing you AU -- AUIRs that deal with those developing deficits in future years. If you had no questions -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You have mentioned here the Lely amphitheater for a million five, but I do know that -- at least I Page 6 December 18, 2001 understand that there are some negotiations going on regarding that and -- and possibly the thought of not having it in Lely but in another area. Are we still going to be putting aside the money for that? Do we know where we're going with it or ~- please let me know how -- if we can put that off for another year, that would be great. MS. RAMSEY: With that particular issue -- and there is a couple of them like that -- where we've had 20 acres is included in the land as well as the facility cost is projected to be there. One thing that is not listed here that that funding then could be transferred to would be a park like Manatee which I don't have any funding currently allocated toward it, so we could still reach our dollar amounts by pulling other projects ahead as we go forward. Whether we'll actually put the amphitheater at that location or not is yet to be determined, and I've still earmarked that until I've heard otherwise. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Now, that land was free; right? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. That land has been donated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if you move this facility then to Manatee, then do you purchase the property there, or is that school property? MS. RAMSEY: No. We currently own 60 acres that's undeveloped at that particular location. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this million five then is for the facility itself. Is that -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It's for the infrastructure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, what's the Stalling school? MS. RAMSEY: That particular one there is to help enhance the school system. When the schools come on line with your elementary schools, we go into the schools and try and upgrade their athletic facilities to meet the standards of little leagues and our standards. Page 7 December 18, 2001 And then we maintain those fields for usage of those facilities after school hours. The game plan of that particular one is to go into the Stalling property and upgrade the facilities. Now, that particular project has been moved forward on the school system's side and is being built currently, and so we're going to have to look at that particular one to find out if we're able to piggyback on it next year or not. We have an issue with lights that we're trying to deal with right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's a partnership with the school to enhance the services that we provide? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. For example, instead of putting down bahia, we would come in and put Bermuda because that's the athletic turf that we would utilize. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other questions for the board? MR. LITSINGER: If there are no other questions, on parks facilities, we have three separate levels of service standards on parks, and we'll need to have a motion and a vote on each one. I would ask the board for a motion and vote to approve staff recommendations relative to facilities and timing and revenues and their proposed level of service standard on parks facilities, and then we'll move on to community parks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do a motion, actually vote in this workshop? MR. LITSINGER: This is a special meeting. CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is a special meeting. It's a continuation of another meeting dedicated specifically to this, so it's not a workshop. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll move staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. Page 8 December 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion carries. MR. LITSINGER: Move on to -- page 27 of your report is the second of the three-pronged way we look at community parks -- excuse me, parks facilities in Collier County. And here is your level of service standard for parks land. What we're showing you here is that, here again, we are proposing to acquire another 49 acres of parks, community parks land over the next 5 years which we believe is fundable within the existing parks impact fee revenue stream with possibly some combination of bonding as we go along. If you would like a detail of the parks facilities that we are speaking of, you will see those on page 33. Here we have a summary of the proposed community park additions over the next five years. And we're asking the board to approve the inclusion of these park facilities in your upcoming CIE update and amendment the identified revenues. One thing I'd like to point out to you also is that we are proposing a slight change in the way we calculate level of service standard and our ability and progress in attaining that level of service based on Miss Ramsey's analysis. We would like to change the level of service standard to 1.2882 acres per 1,000 population in the unincorporated area only. Previously we had used the entire county, but that was not a proper analysis in that we do not provide community parks in -- within the incorporated areas. So part of our recommendation would be an addition to including the listed projects that we also amend our level of service standard to base it on the Page 9 December 18, 2001 unincorporated area population as opposed to county-wide population. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And, again, this is a specific impact fee direct -- collected for parks and recreation and which may or may not be bonded off, depending on the needs, based over, as I see it, a five-year plan. MR. LITSINGER: Five years. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Anticipating on the growth schedule I see here, the line with -- for what our current population is. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I'm -- and, again, this seems to be much clearer in a different format than we've had in the past, Stan. I compliment you on that. You put the pieces together. So for the next five years, if we go with the level of service that Miss Ramsey is proposing taking the incorporated areas out, we can meet the community needs. MR. LITS1NGER: If you look at page 29, it shows a chart. This is with their proposed level of service change using unincorporated area. And, as you can see, we're in very good shape with our community park acres verse our adopted level of service standard. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time on that, on the rural area. How are you proposing to change that again, because I know some of the lands out there would lend themselves to regional parks? MR. LITSINGER: Regional parks will be the next facility we look at. But, Commissioner, relative to what we're proposing is, we're not taking out rural lands. We're taking out the incorporated populations of Naples, Marco, lots in Marco, and Everglades City in our calculation of level of service standard because we neither collect impact fees in those areas nor do we build community parks within Page 10 December 18, 2001 the incorporated areas. Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a way of calculating how many park -- how many people use the parks daily, during the day, during the evening, weekly so that we can see that all of this money that's being spent for the parks is actually being utilized by not only the people who are living here now but potentially by the new people that we're planning? MS. RAMSEY: I can give you a breakdown in numbers for facilities in both programming and in visitors. We use a car counter and use a multiplier on that. And we do have a monthly report that we put out that if you'd like that information, I can send it to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I would like that information park by park actually. I'm very interested in that, and if you can even give me something that -- that tells me days of the week and hours of the day so that we know are parks being utilized during the day, are there other ways that we can use them because I'm -- I'm hoping that we can also work together with the school system to -- to utilize both parks at the same time for some of their after-school programs, and maybe our park system can work with the school board and -- and take those dollars and decrease them if we can so that we're both working together to serve the population. Anyway, we'll be going on to that. Tom's going to be setting up that meeting for me after the first of the year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And, Commissioner Fiala, that's part of my problem and the reason I vote -- voted no on the last issue. I -- I'm -- I guess I'm a little concerned about the fact that we -- we have a surplus of capacity in facilities now, and we're going to have a deficit in FY '10. My question is, why do we build additional facilities now or in the new -- in the short term when we don't need it according to our facilities-required curve and incur a surplus in later years? Page 11 December 18, 2001 MS. RAMSEY: To help you with that just a little bit is even though we look at our facility cost as a unit cost, the facilities -- for example, take a soccer field. We do not have enough soccer fields in our facilities, but the cost of putting up a community center in an area that needs it will be of a higher dollar amount, so then the entire revenue stream or the dollar amount is higher in that area, but we may not have enough soccer fields to accommodate needs of the community itself. And so a lot of what we're doing with the school system is trying to address those athletic needs, and we're doing it -- currently we do it at Manatee Elementary/Middle School; the new Barron Collier site, which is called Osce -- Osceola Elementary; Naples Park Elementary; Avalon Elementary; Big Cypress Elementary; and in some degree with Manatee. So we are definitely teaming up with the elementary schools and trying to use existing facilities to make sure that we do not have to duplicate taxpayers' dollars for those facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To what extent have we prioritized the capital facilities themselves? MS. RAMSEY: The facilities that we have listed for the next five years? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I guess my question is, the Golden Gate Community Center, is that number one, and Marco access restroom, is that last? Is this -- is this reported in -- MS. RAMSEY: No, it's not. No, it's not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -~ in descending order of importance? MS. RAMSEY: Each -- each different area has different needs, and we tried to look at them on a case-by-case basis and try and put them up against one another. That's why you'll see some projects in '02 and others in '05. That's based on either what we feel is the upcoming need and -- or the priority, if you want to look at it from Page 12 December 18, 2001 that standpoint. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I guess my overriding concern is just one of-- of prioritizing all capital projects, and I just don't see that happening here. But I -- I understand that -- that this impact fee is pretty much compartmentalized, and you're going to have to use it for something. I guess my only concern is why use it early rather than later and thereby avoid the deficit ten years out. That's my -- my only concern. MS. RAMSEY: I think I might want to comment on that is that we're looking with the school system who looks out 20 years based upon what they feel is going to be the need of the children in that particular area, and we're working really closely with the schools, because if they have a need to have children in that particular area, then we're going to have a need to have athletic fields in that area. So in -- in some regards, we are looking at that in tandem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there some kind of agreement with the school system with respect to cost sharing on any of those things? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. For each facility that we do, for example, Corkscrew Elementary/Middle School, we have a contract for 20 years with them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner Coyle, if I may make -- just make a comment on the analytical methodology you've seen here, statutorily the AUIR and the capital improvement element comp plan deals with five years of capital facilities. So the reason you're seeing that generally what we look -- or we're building a surplus in the analysis of the first five years, it tends to -- to turn into a deficit in the latter years -- that's ten years out -- is because of the fact that as we move forward next year, we will add a year, and you will see a new facilities planning. So really here the key emphasis is the first five Page 13 December 18, 2001 years that you're looking at on each of these charts. We're not indicating that we're planning for a deficit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: If there are no further questions, I'd ask for a motion and vote on staff recommendations for community parks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: A motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is for park acres only? MR. LITSINGER: Correct. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It's park land. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions, comments, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does this take into consideration at Orange Tree that park that's going to be donated to us, the land there, the Brian Paul property? MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- let me help you, Marla, on that one, okay? MS. RAMSEY: Okay. MR. MUDD: You just -- you just walked into a land mine. All right? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I do have it in the regional park land. It's not in the community park land, so it's the next item. MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner Coletta, so far the donation isn't happening. Okay. He's asking for a dollar amount for every acre no matter if it's in a pond or if it's -- if it's a -- land that surrounds that pond. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'll file that information for further reference. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions? Page 14 December 18, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: carries 5-0. All in favor of the motion signify by Voted by the same sign. The motion MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to page 30 of your report, here's the third and last level of service standard that we deal with in our parks facilities. And this is regional park land. Here -- and, as you can see, we're demonstrating a regional park land. We're proposing to add 156 acres during the 5-year planning time frame which is, again, outlined on page 33, the specific projects that we're proposing. Also here we're proposing a rather radical change in the way we analyze our regional park land inventory versus our need and our level of service standard. Previously we had included state and federal lands in our inventory of regional parks which didn't truly provide access to county residents at will and which we have no control over. Marla, here again, has recommended that we remove the inventory of state and federal acreage from our regional park lands inventory which gives us a more realistic outlook as to what we had in this particular area which is demonstrated on the chart on page 32. Even by making the change and removing the state and federal lands which we recommend from the inventory, we still are -- have a very good plan providing for regional park acreage in the coming years with the available revenue stream. Any questions on regional park? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, just the only thing I'm thinking about, you know, state parks we have the access to. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Federal lands are usually just raw land Page 15 December 18, 2001 that if you're courageous, you go into it. If-- so they're not really user friendly. But the state lands are user friendly. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. MS. RAMSEY: Well, a comment on that is part of the state lands are user friendly; not all of the state lands are. I mean, you might have a thousand acres, and maybe 50 of it might be accessible to the recreational elements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's very passive. MS. RAMSEY: Right. And that's passive, yes. MR. OLLIFF: The other issue is when the level of service standard was originally developed, the state lands were not included and were not intended to be included by the community group that developed that level of service standard nor by the board that approved it. The idea to include the state lands was done by a subsequent board when, frankly, it got in a financial bind and didn't have the impact fees and revenue available. So an easy way out of that was simply to pump in the inventory of state and federal lands that the county had in inventory and then sort of just slip out from having any responsibility to continue to provide a regional land inventory. All we're suggesting to you is that the original concept was this 2.9 acres per thousand level of population, aside from and apart from state and federal lands, and we think that's probably what the original level of service standard was intended to be and probably what we ought to get back to. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That makes a lot of sense to me, Tom, because I think what I'm hearing is, hide the problem and let somebody else wrestle with it. Now, that's just exactly what's happened here. If they had done what they needed to do at that time, it would have been a reflective portion. Commissioner Fiala. Page 16 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. Where does Lely Barefoot Beach fall in this being that it's both state and county? MS. RAMSEY: We put that into our inventory underneath regional park lands. It's in this particular item. And we -- we include all of those because we manage those lands. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and what is -- what is that under here? MS. RAMSEY: That's underneath the regional park land. It's in the -- it's not in the list -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. RAMSEY: -- of acres here because it's not projected. MR. OLLIFF: Because we already own it. MR. LITSINGER: It's in our inventory. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: And we -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this lands thing, we're not -- this is just acquiring the lands, right? Have we already paid for that other, or that's already been budgeted? MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking about the outparcel, or are you talking about the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. OCHS: It closes Friday. MS. RAMSEY: Again, that's actually -- in this -- this school year -- that is -- it is to be reflected on here. It's in mine in pencil, but that came in after we did this particular report. So it will be included in the 1.69 acres. It will be included in this inventory. MR. OLLIFF: I need -- I need to -- before the board -- well, go ahead, Stan. I'll let the board -- MR. LITS1NGER: If there are no further questions, I would ask for a motion and vote on regional park land recommendations. Page 17 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to jump in here, Mr. Chairman, and at the sake of confusing the works a little bit. There are -- there are two different levels of service that you just recently looked at. One is the regional park land, the actual advanced purchase of or the purchase of lands for regional parks. In that particular level of service, given the rate at which land is consumed around here, I would tell you that it is probably good planning to be well ahead of your population curve because if you wait for the population to get there, you won't have the opportunity to be able to buy the park land that you need. But I'm going to ask Aaron if you'll back up to slide -- whatever the facilities slide was, Aaron, the regional park facilities. MS. RAMSEY: Twenty-four. MR. OLLIFF: Back to 24. I do want to make sure that the board understands that in this particular case, the -- the point that Commissioner Coyle was pointing out is -- is it's not so much building it in advance is going to have any difference in terms of whether or not you hit that deficit point in fiscal year '10. But I do want to make sure that the board is -- is aware that when we're building large facilities, for example, it does provide some excess capacity. But the issue that you've got is a recognition, at least upon the part of the board, that you do have maintenance of those facilities. And I just want to make sure that the board is aware that when you're building those facilities in fiscal year '02, '3, and '4 that are shown on that graph, while it provides some excess capacity for us on a level of service standard, the ongoing maintenance costs are our costs that we Page 18 December 18, 2001 bear through your general fund or actually through your Fund 111 now that we moved parks over there. And so just -- I want to make sure the board understands that. Then that's really probably the issue that you've got in dealing with when to build and when -- when you're planning for the construction of capital facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That -- that is the issue exactly. You need to buy the land so that you'll be prepared to react to it at some point in time. You don't need to build the facility necessarily at a specific point in time until you reach the point where you have a requirement for this facility. And -- and -- and that's, again, my reason for voting against the capital improvements proposal. But I would like to ask one -- one question, one additional question, is that we are -- we are increasing the level of standard -- level of service standard. What impact does that have on the actual impact fees themselves? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we're -- our goal is to come back to you in -- in the next four to six months with an increase to our impact fees to help with the cost of construction because 11 years ago it was $1.79 a facility per person. But based on the construction, it's gone up over 3.12 percent per year since that point in time. And so the size and -- and of the facilities is much less for the dollar that I have. And so that's the reason for increasing that level of service, so that I will be able to look at that on the impact fee side and be able to justify the increases. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. What was the last time we reviewed it, Marla? MS. RAMSEY: The impact fee? The impact fee was about three years ago. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pardon me? Page 19 December 18, 2001 MS. RAMSEY: About three years ago the impact fee. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was '99. MR. OLLIFF: But to answer Commissioner Coyle's question, the impact fee formula is driven by your level of service standard. So when your level of service standard is in what was my opinion artificially high, it puts you in a position where you cannot levy the impact fee that you probably should be levying for regional park land. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that's what bothers me a little bit. We're -- we're approving capital improvements and land acquisition and all that sort of thing, and then we come back in six months, and we're going to take a look at an impact fee increase, which we might not be able to justify. And that's what bothers me a little bit. But if the board feels comfortable proceeding in that direction, I'm -- I'm willing to go there. But it just is an uncomfortable feeling for me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one. I'm having some -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, then Mar -- Miss Ramsey wanted to respond to Commissioner Coyle. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I think that when we came before the board the last time with the impact fee increase, we came in with three different levels of increase. And the board chose the lesser of those three levels. So we -- we're very comfortable with the fact that we'll be able to increase it. I believe right now we're at $800 per unit. We could have gone as high as $1200 in the last go-round, and we chose not to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens if you come in with three levels next time and we select the lowest level? How does that impact the plan that we just approved today? MR. OLLIFF: Go ahead, Stan. Page 20 December 18, 2001 MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner Coyle, what this plan is is just that; it's a plan. It's part of your comprehensive plan. It's not binding on your budget. In the event that the eventuality took place where you'd made a decision not to raise the impact fee level to the needed level to fund the $240 per capita, then we would come back to you next year and amend out to the level of service standard back to a level that's supported by your impact fee. You are not making a commitment today, absolute, to go forward with the funding and construction of these levels. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if-- if we are, in essence, approving a level of service standard increase -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- through -- through these documents, that level of service increase will become part of our comprehensive plan, will it not? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. MR. LITSINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the comprehensive plan cannot be revised except what? Twice a year? MR. LITSINGER: Twice a year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you come back in six months with an impact fee proposal, the board doesn't buy it, we have in our comprehensive pan -- plan a level of service standard which we are incapable of achieving. Is that a true statement? MR. LITSINGER: Until we amend it again. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So then we would amend it. But we won't amend it until late next year by that point; right? MR. OLLIFF: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've gone almost a year with a level of service standard that we know we can't achieve because we don't know what the impact fee is. Page 21 December 18, 2001 MR. OLLIFF: But it's almost a chicken and egg kind of thing because your level of service standard is what drives your impact fee rate. And you have to know what the board wants in terms of its standard in order to be able to come back to you and say, "This is the impact fee you're going to need then in order to be able to support this standard." COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand your problem, and I'm not going to solve this problem today, and I'm not going to hold up the discussion. But if we had an analysis, you're adopt -- you want to adopt a new level of service standard and you want to spend it on these kinds of things, here is the impact fee that's necessary to support that. And if we could review that all at one time, it would be helpful, but we're not going to settle that today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think what we would be doing is dealing with a tremendous amount of staff time. The what-if game, it would take -- of all the different levels we could come in with. They want to hear our rea -- reaction to what can be done first. Then they'll come back to it. We can always amend it if we have to. Like Mr. Olliff said, you can't put the chicken before the egg. You got to -- you got to go in some sort of logical order. We have to determine what we want, and then we can go back to address the impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sort of like establishing a budget without taking a look at what your -- your income is. And that's -- that's the process that bothers me a little bit. Look, I don't want to belabor the issue and extend the discussion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, there's a happy medium in there, Commissioner. And you're right; we're not going to resolve that this morning. All points are well taken. But having been around this process, I understand what staff is asking us; they're also saying to us, Page 22 December 18, 2001 you can achieve certain levels. But if you're going to keep up with the cost of construction to achieve those levels and this is what you want to do, then this is -- again, it almost becomes a chicken and egg thing. But if we come back later and say, well, that would severely impact it too much and we want to back off of it, then they have to back off on -- on the plan and say, well -- well, this is more important than this. And they got to bring it back to us. And we're constantly moving within some parameters of this plan. But if we don't do this, then we don't have any parameters is the way I understand -- MR. LITSINGER: Commissioners, I would like to make a point. On page 23, which is the spreadsheet, which is the analysis that resulted in their recommendation of $240 per capita, here, again, we should point out, I think, that we are currently valuing your current existing inventory of-- at $50 million based on the level of service standard. So what we're doing, it's a two-pronged attack. We're also immediately valuing the existing inventory facilities which you have which is significant at the proposed level of service standard. As you can see, just based on -- on the valuation, $240 per capita and the valuation of the inventories, we're currently at a -- actually providing a level of service standard of $196 per capita to -- today. So we're, actually, providing a higher level than the 179 that was adopted 12 years ago at this point. MS. RAMSEY: One other com -- comment on that, if you looked on page 26. Each year we update our inventory for as many fields and centers and whatnot. And each year we add a valuation based upon what the current cost of that facility is, but that facility could be 12 years old. And so your valuation is -- is high if you look at it in comparison what I'm then able to leverage against the dollars that I have currently in -- in '89 they wanted $179 of worth of facilities per capita. That 179 equates to 240 today based upon what Page 23 December 18, 2001 it costs me to build those. And that's -- that was the entire reasoning behind going from 179 to 240, because that should be the same level of service. It's just based upon the fact that it costs 279 to build that same level as it did in '89 for 179. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 240 versus 179. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I guess what we're operating on is -- is almost a false level of service because it costs you more to do it today. MS. RAMSEY: That's -- that's right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're only trying to bring it into reality. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I know -- I know that we want to keep our level of service high because people enjoy the parks here and one of the things we've always explained is what a beautiful place we live, and we don't want to let that beautiful place deteriorate. On the other hand, we're hitting impact fees hard this year because of our road situation and because of our sewer situation and -~ and our water situation. We're -- we're hitting all of these things very hard. And -- and, I mean, we're going forward with this, but I'm -- I'm hoping that we address at some point in time how we could maybe adjust that a little more rationally than hitting everything at one time and giving them this monster impact fee change for something that maybe could be prolonged for a year or so. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If-- ifI -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll finish that by saying that I think the mistake that has been made is by keeping these things at some point too low. Then we haven't been able to keep up with it. And that's why we're hit so hard this year and why we've had to make so many tough decisions. I want to make sure we get to the point in Page 24 December 18, 2001 between there where we continue to move forward and continue to catch up and yet -- and yet not -- not deter work-force housing to be built and people to be able to buy it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala makes a very good point that what we're -- what we're basically saying here is growth has to pay for growth. It's been one of these responsibilities of government for as long as we've known. And I think we've given lip service to it long enough. And now we're the people that are going to have to take it on the -- our shoulders to make sure that it does what we say it's going to do. And it is going to be painful, and we are going to have to find some way to accommodate the work-force housing, too, along the way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. And I think that's what we're dedicated to make sure that growth pays for growth. What we're doing here today is setting a level of standard for the community so David Ellis can sell the homes upward into the level of service that we have here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Goodpoint. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Parks are very important to a building a great community, just the same as roads. And I don't want to change the level of service down. I think we need to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I agree. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we need to go forward on the motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any further discussion on the All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign? Page 25 December 18, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion carries 5-0. MR. LITSINGER: That completes the presentation on the parks portion of your AUIR. Moving on to page 34 of the presentation, we touched quickly on drainage canals and structures, which is a Category A facility. And I'll point out that this says a rather u -- rather unique level of service standard in that it is, to some extent, subjective. And the measures are generally more subjective in nature than some of your other facilities. As you can see, the top of your summary page there, we have a level of service standard for all current -- all future development, which means anything that is taking place today of the ability to handle on site a 25-year, 3-day storm event. The existing -- the level of service standard for all development prior to the adoption of this plan in 1989 was the current level of service that existed at that time. Down below you see the proposed addition of approximately $20 million in drainage capital improvements over the next 5-year planning period of the CIE, and we also show the existing revenue service -- excuse me, revenue sources which are currently in place that would fund this plan. And what staff is asking that you do is approve the list of projects on page 35 for inclusion in your capital improvement element update and amendment as we move forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have another question on that page 34. We show no developer contributions at all to this particular project. Is that because the impact fee isn't allocated to this kind of function? MR. LITSINGER: John, answe~ that. MR. BOLT: There are no impact fees related to storm water, to my knowledge, anywhere in the State of Florida because of the circumstances involved. Developer contributions is more a function Page 26 December 18, 2001 of timing than anything else. There are certain projects in the area where we are in conjunction with the developer working to put the project in place, and it depends on whether he gets there first or we get there first and who gets the permits to do it and so on. So that's kind of a moving target. My name is John Bolt, county storm water director. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if the developer is a part of the process, he makes a contribution. But if we're doing this outside of any development in that area, it's our responsibility? Am I understanding that correctly? MR. BOLT: In some cases, if the developer gets there first and does the work first, donates the right-of-way and does the construction, then when we're going to set up a taxing district, we would include that in the total cost and give them a credit for it in their overall assessment for the project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So like the -- for instance, years ago when Sabal Bay was planning on coming in, they were going to put all of that storm water drainage and spreaders and so forth in, but because they didn't come in, we've had to accommodate that in our own schedule, our own budget; right? MR. BOLT: That is true. But in the PUD document, even as it stands today, they would have been given credit for the work they had done up front prior to our project when we set up the taxing district. We would have included the cost in it and given them credit back for it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which would cost us ten years less at that rate; right? MR. BOLT: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Any questions on -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board? Page 27 December 18, 2001 (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the storm water drainage AUIR. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hearing none, all in favor signify the motion -- signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. MR. LITSINGER: Having covered your water and sewer portions of this presentation on November the 30th, we'll now move to page 51 of your presentation. Here we'll be dealing with your solid waste, better known as your landfill, which is your last Category A facility that we'll deal with today. If I neglected to mention previously, of course, the difference between Category A and Category B facilities that we'll be discussing in a few moments is Category A or concurrency dependent. In other words, you must maintain your level of service standard on Category A facility in order to continue to issue building permits in Collier County. Here in solid waste, again, we have a two-tiered level of service standard. The first one we're looking at on page 51 is your 10-year permittable capacity available for disposal of-- of solid waste, and this standard is based on the 1 O-year capacity of the landfill. We're indicating here that based on our contracts with WMI and what is currently in place that we do not feel that any action is required on the Board of County Commissioners today relative to the AUIR Page 28 December 18, 2001 relative to the solid waste ten-year space requirement. And we ask the board to approve at AUIR for solid waste ten-year permitable capacity as it is presented to you today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a permit on the -- the old cells, or is that part of the -- this ten-year update of capacity MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, for the record, interim public utilities administrator. We are going through the permitting process today for the remediation process throughout the facilities, and at this point in time we do have in place with contract with Waste Management for the 9.2 million additional tons in the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. I remember. And in the ten years is -- is the cases of emergency too. MR. WIDES: There is also a -- there is a emergency situation that we've established with the Okeechobee landfill where, in fact, in the short term here we have 2 years of capacity of basically about 930,000 tons that we've contracted for with Waste Management. And in the event that there is a storm event, we have an additional 500,000 tons that we can move up in the Okeechobee -- Okeechobee landfill, if necessary. MR. LITSINGER: For demonstration purposes, we've put the graph of the current situation with the Naples landfill, and it just is worthy to point out that in the out years FY '09 and '10, as you-all are all aware anyway, we are looking at significant alternatives to the current situation at the Naples landfill. MR. MUDD: The RFP -- Jim Mudd for the record. The RFPs for organic and -- and composting for construction and demolition and for gasification are out on the street. We chose to Page 29 December 18, 2001 -- because it was such a short period of time that a little extra time on the street to get good proposals would be more prudent than trying to rush it and -- and cut people out of process and maybe for us not to get the best deal as far as companies with proposals and -- and right now Waste Management is -- is working a proposal to use the landfill gas. We chose to work through the present contract for landfill gas utilization through Waste Management because we still want to hold them responsible for the odor. And we didn't want to get ourselves into a situation whereby we have a -- a company that's responding to us utilizing the landfill gas and then they don't care about the odor so much. They're interested in producing BTUs or getting the most gas out of it, and they don't worry so much about the odors escaping. And Waste Management -- we're holding them for odors and the two of them saying, "Well, I can't do it because one of the other is doing something different." They're at opp -- they're at opposite ends of-- of the scale. So to preclude that from happening, we're asking Waste Management to go to the street with the landfill gas utilization to turn it into electricity, and -- and we can still hold them responsible for that entire operation. Those things are coming. You will see those the end part of May and June with staff recommendations on how those work. All of those things that we're talking about, especially C and D and gasification and organics, is to minimize our volumes going into the landfill to move this red area out into the -- into the 20 -- 25-year mode to prolong the life of the landfill in that area that we have with substances that don't -- that aren't odiferous. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, whereabouts in this graph would the Immokalee landfill and its closing fit in? Page 30 December 18, 2001 MR. MUDD: Certainly. The Immokalee landfill is basically going to be out of operation by 2005, 2006, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is that part of tremendous decline that takes place in there? Is that what's been figured into it, or has it been taken into account? MR. MUDD: It's been taken into account, sir. What we're basically showing is that it basically comes down as we keep adding volumes based on the current volumes that we see in the growth pattern. We've got to do something a little bit different to reduce the volumes that go into that landfill. The Immokalee landfill is just -- it's a small piece. It's a very small piece compared to the Naples operation, but it's very -- it's -- it's located in a very customer friendly location because it's close to it, and we try to be good neighbors with -~ with the tribe that it's -- that's there that surrounds that facility. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Because the board hasn't made these decisions in terms of its long-term disposal, this big chunk of red is going to show up on your graph. And it probably is good to have it there as a reminder that we need to make some decisions to make that -- that colorful graph change a little bit. But we cannot alter that graph to show that we've made those decisions until you actually sit there and look at the presentations and pick some technologies. Once we select some technologies, then we can start to put them in the plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When do you think you'll reach a decision on the gasification process? MR. WIDES: The RFPs, as Mr. Mudd has said, they are out on the street right now. We expect to have those back in the -- I believe the February time frame, and then shortly thereafter that we'll be coming with our recommendations to the board. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll have an opportunity to make those decisions probably in the year 2002 and probably the first half, Page 31 December 18, 2001 if I'm understanding the schedule correctly. MR. WIDES: That is our expectation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to call the motion. MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. On this particular portion of the solid waste ten-year permitable passage there is no action required because there are no changes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just testing to see if everybody is awake today. MR. LITSINGER: I'd move you to page 54. Here is your second level of service standard here. Here is the requirement that we have two years of constructed lined cell capacity at an average disposal at the rate of the previous five years at any time. As you can see, we have a couple demonstrations for you here beginning with page 56, which is the graph which shows the available capacity over the next two years and up through the projection period with the availability of the Okeechobee landfill capacity allocated of 930,000 tons. And also we show on page 57 the situation in the event that we did not have the 930,000 tons at the Okeechobee landfill. Generally speaking, we would recommend that the board approve the projects as identified and recommend that staff puts the CIE FY '02 to '06 projects in the next annual update and amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Question? MR. OLLIFF: I have a question of Mr. Mudd. I want you to clearly explain to the board what this chart shows them. MR. MUDD: What you have, Commissioners, remember last year, we were talking about -- MR. OLLIFF: Jim, if use the wall mic, it's right there behind you. Page 32 December 18, 2001 MR. MUDD: Sir, they're all hooked into -- what we have is -- is on this chart, we talked about -- last November or so we were talking about running out of lined capacity in the -- in the landfill, and we went into a series of negotiations in January and February with Waste Management to acquire it at a cost of $1. Their guarantee of a two- year line capability at Okeechobee on that previous chart, you'll see it looked like a bunch of biorhythms, okay, as it was going up and down. But if we hadn't done that, we would have been down here in the red zone, and we would have not been in compliance with our comprehensive plan because the line capability isn't constructed. Now, the permit for the line capability will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection this month. Waste Management submitted it to us at the end of October. We reviewed it with our consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, with some changes that's going to get put in this month to -- to them. We're hoping for a review by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and for construction to start sometime in the springtime. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how much money did you save negotiating this contract? MR. MUDD: Well, when we got into the negotiations, it was -- it was obvious to the -- to the county that Waste Management was -- was looking to the county to pay for the -- the line capability in Cells 1 and 2. And when you -- when you start adding those numbers up, it comes up to be about $50 million. When we were done with the negotiations, it was obvious to everybody at the table that it was Waste Management's responsibility for that capital cost. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions by the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Page 33 December 18, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fiala is absent. Opposed by the same sign? Motion carries 4-0; Commissioner MR. LITSINGER: That comete -- completes your Category A, public facilities. We now move on to Category B, public facilities. Here we show on page 61 the status of your jail facility. Here again, let me point out for your reference that here we're getting into Category B facilities which are basically policy decisions relative to the level of facilities to be provided based on your sense of the community's comfort level with the service they're being provided in each case as we go along. There is no ramification relative to state oversight or the issuance of permits in the community. The first one that we're looking at here is the jail. We're showing a -- an addition of the 240 beds in FY '02. Here, again, staff is proposing a slight change in the way we evaluate level of service standard for jail facilities. We're ask -- we're recommending that in the past we had gone -- used peak population for calculation of our level of service standard for jail beds. Looking at the analyses and the level of service being provided, the space availability in the jail, we're recommending that the calculis -- calculation methodology be revised to use the weighted average population, which is a factor of the peak population during the season and the permanent population in determining level of service per thousand population, which is 2.4 beds. Other than that, we have no recommendations for this particular CIE planning cycle other than to include the one project that we see here, the one jail facility in your upcoming CIE. Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that crime doesn't increase during the season? MR. LITSINGER: I don't know that I can make that statement. Page 34 December 18, 2001 Analytically we are showing that by using the peak population, we have overstated possibly our nail -- need for jail space and that we're asking, pending a review by the correction committee of the existing methodologies, that we amend our level of service standard to weighted averages, opposed to peak population, and calculation of level of service standards. Here again, it's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you through? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're showing this 7,392,000 from jail impact fees? MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The jail impact fees are paying for this entirely? MR. LITSINGER: That's my understanding, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now we have 7,392,000 in that fund right now? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. That's the project -- that's not necessarily -- that's the projected current available balance in that fund and the projected stream over the five-year period that we're dealing with here today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and that would be sufficient for building this facility? MR. LITSINGER: That -- based on a per-cell capacity, now keeping in mind that a complete jail project which might be brought to you by your facilities management folks might include additional services such as administrative space. But here we are dealing specifically with a level of service standard and its cost per cell which is about $30,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm a little concerned about changing this down, not knowing from -- from the experts of the fact is they're -- you know, changing it down is going to affect Page 3 5 December 1 $, 2001 overcrowding in the jail. And I don't mind jail inmates bunking up together, but my concern is -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Some of them would love it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't go there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going to have to vote on that, are we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is, you know, riots or something like that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like a little more information on that, too, to make sure that we're heading in the right direction. How many times would we be over capacity in any given period of time? These are good questions you're bringing up, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, do we really have 223 beds surplus right now? MR. LITSINGER: By this analysis and the level of service standard. I don't think we have anyone here from the jail facility to tell you on any given day what the occupancy rate is of the jail. But the indication here is that the level of service standard may need some adjustment. If you so choose -- it's a policy decision -- we can retain the current peak populant -- population method for calculation which would probably show a deficit almost immediately. And, then again, that can drive the decision-making process. But here again, it's a policy-related decision. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have -- I know that I visited over there, and we have some inmates sleeping under the stairwell. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we talking about this jail here or the one in Immokalee? COMMISSIONER HENNING: In Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're both in Collier County. Page 36 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Immokalee is Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's both of them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: My question is, is this -- we're doing a thing on average. If this is policy, maybe it could be adjusted -- am I correct on all of this? -- like anything else. MR. LITSINGER: Excuse me, sir? CHAIRMAN CARTER: It could be adjusted? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we're probably not going to resolve this this morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may enter a thought into this, I know because of the state's new way of handling criminals and the way they incarcerate them for longer periods of time, this may be what we're seeing the reflect of, why we're not getting the jails, local jails, to match the local population like they used to in the past. But I'm far from an expert on this, but you've personally seen overcrowding in our Naples jail? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- they sleep under the stairwell, like I said. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've -- I've heard the same thing, Tom, so you bring up a good -- a good -- a good subject because the weighted average is not allowing for our population increase when it seems a lot of people are coming here because we have so many people in town, and -- a prime target, and so with us capturing them, we want to keep them someplace or another. I've heard time and again where people are sleeping on the floor, and it could really cause major problems. I don't know if the state can step in and -- and give you a citation that you have too many people without beds. I -- I have no idea. But I think we ought to reevaluate that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- that is debatable, and I Page 37 December 18, 2001 don't think anybody here wants to make all the people in jail comfortable. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't want an explosive situation so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we're wise being conservative on this issue because I -- I really believe we probably have a greater capacity with the way -- with the security concerns we've got right now, and we probably will have -- be having more people detained, at least for short periods of time. I agree with Commissioner Henning. I think we've got to be relatively conservative based upon the level of service standard. And -- and I would hope this would be determined in -- in conjunction with the sheriffs office. MR. OLLIFF: What I would suggest for the board, because I know there's a lot of interest, not only in this project but the Immokalee project and the jail impact fee and where are we with that entire issue, I would suggest that we hold a separate meeting or at least maybe at the tail of a county commission meeting have some of the people from the sheriffs department, along with your facilities staff come in and we just have a separate discussion about jails, where are we, where are we going with them, making sure that the board and the sheriff are all on the same page in terms of our long- range planning, because I will tell you that is a misleading chart. Those 240 beds are not in place today, those additional 240 beds, and there is not a surplus of 223 beds today. So I know we are currently under design for a jail expansion here at the Naples facility, but that facility has yet to be constructed, and I think the board wants to have some -- some conversation about that before we get to that point. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So what's the recommendation we do with this? Page 38 December 18, 2001 MR. OLLIFF: Well, this -- this is a plan. And I think the board, obviously, on a -- on a project-by-project basis will make its decision based on the funding and the projects in front of it. So I would suggest that you go ahead and adopt this because it's a Category B facility, and there is no real major impact because it is a planning document that you adopt this level of service standard but then you give us some direction to make sure that we schedule fairly soon a separate meeting to discuss jail facilities. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would -- I would make that motion, along with what you just said that make sure that we get an update from the professionals, and let's do it right and be realistic about what we have to provide because that is what we're charged with as commissioners is to provide the facilities for the other constitutional officers, including the jail. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion, and I have a second by Commissioner Henning. Further discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- one note, ifI may. When it comes time to do that review of jails with the sheriffs department, I would really like to see a workshop, based upon the sheriffs department itself, who is -- $75 million of the budget goes to support sheriffs department. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought it was 80 million. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Eighty million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eighty million. Okay. I -- we gave them a small raise, I guess. But $80 million is a lot of money. I -- I'd love to see a total workshop devoted to the jails and the sheriffs department so we have a better understanding of where that $80 million is spent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll vote for that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Do you want to include that as Page 39 December 18, 2001 part of the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why don't we give staff direction to do that. Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. MR. OLLIFF: So I'll take that as a majority of the board wants to have a workshop not only on jails but on law enforcement as well? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I think that -- I think that not only the board needs to know about the spending in the sheriff's department but the public as a whole. MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to your next Category B facilities, I'll ask Aaron to flip to Slide 64. This is your library buildings level of service standard. That's just paid for with library impact fees and some general fund contributions. What we're showing here is we -- we are coming out of a -- a recent deficit. We have additions coming on line in '01 and '02, the north Naples regional library, as you're familiar with, '03 and '04, enlargement of the Golden Gate branch and '07 and '08 a south regional library. We're still predicting a small period there where we have a slight deficit over the planning period. But, here again, this is a policy decision and staff-direction item. The recommendation would be to-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is based upon -- MR. LITSINGER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN CARTER: This trend is based on a current impact fee on library? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, correct. Page 40 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it does include almost $6 million in general revenue funds? MR. LITSINGER: Calculated based on the cost per square foot to build the buildings, it would need some augmentation from other fund sources and impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if you adopt this level of standard -- MR. LITSINGER: This is the existing level, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If you continue with this level of standard, are you obligated to perform the capital improvement projects on the schedule that you've laid out? MR. LITS1NGER: No, sir. That's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further questions by the board? Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move that we -- that we direct staff to -- to accept and move forward with this particular library building -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be happy to second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we including the -~ the books in the -- in the -- MR. LITSINGER: That's next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question: We're adopting a level of service standard. MR. LITSINGER: No, sir. You're -- there's no change -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Meaning the current level of Page 41 December 18, 2001 service standard? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. And you're directing us to include the three projects that we outlined in the coming capital improvement element. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, I haven't heard anything from the Library Advisory Board contrary to the schedule. And, believe me, in the past they have been very vocal if they think that it is not meeting a level of service standard, so I'm accepting that as a green light for them to continue with the level of service. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1. MR. LITSINGER: Moving to page 65, this is the other side of your library commitment, is your library book stock. Here we have a progressive level of service standard that moves upward each year at a rate of .05 books per capita as we try to achieve the standards throughout the state and the rest of the nation. In this case we're indicating that due to the revenue stream with impact fees that a portion of these funds for the book inventory would come from some form of rev -- general fund revenue augmentation. On page 67 we show you that it has been the policy of the board that our level of service standard is designed such that we do provide the adopted level of service standard as the population increases, which is why the two lines correspond between the inventory proposed and the population growth projections. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know that a few years back Page 42 December 18, 2001 we were extremely Iow on -- on our books per capita, and the Friends of the Library were really complaining. Have we caught up to a point where -- where we at least reach average? MR. LITSINGER: We -- my understanding -- someone may have to jump in here and help me -- is that the standard nation wide and state wide is somewhere in the area of two-plus books per capita. And, as you can see, each year we're increasing where at one point we were below one book per capita when we were adopting the comprehensive plan. And as we move forward through this acquisition plan, we will surpass two books per capita in the planning periods. Any questions on library book stock? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no way that funds for the books could come out of the impact fees? MR. LITSINGER: At the current level of impact fees, our analysis indicates no, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But aren't the -- the increase in the number of books a certain ratio tied into the increased population? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That only makes sense that they should be tied into some sort of impact fee, you know, a minor one. Why should the general taxpayer that's already put the money into the infrastructure and the books have to come back and pay for the books for the new people that are coming into the area? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. A portion of the general fund dollars that are used to -- are for replacement library books as the stock and inventory is used up and aged and has to be replaced. Obviously that is not an impact-fee- eligible expense. So a certain segment, those annual replacement Page 43 December 18, 2001 books are the general-fund portion. The balance of new books for like the new north regional library will be purchased from -- directly from impact fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: for. That's the answer I was looking MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this based on the current level of impact fees, or are you recommending that we increase library -- MR. LITSINGER: We're making a recommendation of impact fees, the current level. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's true for the buildings also? MR. LITS1NGER: That's correct. That's one impact fee for libraries. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you think an im -- an impact fee increase is appropriate? MR. OLLIFF: I believe that -- I believe that impact fee is scheduled for review in the next fiscal year. We've tried to rotate them so we're not reviewing them all in a given year but on a regular cycle. I think the library impact fee will probably reflect like most of the impact fees rising costs for property and rising costs for construction, and I think that will -- that will be reflected in the impact fee that you see for libraries next year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then if we do that it reduces the impact upon the general fund, I would presume? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Raise the impact fees high enough so nobody can afford to live here. MR. LITSINGER: Motion on library book stock? Page 44 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we direct staff to include the planned CIE for 2002-2006 book collection in addition in the next annual CIE update and amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner Henning; I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to your next facility-type government buildings, Aaron, if you'll put up Slide 70 -- there we go. Here staff is taking a different route, a route which is to this Category B public facility. Here this is based on experience over the last 13 years. We are recommending that due to the nature of space planning and its complexities in the current century, if you will, that we don't believe that government buildings is an appropriate facility type for inclusion in your comprehensive plan. It's best handled through your management skills of your facilities management department and the county manager's office. As you can see here, based on the adopted level of service standard, it appears that we're packed in like sardines, and it doesn't appear to be the case. There are some facilities being planned which are reflected in this particular chart, but even so, we show a lot of red. The bottom line is, is we would like a direction from you to remove government buildings as a facility that is tracked within the capital improvement element. We think it's more appropriate for the budget process and the annual review that you undertake each year. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Which would be under capital Page 45 December 18, 2001 expenditures in that budget. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But that needs to be laid down -- I'm going to come back to these two volumes over here to my left that if -- you know, that has to be updated as we go and revised in a number of ways, but to me that should be the road map that takes you to whatever you want to bring in to propose to the board in terms of capital expenditures in a given year looking at five years, ten years, what we have to do to provide those facilities. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. And it's been our experience over the last 12 years with the plan that this has not really been a driving factor in the board's decision-making process on this facility type, so we don't see the rationale in continuing it as a facility type that we track in a capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that means you remove it as a level of service standard. MR. LITSINGER: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me one second. Is this something that can be offset by impact fees? Is it offset by impact fee? MR. LITSINGER: There is no impact fees associated with -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, in other words, we're putting ourselves farther and farther in the red where some day we're going to have to make an adjustment. Also, too, does this really reflect what's happening, or are a lot of these people placed into rental units out there? Is that what's happening? MR. OLLIFF: We've been making some effort to try and eliminate that. But, yeah, you -- you still do have a number of your operations that are in rental facilities. The largest one that comes to mind in particular is the clerk of courts' finance department. The Page 46 December 18, 2001 entire department is in rental space. Your housing and urban improvement department is currently in rental space. And then you have a number of other small operations in rental space. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little disappointed by this because what I'm seeing doesn't make sense. If we're paying to rent buildings out there, put people in there, we're gaining nothing as far as our -- as the value of the building itself; we are making payments for it at a time when interest rates are at an all-time low. Has there been some sort of balance to come up with this whole thing where the break-even point is where we should move on to our own construction? MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you that when you get to later on in this particular meeting and you start looking at the funds that you're going to need to pay for road construction, my guess is you're not going to have a whole lot available, even though interest rates are low, to be able to put towards any new government buildings. And while there may be a need out there, I think we're in a position where we've got to prioritize what we can and have to build. And I don't see the opportunities for additional government buildings, even though it may make some long-term sense, happening today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it -- there's no cost analysis as to the renting as far as ownership goes as where the break-even point would be like 18 months, 2 years, 5 years, 15 years? MR. OLLIFF: We've not done that, no. But I will tell you that over the last couple of years you have eliminated a great deal of what was leased space. You ended up buying some building space for the sheriff's department getting a great deal of his off-campus operations out of leased space, and we have been taking out some of the buildings that we were leasing. So I will tell you that in a percentage basis what you are still leasing or renting is fairly insignificant compared to what -- what you own. Page 47 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The school system, once they start building the schools, we can take those trailers and set them up on campuses. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got dibs on one for Copeland, so keep your hands off of that one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to take this out of the AUIR report. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Mr. Henning, I have a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion carries, 4-1. MR. LITSINGER: Moving on to your next Category B facility type, emergency medical services, which we measure in terms of this is response units per capita, we have a very unique level of service standard which equates to approximately one unit per 15,000 population. This was amended about five or six years ago in an effort to achieve a target response rate of less than six minutes per call. My latest correspondence with the folks over at EMS is that we are very close to maintaining that response rate. The source of revenues here is a combination of impact fees and augmentation by general fund revenues where impact fees are insufficient to provide the necessary units. On page 73, we show a chart which may be a little bit misleading, and it shows all the proposed unit additions doing the planning time frame actually going out into the FY '10 period which Page 48 December 18, 2001 does show a technical -- due to extreme increase in population growth during the '90s a technical deficiency. But we have no indication that the response rate and the level of service has fallen below the standards that we have set for the community. And the staff recommendation is that we include the identified units and timing as provided by the EMS staff in the coming CIE update and amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make that motion for discussion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hearing no discussion, I'm going to call the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. MR. LITS1NGER: Two last facility types. Here, again, staff is -- based on analysis over the past 12 years, it relates to the two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isle of Capri. And what staff is going to recommend to you is due to the fact that similar to the situation that we have seen with government buildings being part of the capital improvement element over the past 10 to 12 years and the fact that Ochopee and Isle of Capri are localized services and not county-wide, that we continue to manage them as independent districts from the county manager's offices and through facilities management and that we eliminate them as facilities in your capital Page 49 December 18, 2001 improvement element, not at all under diminishing the importance of these facilities. But we have not found it to be a useful planning tool to count the number of fire vehicles at each station in order to determine the level of service being provided. And it's our recommendation to hear in both cases to eliminate both Ochopee and Isle of Capri as capital improvement element facilities. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I move staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There would be no change, of course, in the level of service? This -- this has nothing to do with the level of service that's going to be provided to the citizens out there. MR. LITSINGER: The level of service is based on the number of trucks, if you will, per capita, and we don't feel that this is a relevant level of service in actually determining whether or not the quality of life and response times have been sufficient to serve the communities in question, and we just don't think that it adds anything to your planning process to include these in the capital improvement elements. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question would be the fact that this services a small district for itself. Do the people in that area contribute to the cost of this directly, or do we pay for it on a county-wide basis? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It -- I think it is augmented by the general fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those -- those are both dependent fire districts. The general fund does contribute some money to Ochopee through the payment in lieu of taxes due to the volume of federal lands that are within the Ochopee boundaries. And Isle of Capri is fully self supporting through their own millage on residents on Isle of Page 50 December 18, 2001 Capri. I believe it's one mill currently. MR. OLLIFF: Just -- your comprehensive plan, which is what you're looking at, is more of a county-wide planning document. And these are two very small fire districts and probably just in essence don't belong in your county-wide comprehensive planning document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Besides, you shouldn't be measuring the amount of vehicles by per capita; it should be response time. MR. LITSINGER: Yup. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, that completes the AUIR presentation with the exception of roads which I'll turn over to Mr. Feder. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we're going to take ten minutes, let magic fingers rest her fingers. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to our -- to our workshop. The next portion will be described -- describing and discussing transportation funding options which I'm sure everyone has a keen interest in. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, your transportation administrator. What I wanted to do is cover a couple areas. I'll give you a quick overview on how we plan on continuation of our discussion from the last meeting. Seems to be an echo chamber here. First of all, what we want to do is review with you specifically Page 51 December 18, 2001 what the needs are over the five-year period, in particular, the issues relative to concurrency that are in your AUIR, what approach we feel that we can take to respond to those particular items, and move into that into the dollar costs that will be needed for us to respond. And I'm going to have Mike Smyskowski cover that portion. At the same time I do that, though, and as difficult and important the decision is in how we address this backlog that we find ourselves faced with -- more importantly, I think, that we want to get after we've got that decision on how to address the backlog is what do we do in the way of policy changes and process changes so we don't end up here again. In many respects, that's even more important than the first, as important as that is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have a question before you get any further, if you don't mind. And that is, when does the state step in and tell us we have to do whatever they say or that our -- that our level of service is out of line or that our roads are not in line.'? When do they actually step in and tell you, regardless of what you say, you better do this? MR. FEDER: I will defer some of this, if he cares to, to Stan Litsinger as well. But essentially, first of all, the state allows the county to set its level of service as part of your Land Development Code and growth management plan you are setting local service, basically everything here in Collier County except for the interstate. So even state roads you're setting the level of service for. In your own Land Development Code, one of your responses to a congested facility is to allow you to lower the level of service. Here we've already exercised that or in some cases where we haven't already done it, we've already exceeded that lower level of service existing today. So we've allowed a backlog to develop over time. So in answer to your question, to some degree the state isn't necessarily going to come -- an intervening party could come, but at Page 52 December 18, 2001 any point in time especially as we get ready this February, March to update the growth management plan, that would be the time that the state's going to be looking at our process evaluating how we're handling it and if appropriately we're responding to the requirements under 9-J-5 under the state comprehensive planning -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a time limit? MR. FEDER: Basically I think in the nature of the question relative to the time limit, if I understand the question, if we don't address the item and it turns out -- my voice tends to carry, so maybe we don't even need the mic. But what I will tell you is if you get in a situation where you don't meet your own level of service and you don't have other options, you don't have any project program within the three years to make the needed improvement, you can no longer lower the level of service, your Land Development Code today, and we're going to recommend some modification to that, but basically provides you only other alternative is to effectively go into moratorium. It also provides and describes large areas of-- of impact that would result from that. The only problem with that is it in the process means that you then have to go forward and find a solution. And basically within the course of the year before you come to your next cycle, if not pushed for sooner through the courts by somebody who seeks to develop, you essentially have to have the solution. So if you've already lowered the level of service and that's no longer available to you or you exceeded it, if you have no specific improvement you can make or you can't make that improvement and get construction done within the first three years, then what has moratorium brought you? It's brought you one year of delay and the same conclusion that you have here today that you have to do and then the possibility of lawsuit, time, and so you have delay for a year but not necessarily stoppage and not necessarily solution. Page 53 December 18, 2001 We're going to recommend to you, as you'll hear more later, that we consider an approach that's taken by the state and by many counties of constrained and backlog which allows you then to go in and set very specific processes for metering the growth, responding to the nature of identifying the area where you really have substantial influence of impact rather than arbitrary and allows you, then, to control growth. Instead of the issue being the county on the seat to finding a way to resolve the moratorium, the issue then becomes for anyone that wants to develop within that corridor to meet the standards or find a way to develop with a little bit more ingenuity or innovation to find a way to keep the process moving within that particularly affected area. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, the whole -- to me, the whole objective is stay out of court. Find the ways to work through the process. And I'd sure spend money correcting the problems than spending it in court trying to defend probably a nondefensible position. MR. FEDER: Correct. And I'll add to that, just a further statement, I believe you're saying to me as well, Commissioner, and that is that we need to regulate growth where, in fact, we can't meet our own level of service and don't have an opportunity to do so. And that's exactly what we're recommending to you, is not just avoidance, is a more positive approach to doing it rather than taking the extreme that won't hold up, an extreme that just delays it for a short period and forces you back to the table to the very issue that's in front of you today. We're not recommending delay. We're recommending solution and an approach that doesn't avoid. It meets the issue head on and tries to develop something that is useful and is practicable for all body's concern. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I'd say let's proceed. MR. FEDER: Let's go forward. Okay. I appreciate that. Page 54 December 18, 2001 Basically what you have in front of you is a package. The first one that I'll call your attention to is in your AUIR report. It's a minor modification to that, so I'll just tell you that I gave you that to replace the one that's in your report. The changes are really not terribly substantial, and whatever there are will be covered in what we're doing in the presentation right now, but I do give that to you to update your package. I'll also note that the materials I'm going over, Sharon Newman -- and, Sharon, identify yourself. Anyone who needs a copy of the material in the package, she has some extra copies. I think most of the audience already has been provided a copy. The first thing you have in that package that we're going to go over the six pages is basically looking at the five-year work program based on the available revenue sources that you have today. As you know, we have these gas tax max to the highest level that you can implement. You took the action, this board, to extend that out to 2023. The other funding source, which is roughly about half-- we've got specific numbers here in the package of your revenue source -- is as well the impact fees. Those impact fees, again, are at the maximum level based on the study that was finished in the end of '99 and implemented in 2000. We're in the process right now of evaluating again both sides of that equation, what the costs are and -- and what the demands are for services so that we can bring back to you, again, that opportunity to make sure that we are charging the highest level legally allowable based on that direct nexuses between the demand that's created and the cost to deliver that service or demand, and that should be available for you, as we noted, February to March of this year after we finish the studies. So essentially based on those two revenue streams which are at the highest today and impact fees being reevaluated, this is the 5-year work program we accomplish out to fiscal year 2006 which is Page 55 December 18, 2001 essentially 188, 189 million dollars. The next page you have is something you've pretty much seen previously with a minor change. And what I'll tell you is we showed in green what I am going to present to you today needs to be funded. We have to fund this if we're going to take care of that backlog, if we're going to start some of the preparation not to end up there again. The predominant dollars here are addressed specifically, that backlog. I'll show you in a minute there are some dollars to make sure that we keep the production going for the demands that are coming on line. The items that are in red here are not recommended, and you'll see the terminology enhanced. But I need to point out to you not all of these dollars are, quote, unquote, enhanced dollars. These dollars in red, the 44 million, as you see down in the lower right-hand comer, we're not recommending giving the -- the level of funding demand that you face here today. We're not recommending that we proceed on -- on those items for inclusion in the five-year work program at this time. I will call your attention to the enhanced section first. We've already discussed this, and I won't belabor it, the expanded landscaping and the street lighting that were coming out of your community character study that you, Commissioner Carter, mentioned earlier today, as well as an expanded resurfacing and preservation program acknowledging basic life cycle of our facilities and the demand to maintain them up to speed. What that means there is we are going to pull back on those -- those amenities, but it also means what I just said, that we are going to face some potholes. We will patch them. But we will face a little more constraint on that ride, and the issues, we'll make sure the system is preserved, but it will not be the kind of system that we had hoped on a major life cycle, much as the state does on their system that we could have provided given this pull-back of dollars. Page 56 December 18, 2001 The area I'll particularly focus your attention to, because I think it's very, very important, is that section that says base operations or maintenance where you see that we maintain more your turning movements and -- and the intersection enhancements because more and more you'll find we need that to keep up our capacity and get the best use out of the facilities we have. But other than that, this represents basically taking our current level of operations, and on the first page you see pull-back to that extreme that we mentioned to you for the current fiscal year, and that was the last meeting we discussed that and basically carrying that reduction all the way out. So you've got a number of items here, whether it be drainage improvements, whether it be traffic calming, whether it be bridge repair and -- and rehab as opposed to just minor repairs, whether it be some of these items, I need to bring to your attention. Again, this is, in effect, a level of service operationally that we're telling you we can't fund here, and yet I'm telling you an awfully big tag that I am asking you to fund, that we need to fund today. So I want you to be aware that when we say without enhancements, I'm talking not just landscaping, if you will. I'm talking down into the bare bones of our continued maintenance of a system that people have become accustomed to. So when we get those calls in and I want somebody to clean out my ditch, we're going to be as responsive as we can. Please understand, we're not going to use this as an excuse not to be, but please understand we may be in a position where we have to say I have to schedule that a year out; I can't address it right away. So I want you to be aware of that. It's a level of service on the operational side of things. It's in that enhanced program. With that being said, the green number you have down here, basically 258 million, almost 259 million, is specifically what I'm going to ask Mike Smykowski in a few minutes to go through with you as to different options and how we can actually fund that beyond Page 57 December 18, 2001 the 188 million that you have in the current revenue stream. I will go further quickly through the rest of it because you've seen a lot of it, just a few highlights. The third page here you have basically in listed form what you saw in those two five-year work programs. The first grouping is showing you that the projects that are under construction today are obviously funded out of the existing revenue stream. Beyond that you can only get to four major other capacity projects with current revenue stream. The remaining projects, the first grouping showing you the unfunded that need to go to construction within the first three years effectively of that work-program cycle and then shows you the items we need to start working on in the fourth and fifth year in particular to be ready for year '07, '08, '09 coming up. The next page you have on -- on page 4 is a actual map representation of much of the same. And before I confuse you, because we had so many colors -- you run out of colors after a while - - let me tell you that this is back to your old issue here where green means it is funded today. That's effectively that first 5-year work program, the 188 million. The red and the yellow -- and the yellow is traffic ops improvements. But the red and the yellow are part of that 259 million that is needed but not currently funded today. And, of course, this only covers those that go all the way to construction. So basically the first three categories on that prior page that I showed you in the funded and the unfunded. So the yellow, as I said, is -- is an enhancement to show you here in traffic operations enhancement. Let me pull that into more detail to get down to the specifics of your AUIR and gone beyond just the idea of a five-year work program. What is the fifth page in the package, the one that you have to turn the package around, if you will, basically lists as you saw in the AUIR that was presented to you, I believe, on the 30th the listing of facilities, both state and local, that require attention within the first Page 58 December 18, 2001 three years or by at least our current process you would have to go to moratorium if you could not lower the level of service further. In essence, on these projects here, you've got four state facilities. And I think an important item for this board and one we've raised previously and I think we've gotten direction, but I want to make sure we'll confirm there, and as we look at that, new direction for the future, is in the past when we've had a state facility there's been an orientation because the state wouldn't widen it, we're not responsible for controlling growth on it, so if it's not meeting its level of service, you continue to permit development on it. That is obviously wholly unacceptable, at least from my own staff's opinion. I believe that's the impression I've gotten from this board. And so we are attending to the state deficiencies as well, as well we should. And we permit development around it. And, additionally, a state facility or segment allowed to degrade has very definite impacts on all the other facilities around it. So with that sort of head nodding and my impression of the direction the board wanted to go, we are addressing the state facilities as well. What you have over in the right is how we're proposing to handle this set of deficiencies, and so I'll take them basically one by one and be happy for any discussion that the board wants to have. This is the meat of the item and then going to the funding and the policies. U.S. 41, Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge, in parenthesis where it says existing, that's telling you it's a deficiency today. We have to address, of course, anything that would become deficient in the first three years in particular under the AUIR state of the system, so to speak, report. In this case we are recommending -- and I will defer to a little bit later -- constrained. And I'll respond to that in a little while, and Dawn will even cover it in more detail later. Page 59 December 18, 2001 Davis Boulevard from Radio to 951 is an existing deficiency, and we are recommending backlog. And, again, I'll come back to that in a minute. And I will just call your attention to the very last one on the list, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Gulfshore Drive, U.S. 41. We are recommending constrains. As I said, we'll cover that. Those are the three segments where that 259 million, in addition to the 188 we have today, we could not, one, lower level of service or, two, provide an improvement that would resolve the deficiency. But we are going to recommend to you a process, as I mentioned at the outset to the question, that is not just one of what I will consider defeat, which is moratorium, just we don't have a plan, we don't know how to address it, so we're going to delay for a little while and try to figure it out when we know that there is not the easy solution. There is not the dollars that can be brought to it. There is not the policy way in lowering level of service or anything of the sort to get out of it. These three we're going to recommend a partial that I think to your Land Development Code to include constrained and backlogged. We're going to recommend a process that allows us to really look at growth in there, as I said, to be reasonable process for continued growth but also controlled and very controlled growth, within those segments where we have no other solution to the problem. Let me go to the rest of them, and then we'll come back to that, as I said, in some more detail. 1-75, Golden Gate Parkway to Lee County line, fortunately the expansion and the commitment and the plan of Livingston Road, particularly the six-laning sections and then the four and that continuation through Lee County up through Bonita -- the City of Bonita Springs, a very big relief to 1-75. Another major relief to 1-75 will be the new Golden Gate interchange, which in 2004 is in the state's work program. That will Page 60 December 18, 2001 provide some relief to interchanges which are really, in many ways, metering that capacity on the interstate today. When you have cars actually back up and sit on the interstate at Immokalee Road and the like southbound, obviously that's impacting your capacity to the interstate. So the ability to disburse those trips over another interchange level it off a bit as well as the state plans in 2009 to come in and make improvement. I don't want to just say six-laning because there's some other things they're going to look at but, nonetheless, some improvements to the main-line operation. I think all of those pretty well address that issue, at least for the time being. State Road 29, Marco Island bridge, that's an existing deficiency. There we got an interesting one. The problem is not on what I will call the north side of the bridge because as you come from a single lane into the access of two lanes, you can move the traffic very well. The major backup that we're experiencing is onto the island itself. And so we are going to continue to work with the City of Marco, look at the light progressions, the intersection treatments and issues there, and continue working with the Florida Department of Transportation. They have the design already in their work program for the bridge. It appears that their concept in using storm septor and the like, if they can get that agreed through the permitting, that they can go to construction without a right-of-way phase. So we're going to continue as -- as this board, as members on the Metropolitan Planning Organization have, of making that a high priority encouraging DOT's programming, and also work with the City of Marco Island to look at our operational features which should resolve this -- this anomaly of a two-lane bridge coming on as a deficiency. Going to the county projects, Airport-Pulling Road, Davis to Golden Gate Parkway, we have, as you know, and we hope to retain a Page 61 December 18, 2001 state transportation outreach program grant of some 8.4 million to assist towards the funding of an overpass which will go along with the interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and the six laning which are also in the plan, the interchange, of course, being in the state's plan, an overpass at Airport and Golden Gate Parkway. That overpass is one we've worked very well with the adjacent property owner on. It's one of the few that we've brought to this board as recommendation for an overpass in the near term and is one of the few ways we're going to be able to address the problems that we're facing on Airport, given that Airport is already six lanes today. But we are noting to you as well operational improvements, and we had a lot of discussion with that on the 30th relative to closure of some medians, review of our signal spacings and timing and other issues, trying to make sure we get the best and in some cases recapture some of that capacity on constrained already six-laned facilities. So the overpass and traffic ops improvements we feel will address that issue of the congestional experienced on Airport today. 951 from Golden Gate Parkway to Immokalee Road, this is one that we looked at. Our current right-of-way will allow us to build four lanes out there. We do not have the right-of-way for six. Our typical process and what we try to do is basically have the right-of- way for the ultimate six lanes, if that's -- if that's seen as a need out into the future, and then build the four in a manner that allows the six to be built to the interior into the median to have the least disruptive and to set the outside limits of the project from the start. What we're recommending to you is not appreciably but is somewhat more costly, just so you know that up front, and that is to go in and do a four-lane cross-section within the existing right-of- way, and you'll see sort of anomaly look in the work program recommending a couple years out that we program the right-of-way Page 62 December 18, 2001 completion. In this case we have quite a bit of the right-of-way that's been reserved by setback, that extra 60 feet but, nonetheless, the remainder of that be purchased so that we prepare for that need for six lanes out into the future. So essentially we can four-lane it. That's what the demand is today to resolve -- this is a two-lane section, as you're all quite well aware. 951 from Davis to 1-75, an existing deficiency. And this is really a state road, and it should have been up there under the state. But that Davis to 1-75 is pretty much an item tied to the Golden Gate interchange and the department -- Florida Department of Transportation's improvements on 1-75. Immokalee Road from 41 to 1-75, that is an item that we have shown you previously as a need to go to six lanes. We have that and are recommending that that be put into the program or funded out of that 259 million. The same with Pine Ridge, Golden Gate to Shirley. There we already have six lanes today. What we did is we looked at that one. That was one of those limited ones -- remember we gave you the list on the 30th -- where going to Level of Service E will provide some relief in some time to function at that level. We've got about 1.6 percent growth per year. We have a flatter rate of growth on that corridor, but that is not a lot of room. So I'm also recommending that we also go into some traffic-operation improvements, in particular recaptures, as I mentioned, some of that right-of-way, look at our pattern of-- of median openings and the like. Vanderbilt Beach Road from Airport to Logan, that six- and four-lane cross-section we've discussed before, part of the 259 million. Santa Barbara, Radio to Golden Gate Parkway, again, that process of Santa Barbara, Santa Logan, if you will, in those sections Page 63 December 18, 2001 to six lanes needs to be funded out of that 259 million. Immokalee from County Road 951 to Wilson, under current funding we have the portion from Wilson to 43rd we originally had as a single project. We probably would have divided it up for construction because of the length anyway. But, again, this is a shown as a need four lanes to go in that 259 million. Wilson to Oil Well is funded advanced. The only reason that one's in there is when we showed you the plan before, what we could afford in the five, we tried to level it out. That is something we could have funded under the 188, so we just advanced it into the first three years as originally was anticipated. Goodlette-Frank Road, Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt, again out of the 259. We need to go to a four-lane cross-section. The same with County Barn. We've got to design a portion of the right-of-way again. We need to four-lane that project. And I think it's been in and out of the work program in this county more times than any other project that existed. We need to finally do it and -- and get the job done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, Norm. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me stop you right there. With that County Barn Road, does this money that needs to be funded for the widening also include some of the storm water -- I know -- MR. FEDER: We have put in a larger portion of dollars for mitigation acknowledging that as part of the overall Lely storm-water efforts. That would -- that would be developed as County Barn. There's going to be more of a mitigation effort to try and assist in that. This is not funding all of the Lely mitigation, but there are extra mitigation dollars built into that 259 for this project specifically to assist in that mitigation needs for the Lely storm water. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more fast question. Because Page 64 December 18, 2001 there's such a tremendous flooding problem in the area as it is and if you build that road up, I would guess the slope would cause even more of a funding problem, does that transportation dollar figure include trying to eliminate some of that funding? MR. FEDER: Yes. First of all, every design that we do we make sure that the runoff from the roadway does not impact the adjacent part. That's a requirement that we have to address, Commissioner, with the first inch. And then we have to attenuate, if we can attenuate, and treat -- the fact of the matter, that we will cover that. Canals will be modified. Beyond that basic process to get our permitting done, though, we've also included some dollars, understanding that we will have some specific mitigation requirements as part of the permits for this project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. FEDER: The answer to your question is yes. Until we get through the permitting, we won't know all of the costs, but we've given it a good shot. Radio Road from Livingston to Santa Barbara, there we're looking at traffic-operations improvements really from Airport. This section just now Livingston to Santa Barbara; from Airport all the way over to Santa Barbara; from Santa Barbara over to Davis, you'll see in the program out of those six, we're recommending four-laning. And, of course, we're doing the modifications to that intersection as we speak. Rattlesnake Hammock all the way to 951, much like the 951 project I mentioned to you, we're looking at four-laning within the existing right-of-way. Depending upon what comes out of the discussion on the future extension of Santa Barbara south, we'll know whether or not we go beyond four anyway in the future. And so if we decide that, then we may have to come back and buy additional right- of-way in the future for six, but not knowing the results of that four- Page 65 December 18, 2001 laning is something we can do with existing right-of-way today, and that's in the 259 million. Those are -- are basically the approach on each of these. I don't want to take too much time right now with constrained and backlogged other than tell you as we -- we already discussed, what we're recommending is an approach that we go into modification to the Land Development Code. We establish those categories that we've already used constrained but we haven't defined it. We haven't controlled on the basis of it. The City has constrained. We have in these projects -- especially 41 is one of the ones we identified we need to work with the City very directly on how we apply it, how we find a way to acknowledge its status, yet at the same time find the opportunity for creativity to allow things to continue to a degree and not exasperate that facility and the rest of the network. We'll discuss that in a little -- in a few minutes. But before I go to that, before we try to figure out if it's only the three we're talking about, we need to go back to that issue of the 259 beyond the 188 that we have available today. How do we address that? Does this board take that action hopefully today? And we've got some options for you and then to go to that and then come back to this and some policy and process issues that Dawn and I will be presenting to you. I'm going to defer over to Mike Smykowski, our budget director, to address that. Before he does that, is there any question on what we've covered so far? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. On the list of red and green, recommendations to cut some level of services, in there is there acquisition for right-of-way for the community character plan, street lights, so on and so forth? MR. FEDER: No. All of that was an enhancement that got pulled back, a lot of our effort to a collector road system. And I'm Page 66 December 18,2001 very concerned about that, and I appreciate you raising it. I -- I hit it on the 30th, but maybe get that again today, as well as some of the other features of community character are not in here. We are not -- we are not necessarily developing that collector road system at the same time while attending under this to those constraints that we face today on the principal network. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the right-of-way included in it? No? MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is not? MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that's what the board direction was. MR. FEDER: Okay. Let me -- let me go back to the question. If the question is, are we buying right-of-way for the ultimate improvements of possible sidewalks, street lighting and landscaping, yes, with one exception. One area that we are pulling back on that we feel comfortable doing so is the section which Commissioner Coletta needs to hear this particularly of Immokalee Road between 951 and Wilson. There we've looked at it and probably the basic street lighting, the sidewalks and the on-street bike paths we can save about a million and a half for that long expanse. And probably realistically that one makes sense based on the limited size for development, if you will, within that section. There we're not proposing to place that. We are proposing, though, in all of our projects, as you requested, that we buy the ultimate right-of-way no matter whether or not we proceed forward on some of the other issues. I was mistaken, and I do want to, though, emphasize that the community character concept called for the development of a collector road system, and we had put in some dollars in our original plan towards purchase of Page 67 December 18,2001 right-of-way retrofitted existing to try and develop that needed collector road system. That is some of the enhancement that has been pulled out of the dollars that we've recommended to you here today. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If I might pursue that a moment, if we make that decision not to go there, can we ever go back? Of course. CARTER: And what will it cost? You can always go back, and it always costs MR. FEDER: CHAIRMAN MR. FEDER: more. CHAIRMAN MR. FEDER: escalate over time. CARTER: Would it cost double? Triple? I don't know that I can tell you that. It will It's going to be the escalation of right-of-way costs. It's going to be the escalation of new development that comes in that -- that either precludes you or makes it much more expensive to try and do it the longer you wait -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: The more it costs. I'm just looking at history and what it's costing us to get right-of-ways today. If we had some number or projection, it's going to cost you 10, 15 percent a year, and the longer you put it off the more you exasperate your abilities to do a collector system which overall would have defined character, which would have alleviated the arterials -- I mean, I see it as a situation I'd really like to have that information. MR. FEDER: Okay. And -- and what I will tell you is, we've got some dollars still in here, and we did keep that in the green. I'll call your attention to the bottom there on the collector. It's about half of what we had originally told you, so we do have some opportunity, and we will capitalize on that. We will bring back to you in successive work program developments that opportunity we felt today, and what I'll recommend is you hear these dollar figures. Obviously if the desire is to bring back any portion of that enhanced, we did recommend to you that we thought it would -- extra frills Page 68 December 18, 2001 would be nice. I will tell you that those were reasonable projects, we thought, when we brought it to you. We're also understanding that we're facing a very, very big dollar figure that we have to try and address. That's why we recommended that pull-back of that 44 million. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Norm, I'm not trying to muddy the waters here. MR. FEDER: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm really trying to get that picture in place because I want everybody listening out there - I want to hear that loud and clear -- we spent $400,000 on a community character project to bring to this community what they wanted, and they turned us down. They told us flat out, "We don't want to pay for it." Now we got to look at can we in any way, shape, or form pay for it, and there will be some pain with it if we decide to go there. So I'd really like to know what the majority of this community thought, for one time, before I have to make that decision. I can't get that in because I don't know. But I want to know what the number is, because if I have to come down to a hard decision, I'm not afraid to go there if it's the right thing to do for this county in the future. MR. FEDER: On an annual basis you can look at the items that we showed you that comprise that 44 million so that you can then look at any of those components in or out. You know, maybe resurfacing you don't put under that category; maybe you do. But the overall is 44 million on those things that we recommended pull out. That being said, Commissioner... COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a couple more questions for us. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sorry, Commissioner. I didn't mean to interrupt. Do you have a couple more questions, Commissioner Henning? Page 69 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Intersection improvements, that's -- that's still in the mix? MR. FEDER: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're keeping that in. Now, when we're talking about maintenance or repaving of our existing roads, are we jeopardizing the base of these roads if we're putting it off?. MR. FEDER: We will not allow that to happen and may have to come back to you, but basically we believe not. However, it's dried and you may see more patches out there than you typically do to keep things up while we're going. You'll see more of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Obviously you worked very hard on this, and I just wanted to thank you for, you know, some of these hard cutbacks and -- and some of these delays so we can -- it makes it easier for us to get at what we need to do. MR. FEDER: I assure you I didn't make your job easy, as you'll hear very shortly. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just to help maybe your thought process a little bit, I think if you think about this, there are some basic questions that the board is going to need to answer today. And the first question from my perspective is what are we going to find. I think Norm has laid out his recommendation for what it is that we fund. But obviously once you go through some of the balance of this, you may want to back up and go look at that again. But what you see in front of you, the Christmas green and red list that you have in front of you, is what Norman and the transportation staff were recommending that you fund. The second question is going to be how are you going to fund whatever it is you decide we are going to fund. And I think Mike's going to walk you through what your funding options are, and that may have an impact on that first question, what it is that you are Page 70 December 18, 2001 going to fund. So as we go through this, if you will think of it in those terms. And then the last thing that Norman will come back with was -- is a -- a question about these particular road segments that I will tell you boards historically have dealt with one way. We think that there are some are other options that you ought to consider in terms of how we should be dealing with those type road segments, and we'll need to make decisions about each one of those particular road segments. So Norm's laid out the -- the what, and we're going to turn to Mike now to look at what options you have in terms of the how. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If-- ifI may. District 5 has one pressing need, and it's a very strong need, and I'm sure you're going to hear about it from many sources, and, of course, that's Immokalee Road not only to 951 but all the way to Immokalee. And I've been going through your report, and it's amazing how much -- how far we have come from one year ago, and this was projected to be 20 years in the future. We have made some great end roads. Of course, we've lost some direction because of the lack of funding. Would you please take one moment and walk me through exactly from 951 to Immokalee the scenario of events the way it's laid out in here? And that will, of course, be based upon us agreeing to the financial package, as far as -- MR. FEDER: That's correct, Commissioner. I will -- as a matter of fact, I'll bring you over from 41. From 41 over to 1-75, including a separate project, some ramp improvements on 1-75 with some funds from Florida Department of Transportation, we've got that scheduled, at least the major portion, six-laned from 41 over to 1- 75 as proposed here in 2003. The 1-75 ramp improvement we may be able to get a little bit earlier, okay, if we can get the agreements with DOT finalized. Page 71 December 18, 2001 From 1-75 over to 951, of course, construction is nearing completion. And we're looking at basically April, March/April, completion next year on that, and I know that can't come soon enough for a lot of folks, so that is the four-laning over to 951. From 951 basically out to 43rd, with what is proposed here, both sections of that would be programmed, one in '02, one in '03 -- excuse me, one in '03 or one -- yeah. One in '02, one in '03 to get that four-laning all the way out to 43rd. The earlier section would be the more -- more intensely traveled section right now, actually, between 43rd and Wilson and then come back and connect that Wilson to 951. Also in here is the opportunity and some dollars for advancement of the state's programming of the project development environment study from 43rd over to 29, that opportunity to provide that fund, get paid back, and to continue to encourage them to program that section in their work program for advanced reimbursement to get that needed connection all the way to 29. So that's basically what's contained within that 259 beyond our 188 that we have in today's program. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in the simplest of terms, from Oil Well Road to 951 the date of completion for everything and when we, you know, forget the one segment to Wilson to -- MR. FEDER: '04, '05. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: '05? MR. FEDER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the only thing that when we look at this we might be able to move forward. We have a situation out there that -- next to none as far as desperate in the morning, in the afternoon. And I'm sure anyone that's been stuck on that road at those times realize there's a wait from Orange Tree to Airport Road as long as an hour and a half to be able to move from Page 72 December 18, 2001 one point to the other. And this situation between now and '05 will become totally intolerable. I know I probably am overstepping bounds on this, but I have to. I need for us to reconsider somehow or some way we come up with the funding to be able to advance this a couple of years. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I will point out, in all due respect, obviously it needed to be done yesterday. I don't disagree with you at all. What I will tell you, though, that you're almost in the fastest production cycle you could be because you've got 8 miles just from 951 out to 43rd. You can't have 8 miles under construction at one time. It just won't work. The contractor will be here, there, and everywhere, and nobody will get anywhere. So by taking that first section from 43rd to Wilson, you do get the most traveled sections; you create a alternate with Logan and other opportunities there -- to Wilson, excuse me. And then you address that section between Wilson and -- and 951. So I'm not sure that you can go much faster than the schedule is structured today. I think the one that is most critical is that we get the state's issue moving. The one that isn't on the fast track isn't programmed for construction right now, is from 43rd or Oil Well, north of Oil Well, if you will, out to 29. And that's the one we're recommending that we advance the state's process to keep it moving. That's probably the one that we don't have commitment of construction and -- and isn't on the time frame any faster than it could be today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate everything you have done, Norm, to put this plan together, but what I'm saying, there's got to be another way to do something, if it's bringing in outside sources to work on the roads, whatever it's going to take to be able to make it work within our financially constrained budgets. And I don't want to belittle the fact that Page 73 December 18, 2001 whenever it does come to these things -- and I realize that when you're talking District 5, which is 85 percent of the whole county, it's kind of hard to cover the whole area in one big jump. But we'll give up the right -- we'll give up the sidewalks, we'll give up our street lights and all those amenities that you have in the urban area. We just would like consideration as we move into this process to maybe be able to keep special consideration and thought process going forward for the residents out there in that area that have been trapped for a number of years now without the roads. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, excuse me. I think the hours that you told the board it was busy out on Immokalee Road is the hours the people going to work. So why don't we bring the work to the people in Golden Gate Estates by rezoning lands out there so they do have a place to work and they do have services out there instead of coming to the coastal community day in and day out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a wonderful idea, Commissioner Henning, but they all take longer than the roads will. COMMISSIONER HENNING: People don't want that. That's a hard decision that you need to make as a commissioner out there is building a great community is providing all kinds of things out there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In time I'm sure we'll meet that need and many more. But if we don't have the roads built to take care of present-day needs, then we'll never get to that point. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I understand your frustration. I think every member of this board is frustrated. And if we don't get to how we're going to pay for what's on this paper, you're going to be more frustrated than you are right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. I think the issue of financing we're going to see in a few minutes will help Page 74 December 18, 2001 address some of Commissioner Coletta's concerns. At least it will put it in a clearer focus for us, so I would move that we go directly to the options for financing because I think you're going to tell us that there are ways that we can get some of this money to do these things. And I think if we understand that, then we're going to feel more comfortable about making some of the decisions that are -- are decisions on the issues that have been raised. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. With that, for the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. There are -- I'll be walking through the booklets called Transportation Funding Options. Commissioner has -- has them available for members of the public who may be in the audience. There are extra copies in the hallway on the table, and there are extra copies here as well. In terms of a desired outcome today, the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation, which the slides are contained within your handbook as well as the detailed spreadsheets supporting them -- we developed just a summary presentation to hopefully simpli -- simplify what you're looking at. What we're looking for today in very simple terms is a board policy decision that provides a financially feasible option to satisfy the requirements of the AUIR process relative to transportation. And the growth management staff was very clear in terms of the statutory requirement being financially -- emphasis on the financially feasible component. That would include bonding, available gas taxes, a portion of the available sales tax capacity, as well as potential ad valorem support on a pay-as-you-go basis for roads. Before we get into those four funding options, I wish I could tell you that there is a simple way out of this box. I'm here to tell you, one, the choices are very limited in terms of what you can do at this point. Those options include full pay-as-you-go funding, bonding Page 75 December 18,2001 available gas and sales taxes to the extent possible, and a third option which would include partial bonding and partial pay as you go. I'm also going to tell you that there are some painful effects associated which -- with each of those options on a pay-as-you-go basis. Obviously the millage implications are fairly staggering. In terms of bonding, your existing sales and gas taxes, while you do have the flexibility to do that, it does impact your ability to finance other projects, either on an emergency basis in the event, you know, a hurricane hit, you had to do major structural repairs to infrastructure. And there are also, frankly, other projects contemplated in the -- in the near term that also may require financing to some degree, the jail, the north regional park. And we'll -- we'll talk about those with -- within the context of each of the scenarios we're going to outline for you today. This also limits your ability to decrease the millage even as taxable value increases over time. Again, there's no easy way out of the backlog. The first scenario identifies the millage impact of a -- a pay-as- you-go road funding program. And I -- MR. OLLIFF: Mike, let me stop you real quick. I just want the board to understand that when it comes down to the AUIR and the decision you have to make for funding, don't think you have to get down to the detail of deciding today what the actual mix of funding has got to be for fiscal year '02, '03, '04, and '05 and exactly what projects we're going to fund and how this is a planning document and we're going to be taking some broad strokes here. And our recommendation is that if you can pick from the broad options and tell us to go back and work on the details, we can bring you something back probably in January, February time frame for you to consider. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you for that clarification. Page 76 December 18, 2001 Scenario 1, again, a pay-as-you-go funding option, including the enhancements that Norman referred to in his opening remarks, again, those were the items in the red, the $44 million. So that would essentially be the -- the full -- the full boat of project expenses totaling 490.5 million. The available revenues of gas taxes and impact fees, 189 million, leaving a shortfall in this scenario of $300 million. That would require, on average, 1.9003 mills if you finance -- funded that on a pay-as-you-go basis over -- over the next four years, three -- FY '03 through FY '06. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just so we're clear, that's an increase in ad valorem property taxes ? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which is currently 3.5 mills? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 3.8772 is your current general fund millage. That also further assumes a 10 percent annual growth in taxable value. We -- we -- based on historicals that we think that's fairly reasonable. Pay as you go, the board's been fairly clear in terms of pay as you go. We wanted to show that as an option. That is not the staff recommendation. We just wanted you to understand the financial implications of it, of that scenario. MR. OLLIFF: Two things: No, the answer is that is not a millage increase. The board can look at it any way it wants to. That's the millage that's required to generate that amount of money. You currently levy 3.5. If the board wanted to make some fairly drastic reductions to its current budget, that's part of the mix as well. But while we're on this slide -- and, again, that's not the staff recommendation to try and find 1.9 mills worth of reductions in your budget because I just don't think that's physically very possible, but that's just an equivalency millage number. That's why we're showing that to you. Page 77 December 18, 2001 While we're on this slide, I want to make sure Norman at least touches briefly on the difference in this $301.3 million shortfall number and the number that you were probably familiar as seeing, which was a $288 million number from several months ago. MR. FEDER: Yeah. It's 292 as we went out in the process before. But the minor modifications, I'll give the short version. East- west Livingston was in the prior; when it was 292 is out. The 951 between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee, the four laning within existing rights-of-way rather than starting the process to future six-laning, as well, the Rattlesnake Hammock, rather than waiting to find out what we're going to do on the Santa Barbara extension, that four-laning is in. The balance effectively of those actions is a slight modification from 292 to the 301. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Thanks, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This next slide identifies a -- an alternative pay-as-you-go funding option that would exclude that $44 million of enhancements. That reduces the shortfall from that 301 to 257.2 million. The impact in terms of millage equivalency is 1.6224 mills, again, assuming a 10 percent growth in taxable value in each fiscal year. Again, that's probably not unreasonable given the recent history. Again, though, this is not the staff recommendation. This is provided to you for clarification sake. It is -- it is a viable funding option, but in terms of how -- viable in terms of it works on paper, viability in terms of increasing the millage by 1.6 or coming up with massive cuts to make that work within the confines of your existing budget, obviously not as viable. With that, we'll go to the next funding scenario with a full bonding option, again, including the enhancements at $44 million outlined in red, and Norman's summary sheet. In this option you're Page 78 December 18, 2001 bonding virtually all of the available gas and sales tax capacity that you have remaining. The spreadsheets themselves assume 20-year revenue bonds with an average interest rate of 5 percent, again, requiring $301 million in bond proceeds. This slide identifies the annual increment in terms of debt service requirements on an annual basis and how those grow over time. Obviously, this is a five-year road funding program. You're not immediately in year one going to bond $300 million up front because there is, obviously, limited ability to spend that money down. It's also just in terms of project feasibility; that would be spread over five years. The debt service grows in this case to $26.1 million in FY '07. And the reason FY '07 is reflected there is that that is the -- the first year in which you see the full cumulative effect of issuing bonds in the previous -- in the previous years and, again, the cumulative impact. In terms of an equivalent millage, it's relatively low in FY '03 and grows over time. Again, these are all based on assuming 10 percent increase in taxable value. MR. MUDD: Before you switch that slide, though, Mike, you need to tell them FY '07, in five years, but it's going to go out to FY two thousand and -- and '23, and it's going to kind of ramp down from 2019 to 2023, just about the way it -- it ramped into it at 2007. So you're going to see steady state FY '07 payments through 2019 before you see them start to decrease into 2023. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're going to see ongoing increases in gas tax revenue and sales tax revenue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, and taxable value as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've got a flat. So what you have really is a flat debt service out to 30 years, but you have a steadily increasing sales tax and gasoline tax revenue and ad valorem property value increases. Page 79 December 18, 2001 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's -- it's not like we're financing or we are actually bonding all of our gas tax or sales tax. Is that true or not? It might be all of it at one year, but it won't be all of it over the period of time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. In the -- in the near term, though, you will bonding -- in this scenario you will be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But next year it will be 10 or 15 percent higher, and the year after that it will be higher than that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what has been the traditional increase? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Three-year sale -- or gas taxes have grown by an average of 4.6 percent, 4 1/2 percent. Of that, too, you -- you realize that due to bond coverage requirements, obviously, you need -- for every dollar of bond you issue, you need typically, in this case, like, 1.33, $1.33 in hand to issue a dollar's worth of bonds. So you have to discount the growth as well by 1.33 to account for that coverage requirement as well, so you don't get the full -- you don't immediately realize the full increment that is -- is available. So the 4 ends up being a net 3 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So--so-- MR. SMYKOWSKI: On average. Sales tax is a little dicier. Over the last several years we've had on average probably 7, 8 percent increase in -- in sales tax. The projection this year obviously is for a flat sales taxes growth. The extent to which the state and the local economies recover following the impacts to tourism and the like remain to be seen. So we took a conservative approach there, grew it at the same equivalent as the gas tax, and our average grew it at 3 percent. I think, Susan, if you jump to the next slide, we'll see -- we'll Page 80 December 18, 2001 see the impact. And you see in the near term, because you're not bonding a hundred percent up front, you don't -- you have some remaining capacity. As you get into '07, you're nearing your maximum. Obviously as the debt service flat-lines out for that -- that remaining 18, 19 years for the balance, again, each of the bonds assume 20-year -- 20-year term. So when you're issuing bonds in '06, you're looking at 20 years out from 2006. But you see incrementally it does begin to grow in, you know, FY '10 and '11. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then it continues to grow. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It would continue to grow beyond that, correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Scenario 2, the consequences of this full bonding option, again, this is including that $44 million enhancements. By bonding virtually all your gas and sales taxes, you impact your ability to finance other capital -- other capital projects. Some of the things that were in the -- in the planning stages include, you know, the courts and constitutional officer building on this campus, an emergency services complex, the -- the jail expansion, to -- to the extent, obviously, we talked about jails a little while ago. There is $5 million currently in the bank from collected impact fees toward that 20 to $25 million project expense, and we're currently underway with -- or the board just recently approved an update to that study that will obviously, we would assume, result in some marginal increases, as well, in the correctional facilities impact fee rates as well. Impact fees, there's been much discussion during the sales tax campaign relative to the ability to bond impact fees. And they are bondable, but they, in the financial markets, are viewed somewhat Page 81 December 18, 2001 tenuously. Obviously you're betting on what future growth is going to be 20 years from now to make that payment in that 20th year of that -- of that bond you've issued. And, obviously, as the county -- we've been in the peak of a building boom for a number of years. Obviously commercial -- commercial office space -- commercial and office space and the like, that curve at some point begins to slow down. That could obviously impact your future revenue stream, and that makes investors nervous 20 years out betting that what will growth be like in Collier County 20 years from today. So typically -- and Bill Reagan's here, the county's financial advisor, if there are any very detailed questions relative to the ability to -- to pledge those. Typically, though, what you would have is, you would be bonding and perhaps pledging an impact fee, but you might need a secondary pledge to provide the security to the investors that there is a viable source of repayment and that their bonds will -- will be honored. That -- that secondary pledge typically would be sales tax in this case. So obviously -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would guess it's a higher interest rate because it's a lesser-quality bond. I'm not going to say it's a junk bond, but it's getting in the category. And that begins -- well, I know why the investors are nervous, and that begins to make me nervous because what happens with our overall bond rating for the county if you start going in this direction? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. And there are some implications, obviously. For instance, in the -- the recent bond issue, the sales tax bond issue that currently anticipates closing in early January, we have so much excess capacity now that when you approach the financial market and say we're doing a $50 million issue, they look very quickly and say you have 2 1/2 times coverage, go issue your bonds and don't spend a whole lot more time in terms Page 82 December 1 g, 2001 of analyzing the county's financial position. As the further you get out on that -- on that plank, so to speak, of bonding nearer and nearer to your ultimate available capacity, the wearier they become and the more, I guess, detailed analysis they're going to perform to ensure the creditworthiness, and that may ultimately impact on the interest rates that are -- and -- and/or insurance requirements that you may be required to -- to -- to enhance those subsequent bond issues. Scenario 2 with the full enhancements is not recommended by staff as well. We feel it absorbs too much of the available capacity and also has the obvious adverse consequences for other projects required -- requiring financing, the bulk of which are listed on your screen. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this -- could this affect concurrency? One example you have up there, the north regional park, that is the concurrency item; correct? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that facility is anticipated to cost how much? MR. OLLIFF: The last estimate I saw was somewhere in the $30 million range. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: With that, we'll push on to Scenario 3, which is essentially a modification of the scenario you just looked at. But, again, in this instance we would be excluding that $44 million enhancements, those items in red from the -- from the worksheet that you-all have in front of you so that you-all understand what the implications are. This bond's immediately the available gas tax revenue capacity and consumes approximately 78 1/2 percent of the existing sales tax capacity. But that's, again, Commissioner Coyle, measured as of the Page 83 December 18, 2001 existing capacity as of today. Obviously as -- in all these scenarios, over time as those revenue streams have grown over time, incrementally you would be generating some additional capacity over time. Again, we assume 20-year revenue bonds, on average a 5 percent interest rate requiring $257.2 million. Again, the difference between those scenarios is the $44.1 million associated with those enhancements of the -- the shortfall requirement drops from the 301 million down to 257. Again, the debt service requirements and millage equivalencies are shown over time. They incrementally grow just as -- as the other scenario. Again, you're not bonding immediately up front for the full $257 million. That's a year-by-year process to meet needs within each of the five years in the plan. It's also important, in terms of structuring the -- the repayments, we made the assumption that bonds are issued late in the current fiscal year so that the first payment would not occur until the subsequent fiscal year for -- for ease of discussion. And just for the purposes of the record, we wanted to clarify where that is. Obviously the millage equivalencies are somewhat smaller because you're -- you're bonding out $44 million less. It is more viable, obviously, than Scenario 2. But, Susan, be -- the next slide you see incrementally the capacity. You're not near the -- the peak of the columns, in terms of available capacity, like you were in the last scenario. So obviously in terms of comfort level, this isn't a much more viable option. Consequences here, obviously, though, your current capacity, as provided by the financial advisor, between gas and sales taxes is approximately $287 million. The -- the scenario before you outlines a need of 257 million, leaving $30 million in available -- in available capacity here for emergencies and/or supplemental pledges or stand- alone pledges for these -- for these other programs. Again, the jail Page 84 December 18, 2001 expansion is probably a 20 to $25 million project. The court/constitutional officer building and associated parking garage and enhancements to the chiller system, if that were to be constructed, is in the $30 million range as well. The emergency service complex, approximately 7.1 million, is the most recent estimate and, again, the north regional park, 30 million. Based on current-date capacity, you would have $30 million. And obviously here's a few projects alone that would more than eat that up. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike, before when we were talking about jail expansion, I thought we were talking about impact fee -- fees paying that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That is true. Again, though, impact fees -- the viability of impact fees to be pledged as a stand-alone may be somewhat tenuous to provide some additional security to that bond issue and additional security to the investors. You might have to have a supplemental pledge of sales tax as well backing up should there be a shortfall in the impact fees for whatever reason, if growth stopped, if-- whatever the case may be that the investors would have the security of knowing that sales tax is backing up that issue, and that would provide greater comfort to those investors. Now, you may not ever need to actually tap that, but you've essentially obligated that piece of your available bonding capacity as a secondary pledge on this issue, and you can't pledge -- if you have only $30 million available and we had to pledge the bulk of that as a secondary pledge on the jail, you can't. And even though you may hope never to tap that, you don't have that capacity now to pledge it to something else, should -- should the need arise. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the reason we're talking about bonding, with respect to the jail impact fees, Page 85 December 18, 2001 Commissioner Fiala, is that there are not enough jail impact fees to pay for the cost of construction, so there's no way to get the cash early enough to begin the construction. So Mike has just been describing the process of trying to bond it, which I don't think anybody recommends. I believe jail impact fees are probably increasing at the rate of maybe 2 million a year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At the current impact rates. So it will take maybe 10 or 12 years of impact fee collection to be able to -- to build that jail facility. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The current balance is headed into -- this year the estimate was about 4.9 million with approximately $2 million of new money anticipated. Obviously, we did a little better than that last year. But the jail impact fee also varies widely in terms of the cost of the impact fee depending on the type of construction. So it depends. It can gravitate up and down. The EMS impact fees kind of parallel that track. They kind of yo-yo back and forth from year to year because it's not like a park impact fee or library impact fee which is imposed on single and multifamily construction. But the construction rates vary with the square footage of the buildings issued. So, you know, what you build in year one may not in any way, shape, or form resemble what is permitted in the years two to three to four and beyond. So that revenue stream kind of has that up- and-down effect. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we need to go to Scenario 4. MR. OLLIFF: I need to make sure, though, that I understand Commissioner Coyle's comment because I think that project, the jail expansion project, has always been contemplated to be a bonded project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- but not bonded from impact Page 86 December l 8, 2001 fees. MR. OLLIFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bonded from jail impact fees? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. To be bonded from current and future collections of impact fees. But what Mike's trying to explain is that there is a requirement for some sort of a secondary pledge in order to make that -- that bond issue work. And that's generally the advice that we're getting from your financial advisor. Now, you can, I guess, attempt -- Bill, correct me if I'm wrong. You can attempt to go out on a stand-alone impact fee funded bond which would cost you probably significantly more in either interest or insurance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other issue relative to the impact fees, albeit in terms of cash collections, obviously you have a requirement that if impact fees are unspent over a certain number of years, they are remitted back from whence they came. Obviously, you can't wait 20 years or 12 years or however long it would take to accumulate that 20, $25 million in hand because you would have -- in -- in so doing, you would have refunded half of the money collected as well. So that's also part of the requirement of-- as to why you would be bonding that project, just because of the -- the way the system works in terms of the refunding requirement to those who have previously paid impact fees and that the money has to be spent within a reasonable period of time. MR. OLLIFF: And the same situation that the jail is in is the situation with the north regional park. That project is anticipated to be paid for out of your park impact fees. But, again, because of the magnitude of the size of construction, cost, that project has always been contemplated to be borrowed against for impact fees in existence today and future impact fees, and, again, we'll need some sort of a secondary pledge, in our estimation, in order to make that Page 87 December 18, 2001 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. With that we'll turn to Scenario 4. Thank you. This is a modification in that we will be bonding 75 percent of the shortfall, the shortfall being in this case this $257 million, because we would be excluding the enhancements here, again, just to orient you as we head into each of these new scenarios. This does not contemplate doing that $44 million in enhancements, so you're aware of that. It would bond available gas tax revenues first and then use up approximately a third of the -- of today's sales tax capacity. And the key there, obviously, you have a choice in terms of what you would ultimately pledge. But gas taxes, by statute, are restricted solely to roads, for road construction and/or maintenance depending on which gas tax you're talking about. Sales taxes are generic in that they can be pledged for roads and/or any of the other projects that we've previously discussed, jails, libraries, park, park facilities, etc. So they have greater flexibility, and in terms of bonding, you would probably choose to bond your gas taxes first leaving your more flexible revenue stream in your hip pocket for other projects as needs arise because, again, it could fund more than roads. It could fund buildings and/or what other types of facilities are contemplated. MR. OLLIFF: I need to point out, if you were to ask your transportation administrator, he probably will tell you he'd much prefer to reserve some bonding capacity on his side of the house, too. But I think he recognizes that given the situation that we're in, that he probably doesn't have that luxury and has probably got to dedicate -- but he will continue to preach that mortgaging your future that -- that he has been. And in terms of Commissioner Coyle's comment, it is true that we can expect some -- some growth in terms of our revenue stream. But what we have also seen correspondingly is a almost Page 88 December 18, 2001 corresponding increase in the cost of construction for those roadways making --just keeping in the back of your mind the importance of that indexing idea where your gas taxes are indexed, to some sort of a CPI so that we can account for that, even more important. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Isn't the estimate for the construction projects -- don't -- don't they have inflation already built into them? MR. FEDER: Regretfully no. Right now in that five-year work program, those are present-day costs you have in there. One thing we're doing in our update of the impact fee is also developing a set of inflation factors so we can then program based on an inflated figure. But right now it's on present-day cost and that five year -- we didn't have a five-year work program. I didn't have inflation figures. There's a lot of things we're working on. So right now that's present- day cost. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from our bond advisor about the wisdom of-- of approaching alternative four. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Reagan, would you step forward, please. MR. REAGAN: I was okay until you said wisdom. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forget I said that. MR. REAGAN: Okay. You just want me to give you a quick overview. For the record, I'm Bill Reagan, financial advisor to the county. This has been a moving target for us because we don't know exactly what revenues -- you know, obviously there is one time we spent hours trying to work on the half-cent sales tax, and that went down the tubes and also spent a lot of time working on just the sales tax that you have existing now and your gas taxes. But I think you should know something that I have advised this Page 89 December 18, 2001 county in the past, that I am greatly concerned and have gone through some pretty hard efforts to keep your sales tax outside of your transportation mode. In fact, you have what we call the basket of revenues which right now includes a lot of your capital improvement programs that we've included the sales tax. For whatever reason, it was included in that basket of revenue, and that's going to end. That -- that bond issue is going to terminate it and mature in 2004. My goal then was always take it out of that basket so you would not use your gas tax for anything other than transportation. The downside to that conversation is that what I always felt that was the way that this county should grow is that you have two indentures for capital improvements, your sales tax and other non ad valorem revenues and then the gas taxes and transportation issues. We haven't even discussed or even thought ... I'll just give you an idea of what some of the agencies and also the insurers will look at is that incorporation is a great thought that flies around from county to county. You saw your gas taxes and other problems with some of your non ad valorem revenues as Marco incorporated, if ! recall. That could happen again very easily in this county. You also have not really thought about -- and your investors will look at this -- any kind of even minor disasters that would require some very quick cash for you to improve even if you did receive some sort of federal subsidies. I've worked with a lot of counties, especially in the panhandle, who have had major difficulties with their road projects after they're wiped out. And FEMA only comes in with 50 percent of the profits. So from a -- and -- and I'll make no one happy with this statement. I hate to see you use your gas tax -- your sales tax in any form of your transportation. I know Mike and Norm probably want to throw me a couple elbows to the face here, but I think in a long- Page 90 December 18, 2001 term financial planning, you take as much as you can in your gas tax. And if that means you say to us today, gas tax, find out the maximum, it may not be, Commissioner Coyle, a level debt service. I may try to push that principal out there, let it grow at a 3 percent level, have more principal out there. It puts you at some risk, but it also keeps the risk, in my opinion, lower than if you were to take all your sales tax or even a portion of your sales tax. If we couldn't find any way to do it, then I would highly recommend that we take a very small portion of the sales tax with a drop -off feature, that after you receive a certain level of gas tax revenues that's growing at a certain level, that we can drop the sales tax out of the commitment, because we can't say to the insurers or the rating agency that we're going to give you 3 7.5 percent of sales tax. They got it all. They don't really care, and I'm sure some would disagree with me on this statement about your operation. What they want to know is, I'm going to get you all of your gas tax and all of your sales tax money, and don't talk to me about your regional park or the jail; just pay me by dollars. That's all they're really interested in. That's why they buy bonds. If anybody wants to buy bonds at 5 percent, we probably should give them a pretty good commitment for those sort of things. So in the end result, it's your shortfalls to keep your transportation moving. We need to find a way -- and I have to advise you on this -- is to preserve your non ad valorem outside your sales tax as much as possible, to grab everything like we're talking about doing. And this is not criticism of-- of Mike's performance here, is not really good long-term planning. How Norm deals with how he has to build his roads for $192 million shortfall, that's why he gets paid so much money, because he'll figure that out some way. I didn't get a smile on his face on that. But -- but I think we need to come back to you, as your manager said, with some other financing Page 91 December 18, 2001 alternatives that would,just take your gas tax to the extent that I think we can underwrite it for you and then see how much we can preserve without touching your sales tax. That would be the long-term plan. If you can't do it that way, then we have to fall back to the sales tax item. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And I have questions coming from my left and my right. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to compliment you on saying what you believe. It's refreshing to find a consultant that doesn't follow the direction that we previously lay out. And I -- I hear what you're saying. And possibly it might be the best scenario of events if we were to bond the gas tax and use the necessary sales tax that we have now and as revenue starts to come back into the stream and increases on the gas tax end of the revenue stream, that we cut back on the sales tax. Would that work? That's what you're saying; right? · MR. REAGAN: Correct. I want to find a way that if you have to go in, touch your sales tax, those nonad valorems, those taxes fall off as a commitment of some period of time, meaning that if gas taxes hit 150 times coverage, just to give you an example, for a 2- year period, 24-month period, sales tax then automatically falls off. Whatever I do, though, in those transactions, I hurt you a little bit on your interest rate. But that incremental interest rate may be worth a lot less to you or a lot more to you than pledging all your sales tax. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE.. What percentage of the sales tax are we actually bonding in this -- this process? Based upon your chart, it appears to me that a relevant -- about a third, 33 percent of the sales tax. Now, I understand that the bondholders are going to want to take anything they can get. But we really, if our estimates are right, are really only risking 30 percent of the sales tax. Is that true? Page 92 December 18, 2001 MR. REAGAN: Sure. The number stays static for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it actually declines to FY '11 where we're not taking essentially any of the sales tax. MR. REAGAN: You're assuming that there's a 3 percent in your gas tax increase. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. REAGAN: Correct. And the assumption would be that you increase more than a 3 percent over a period of years, and you have an option of dropping the sales tax. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly. Exactly. Would it be prudent, then, to issue the bonds which we require now for a five- year work program, using both gasoline tax and a small portion of our sales tax, with the expectation and belief that by year FY '11 we would be completely free of having bonded that sales tax? Is that a safe assumption or -- MR. REAGAN: Issue? No. Authorize that, probably fine. But I would not recommend that you would actually issue it; we would incrementally issue it over a period of time. For us to determine whether we can get the sales tax to drop off at some period of time just needs for us to work on it. MR. OLLIFF: And I think conceptually we're all saying the same thing. The option, conceptual option that we are recommending, is maximizing the gas tax, trying to do as much as we can reasonably do on a pay-as-you-go basis and minimizing the impact of the sales tax revenue source and preserving that as a bondable revenue stream for future issues. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Mr. Feder. MR. FEDER: I think that's a critical part of it, and I appreciate what Bill's saying, and I don't disagree. The big concern, though, is if you bond all your gas tax, if we don't have another source to help pay, whether it's escalating or property value assessments over time, Page 93 December 18, 2001 if it is paid out of the gas tax, then you have, in fact, mortgaged your future because the only thing you have left is impact fees, and we've addressed that. MR. OLLIFF: I told you he'd get that in there. MR. FEDER: You gave me the entry. You opened the door. But the other part I do want to point out, though, is the information we have, previously, is about 150. We're talking 257 roughly. About 150 million is what we could bond out of the gas tax. MR. REAGAN: That's correct. MR. FEDER: Then how much non -- or how much ad valorem support or assistance is required beyond our one-third sales taxes is what I think this group needs to understand so ... CHAIRMAN CARTER: My question -- I was going to ask the ugly question: What if you didn't use sales tax and you used either percentage of that or percentage of ad valorem? MR. REAGAN: And I think -- I wish I had the answer for you, but I think that's what we probably need to put together. If you give this group some direction that those are the three options that we need to do, we can come back to you and say, "This is what it's going to take." There is also some financing scenarios which we don't normally get into in workshops, but we might be able to push the principal out and may be able to do different types of terms just to make the transaction easier for us in the front years versus the growth in the back years. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, this goes back to the manager's comment at the beginning. We want direction relative financially feasible option of which, frankly, all of these -- all of these are -- obviously, we think Option 4 has -- has more merits because it's doing the things Bill is talking about. It's minimizing the use of the sales tax, requiring a portion to be pay as you go. But, again, the specifics you don't need for your AUIR process. You just need to Page 94 December 18, 2001 commit that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we've got to give you a conceptual -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sales tax and get -- bonding of sales and gas tax while minimizing the extent of the sales tax and use on a page -- and using some pay as you go to make up the difference between what you're bonding and what you ultimately need to fund that 257 million, plus the incremental cost of the debt service is what -- the direction we are seeking today, not that alone, but we -- we want to understand, to the extent possible, the nuances -- the pluses and minuses of each of those scenarios. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the issue of ad valorem property taxes have -- has been raised. I'd just like to understand, if you were to go back and look at that, are you talking about the increase in ad valorem property tax revenue which occurs as a result of the increase in property value, or are you thinking about recommending an increase in the millage rate? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The -- the former. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The first one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: (Nodded head). COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. No increase in the millage rate. But you're going to take a look at the increase in property taxes that we get from a normal increase in property values, not millage increase, okay. Now, I -- I think -- I think that's an important -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- element to all of this -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because we're builting -- building in several safety factors, I believe. We're not bonding all of these revenues. We're not bonding all of our sales taxes. We have not really considered the full positive impact of-- of the increase in Page 95 December 18, 2001 ad valorem tax revenues resulting from property tax valuations. So it -- it seems to me that there are a substantial number of opportunities to assure that we don't get overextended here. Again, I'm not a bond expert, Bill, but you're going to have to guide us on that. What would -- what would be the impact upon the county's rating if we were to take alternative 4 as it now stands? MR. REAGAN: You wouldn't -- it wouldn't -- it wouldn't drop you at all. Keep in mind of one thing especially when you start talking about including your -- some of your ad valorem. That's what the rating agencies tend to look for. It's the willingness of the commissioners to increase their millage if there's a shortfall. And if you were a county, say, at 9 mills, we'd have a problem. And there are counties like that. You do not have that problem. So you have plenty of room. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we got into a real, real bind and our backs were against the wall, we always have the pin -- we always have the option of going to ad valorem tax increases. But until that point in time, we have substantial flexibility, I think, to fund these projects with the financing mechanisms that have been discussed today. Is that a fair statement? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. I think-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, I really -- and I think Commissioner Coyle and I are in the same track. You're not raising the millage; you're taking the assessed valuation there, and you're factoring that in. You're taking a piece out of every revenue stream. That way you still have flexibility for the future, and that makes me more comfortable without mortgaging the future because I still have some opportunity to -- to work other scenarios, which ! don't even know as I sit here as a commissioner today that other commissioners in the future have -- Page 96 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's one other thing we haven't gotten to, and that's those capital improvement projects that we're just throwing away at the present time with this consideration. Now, I know that all of us would like to -- to have things like parks and libraries and museums and healthcare and lights on our streets and landscaped medians. But I think we're down at crunch time right now, and we're going to have to make some tough decisions. And we have to establish the priorities here. And we have to know what is the top priority because we're not going to be able to have it all. We can't have ten top priorities, and we can't be spending money on -- on other projects when we've got top-priority items that are not being funded. And I would -- I would hope that the board would join me in -- in establishing roads as our top-priority item. And I think Commissioner Coletta's concern about Immokalee Road would get addressed under this -- this funding program, maybe not as fast as you'd like, but at least you'd get the funding for that. And if that's the top priority, I would just urge that we -- we be willing to bite the bullet on some of these other capital improvement programs at least for a while. It might be nothing more than a delay to find out what happens with our sales tax revenue and our property tax revenues and gasoline taxes. And then once we feel more comfortable that things are going in the direction that we have anticipated, then maybe then we can go back and revisit some of those. But I would really urge that we focus on the top-priority items. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would agree, Commissioner Coyle. In my judgment those are number-one priority because of a number of factors. I think we also have the flexibility under the other pressing needs that keep surfacing to evaluate those in perspective of the number one priority. And if, if, if, if, if you can do some of those other things, it makes sense. But this has to be number one. And this is not only where this board is taking the county, but I think we're Page 97 December 18, 2001 committing Collier County to this -- this priority into the future, and the rest will have to unfold as available. COMMISSIONER HENNING: sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I -- I'm At this present time all the scenario of events include all the other el -- elements we talked about, including the north -- north regional park and some of the other events. I mean, everything is still included in this particular mix; is that correct or no? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're not. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is part of the pain of those earlier scenarios. That is part -- partially why staff is looking at Scenario 4 as the most viable. If I'm hearing correctly, there is some consensus that the board members are in agreement as to that -- that element, because it does set aside a portion of that capacity to do some of those other things. And -- and Bill indicated, you know, there are panhandle communities that are decimated by hurricanes. And if you have no bonding capacity, in their case, no ad valorem capacity, you're in a world of trouble. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're looking at three pieces in there now, sales, gas, and the increased valuation as a part of your ad valorem. Those are the three that I'm hearing as surfacing in the mix. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is a -- that is correct. But as - - Commissioner Coyle, to address another point you raised relative to priorities, the jail itself, while it may not be the, quote, top priority, at some point when you have inmates sleeping all over the floor -- and part of that is the configuration of the jail, and you can't have felons with misdemeanants and juveniles with adults and man -- male -- male, female, etc., which adds to the overcrowding in certain pods, you also have at some point, you know, perhaps the Department of Page 98 December 18, 2001 Corrections forcing a jail expansion upon you while it might not be in your top ten in terms of priorities, at some point you may get a dictate that says you will expand, and that's also part of the mix. It may not be your top priority, but it -- it may be force fed to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I under -- understand, and I'm willing to take that risk, I mean, personally. I believe when the time comes that we have to do something with respect to that. We might very well be able to find the ways of doing it. And -- and if jail's the second priority, okay. I don't have a problem with that. I'm only concerned that we list these things and this item as a top priority, this item as second priority, this item as third priority, and we make the funding decisions based on that. You know how I'd like to deal with the jail capacity already. And -- and that's not a popular method of solving the -- the problem. But the point is that we're faced with a severe cash crunch. The people have told us at the polls they will not give us any more money, and they expect us to do what we have to do with what we've got. And -- and -- and they are simply, as far as I'm concerned, not convinced that we're managing their money as efficiently as we should be. And it's not this board's fault. These things are accumulated from a long time ago, and -- and I'm only saying we've got some gut wrenching decisions to make here, and I strongly urge us to -- to tighten our belts and proceed in that direction. And if next year or the year after I'm wrong about these dire predictions of the economy and everything, then we can revisit all of these things. We can start putting money into these improvements. All I'm asking for is we set some top priorities, commit the money to those top priorities, and then continue to assess our future ability to deal with these other capital improvement projects. That's all I'm saying. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may finish my question earlier when I started -- Page 99 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I -- on the -- what we were talking about, what we're spending the last year, how much of an increase was there in the valuation over the previous year? What do we expect over an average year? What is it in dollars and percentage? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Last year in -- in total tax -- taxable value increase, 20 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty percent. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that was a anomaly. MR. OLLIFF: Go to your chart. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: That's the recommended growth curve in your ad valorem fund. And if you will look, the last couple of years it took this spike, if you will. I don't think you ought to, for long-range planning purposes, count on that spike as the trend. But if you look at the trend line since 1989, that has been a pretty fairly standard-type trend line, and we've tried to carry that type trend out because always on the revenue side you want to have a conservative projection. And I think that is an 8 percent growth line projection. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is 8 percent here. Here -- these 3 years were 13, 14, and 20 percent. But we were back in single digits here; that's why we assumed -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about a substantial amount of money. How about if we were to commit -- you know, based upon leveraging, of course, the gas tax and the sales tax maybe to start with, if we were to commit the next three year and whatever the increases are towards the road funds and that we learned to live in the budget, what was there for the previous years? I think that would give us a tremendous jumpstart on the whole thing. How Page 100 December 18, 2001 would that change the whole scenario of events if we were able to do that? Just offhand. I know I can't nail you down to it. The next three years we committed every bit of increase that there would be in ad valorem, the value of the property increases just to roads? MR. SMYKOWSKI: A 10 percent increase in value, keeping the millage rate constant, would -- would yield in next year $10.4 million of itself obviously, and then it would compound itself. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we force ourselves to live within our budget, we're still meeting the needs that we're going to do out there, and we'll probably still have to bond something. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, without question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other problem that was the increase in operations, and then you can't keep it level. That's going to go up every year, so you can't take that entire ten -- $10 million and use it for that purpose. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can't reap a revenue stream. MR. FEDER: No. But I will say that Scenario 4 -- I think it's very, very important that we're being made clear for some other folks -- I think this board understands it very well. The one you're proposing, the full gas tax, a portion of your sales tax, a portion from increased value assessment. Also, you're looking at a broader portion of that value assessment that was just discussed to pay back that gas tax and that sales tax as the stream you committed. But, nonetheless, you use the increased value assessment as you make your vehicle. And then you have to commit ad valorem if you can't do it that way, because if you use those other two, then you're cutting back from services as they exist today. In effect what you're doing, your ability to deliver that comes up in the future, the items that we talked about and Tom warned you I was going to raise. So in effect you are committing that growth, or as Commissioner Coletta has said, you're committing in the budget. Page 101 December 18, 2001 You're not going to increase millage. But you're also not necessarily going to reduce it because you get this increase in valuation over time. MR. MUDD: Can we -- Jim Mudd, for the record -- just one more -- one more thing, because we're looking at No. 4, just for the viewing audience, because we've tossed numbers around. And I'm not too sure on the other end if I was listening to this I'm following it at all. Okay. We're talking about $301 million that are needed with all enhancements. We went through that and we cut -- and we talked about without enhancement project which is a $44 million cut that brings us to a requirement for $257 million that's unfunded. We're talking about in this particular case being able to bond $192 million. That still leaves us with $65 million to go get from someplace else. Okay. And that's not talking about bonding or -- it's talking about out of the general fund someplace. And when you look at the growth slide, Commissioner Coletta, up there, until you get to 2007, okay, if you -- if the board says we're going to commit the 8 percent growth to the ad valorem -- to the general fund for the next five years, you won't get out of that, committing that growth, until 2007. And then and only then will you have some flexibility if the 8 percent growth rate happens. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's why I'm an advocate of only taking a piece of each stream so I don't put myself in that box. I mean, that's where I am. MR. OLLIFF: But I think all we're really looking for from the board is a prioritization basically, if you will, of some -- some principles. And I think what I'm hearing you say is you want to bond the full gas tax. You want to preserve as much of the sales tax capacity as we can, and you want to fund as much of the balance out of our projected ad valorem growth rate as we can reasonably Page 102 December 18, 2001 swallow, and you need to just give us that kind of direction, and we will bring you back the specifics, because I'll tell you that there's a lot of specifics to work out. For example, Norman's transportation construction plan has us blipping through the five years. Fiscal year '04 has got a tremendous lump in it, but that's driven by concurrency and by construction schedules. We need do some smoothing of that in order to be able to accommodate the growth of our revenue streams. So there's a lot of details to be worked out. But as long as those are the principles that the board wants to send us away from here with, we can bring you back a plan that will do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a motion in that direction.'? COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I speak.'? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He didn't get a chance to speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't get a chance to speak. Thank you. I -- I agree with Commissioner Coyle. I'd rather drive a Volkswagen to work than a Chevrolet until we get there. I think what he was asking for, what I understood and heard is making transportation our number-one projects, our priorities. But I think everybody needs to realize that every time that we meet, have a public meeting, somebody is after us for more and more money, whether it be giving back some of the impact fees or whether it be healthcare or whatever. So I'm saying that I am going to make the roads my priority, and I'm sorry to say when those people come up there, this commissioner is going to have to say no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't have any problem with Page 103 December 18, 2001 that either, Commissioner Henning, because there are times when the community out there or a small membership in a part of the community wants us to go to enormous risk in a land-use issue. And you end up at Marco Island spending $4 1/2 million for that sucker. I'm not going there again. I'm going to tell you that right now, as long as I'm a commissioner, I will not go at exorbitant risk on any of these situations that's going to put us in a courtroom where we have a high probability of losing. So I'm with you. When people start coming and asking me these things, where does it balance against the number-one priority? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And also meeting the needs of-- the health, safety, and welfare. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Health, safety, and welfare. Don't take my statements wrong. Don't take my statements wrong. But be careful about what you ask for, folks, because you're going to come to a board that is -- that I'm hearing and sensing today, the toughest board that I've worked with in the time that I've been here. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think you've got a motion on the floor, and I also think you've still got some tough decisions ahead of you, and we probably need to move on. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there any further discussion on this motion to go with the mix to have staff bring us back direction? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: some other tough decisions. How is magic fingers doing? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. Motion carries 5-0. Now we've got Page 104 December 18, 2001 THE COURT REPORTER: Running out of paper any minute. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Take five. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, we are live. We are live, ladies and gentlemen. So if you're scratching your head and jumping over a seat, you're on camera. All right. We need to proceed with the next -- next item. MR. OLLIFF: The next item I -- I am going to be looking to the commission for, frankly, is to go back, and Mr. Mudd is working his way back to a particular slide that shows the four projects that are specifically affected by some actions today, and I'm going to be remiss if I don't tell the board -- in fact, I need to make a recommendation to the board that given the circumstances, given the financial options that -- that we need to consider, you have one of those four projects, which is the court-related officers' building. That's the courthouse annex project that you have looked at for a couple of budget sessions. That is the on-campus building improvement and parking garage. The bond issue that you recently issued direction to us to go out to the market with includes $2 million of design money for that project. My recommendation to you would be that, given the current circumstances, we ought to give some direction to have that $2 million of design money pulled out of that bond issue and at a bare minimum, delay decision on that project for -- for a year or a period of time. I just don't see a physical way of you getting there from here, and it certainly doesn't make sense for us to do a design and then not build the building because the design ages, and then you're going to end up having to do a bunch of redesign and costs associated with that. So, Mr. Chairman, that's my recommendation on that one particular project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other dedicated Page 105 December 18, 2001 money to that project besides 2 million? MR. OLLIFF: Not that I'm aware of, but I'll go back and look through the budget and ensure that there isn't and certainly ensure that if there is that before we spend it we bring it back to you for a decision. CHAIRMAN CARTER: What will that do to our responsibility to eventually do that? MR. OLLIFF: Well, I think the building was put into your master space plans with some obvious needs on the part of the -- primarily the clerk of courts, the state attorney, the public defender, and those other court-related services. Worst case, we don't build that for a number of years. The best case is I think we delay it for some period of time, and you give us some direction when we -- in the interim to go back and relook at not only that particular project but the master plan and see what we can tweak, what we can squeeze into the existing buildings, and what we can stretch in terms of the campus building plan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I look for tweaking and squeezing and do that in coordination with the court so that we find out the best possible way we can deal with it and still at the same time save a couple million dollars. MR. OLLIFF: But I will tell you that I have already had this conversation with Mr. Brock, who is one of the primary occupants of the building. So he is not surprised if-- if the board makes the decision to, at -- at best, delay this project. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I look for his input and advice on how we can raise that money to put that project back on track. MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's -- that's one. MR. OLLIFF: I'd probably like to get a motion on that, Mr. Page 106 December 18, 2001 Chairman, because it is in a previous board motion and part of a bond issue scheduled to go out to the market at the beginning of the calendar year. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make that motion. I'd like to make a motion that we drop the courts/constitutional officer building design work for $2 million from this bonding option. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Fiala. I have a second by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion carries 5-0. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, If I can go back to the agenda and move forward, first of all, I want to thank you for your indulgence so far today. I know this has been -- been rather difficult. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's wearing thin, Norm. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I will say this, Norman: We have to thank you. MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have to thank you for all the hard work. MR. FEDER: A lot of staff here is also in support of it. What I will tell you, though, as I heard, and -- and we're going to thank you for taking the first of the big hurdles, and that is committing to that funding of that $257 million shortfall, as we understand it, with the gas tax, a portion of the sales tax, and a Page 107 December 18, 2001 portion of our increased valuation or -- or property tax, if that unfortunately doesn't materialize, but it has been, and we feel very safe in that figure. The next order of business, though, beyond that is to evaluate, first of all, three facilities that unfortunately didn't get attended to in that action you just took. And ! have a map coming around that identifies effectively three segments where our current process or options that we have in our Land Development Code as it exists today basically don't give us the tool and the quiver, if you will, to effectively respond. The reason I say that is the two that we had was either lower the level of service, and for these three facilities, Vanderbilt Beach Road west of U.S. 41, U.S. 41 -- and Jim is pointing them out over here -- U.S. 41 between Pine Ridge and Golden Gate Parkway, and then Davis Boulevard, basically, between the new alignment but from Radio Road, Davis over to 951 or Collier Boulevard. For those three segments -- and I'll go through them individually -- the action you just took and the very hard action to fund an additional 257 million didn't resolve that. We can't lower the level of service. Those are the two items that we had. The other is to create a moratorium. Now, that could be your decision here today. What we're going to advocate to you, though, is a little different approach because if you declare a moratorium, the only thing you do is postpone answering the question. And we feel we can help you answer the question, begin it today and -- and resolve it in the next month or so as we update the Land Development Code and the growth management plan in a much more positive fashion. If you declare a moratorium, the only thing you've done is delay, face the legal challenge and the dollar expense, and you still have to answer as I said. Also, it puts the onus on the county. You have to answer -- solve the problem. Well, in this case you just took a very big step to Page 108 December 18, 2001 solving problems, but these problems can't be solved with that big step of $257 million. You can't lower the service anymore. CHAIRMAN CARTER: What can we do? MR. FEDER: So what we're going to recommend is this: As a state standard has constrained and backlogged, that, first of all, we modify the Land Development Code to encode those definitions within our quiver of options, that we define specifically in that process what is the area to be impacted, not use some general thing that's 3 -, 2 -, or 1-mile arbitrary, but, rather, come into what is the area significantly impacted. For instance -- and this is something to be looked at, not necessarily decided today, but as you look at Vanderbilt Beach Road west of U.S. 41, you may also be looking at Gulfshore Drive on up to Bluebill, because that section in there up to Vanderbilt is essentially one section that is pretty well self-contained. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's already going to come to the LDC cycle now to be set up as a study area which, in effect, does put in a moratorium until we study and figure out what we will allow or not allow for redevelopment primarily in that area. MR. FEDER: Exactly. And so that may be your answer under that constrained is to go into more detailed analysis and to find exactly what you want to do and extend that area for the full real travel area, which is Gulfshore Drive as well as Vanderbilt Beach Road at least west of U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because do you have a study going on, Vanderbilt running north and south? MR. FEDER: Yeah. And there we don't have the constraints. It's a different type of study as you do have here. And the community desired not to look to expand and the physical constraints you have, even if you considered expansion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, would you do this for all of them instead of taking it road by road? Page 109 December 18, 2001 MR. FEDER: Well, no. The reason I'm taking it road by road, that is a constrained facility. Another constrained that's in there is U.S. 41, as I mentioned, between Pine Ridge and Golden Gate Parkway. There we are -- work with the City of Naples. We need to evaluate what our options are there. And the state standard generally of constrained is 5 percent growth over time. So it does allow for some level of continued growth, but then it also allows for some level of flexibility, as we're going to recommend that you apply it to maybe tie, let's say, Goodlette-Frank Road and -- and 41 together in the analysis as we look at development in this area and an opportunity, if there are further connections between the two, to capitalize on capacity and coordinate the process, that we do that. Again, I think we'd recommend, first of all, that we establish the county give us direction to do so as part of your Land Development Code update, that we work with the City of Naples, in particular, on 41. Half of the side of the road is city; half is county. And then we evaluate specifically how we can control. But the key point is while we use the basic standard concept of control, not over 5 percent growth, that we give ourselves some flexibility in the area that we establish and in the controls that we establish to be specific to the facility, its function, its purpose and prospect. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, with an area of impact or significant impact, I guess, is the term that I've always heard -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- again, if we could wrap all those together and you give us specific language which we could control that through the LDC cycle. MR. FEDER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm ready to say yes, sir; let's do it. MR. FEDER: And please understand, we are not saying in your prior LDC you showed Vanderbilt Beach Road as constrained, but Page 110 December 18, 2001 we didn't have any control, any plan for how we're going to respond to growth. Growth has continued. We just called it constrained and walked away. We're not recommending that by any stretch of the imagination. The other thing I'm pointing out to you is you have another category backlog, that section of Davis Boulevard that ! mentioned to you, from Radio over to Collier Boulevard. Probably -- actually in that section State Road 951 right there by the interstate. There the state has both design and half of the right-of-way in their program. That half of the right-of-way is out in 2007. So 2008, if they put the other half of the right-of-way, 2009 under the best-of-case scenario they have construction, that would be 2009 construction, which is some period of time past 2004. What you had included in that two hundred fifty-seven -- two hundred fifty-nine million improvements item was the ability to advance with reimbursement that state schedule. So establish a backlog, establish metered growth over time, and look at the ability to advance that state process into about 2007. So the period from 2004 to 2007, which actually comes on line about 2005 -- it's in that first three years -- is covered, is a period of time up to 2005 that we have to control and meter growth anticipating that improvement will come on line, not use up all of its capacity until the day it's open -- it's not functional -- but to establish the ability for growth to continue while we work with the state to advance and get that improvement funded. So there you have the opportunity to make an improvement. You just can't make it within three years. You acknowledge it; you establish a pattern of growth allowable given how far out it will be for that project. In this case the state one -- we're even committing dollars to advance for reimbursement. So that's what we're recommending to you in broad terms. Page 111 December 18, 2001 Dawn's going to cover that over a little bit more in the policy issues to the Land Development Code and other policy issues, because as I said at the outset -- and I think this is very, very important -- as important and as difficult as what you've already done in the discussions today, the more important is that we change our policies and processes so we don't get here again. And with that said, I'm going to let Dawn jump in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to just make one comment. With reference to U.S. 41 in your evaluation of that area, I know that the City of Naples is concerned about compatible zoning laws or development laws in that area, one side being the city with one standard, the other side being the county with perhaps a different standard. Would -- would the board be supportive of trying to assure that we get some kind of consistent standard in that area? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I -- I would -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: At least look at it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I agree with that. I believe at one time we spent a lot -- we had meetings and tried to get that to happen, and it ended up in a no-agreement situation. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I will -- what I will tell you, I spoke to George Archibald before the discussions today. George concurs with the need for improvement in that section of 41. They do have a standard of constrain. They don't have a specific standard for what growth or controls are happening. He agreed that that would be a very healthy and good discussion on 41, and we would obviously get -- in any direction from you, but it would be our intent as well by -- look at that and bring it back to you in any recommendation we make for 41. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Mark Morton is in the audience this morning. I think, Mark, you were part of that study process sometime back. Maybe I got the wrong -- he didn't have anything to Page 112 December 18, 2001 do with it. He's denying it. Okay. Somebody came to me within the last couple of years. I personally would advocate a joint group working on that so that we get that control of both sides because you know we've got one particular situation that is in Commissioner Coyle's district that I don't know where it is, but maybe the financial frontage, put that one out of business for a while. But that could -- that's going to rear its ugly head. MR. FEDER: We need to review every development but particularly in these areas and the coordination. And obviously we'll entertain any direction from the board but it would be -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have three nods? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MR. FEDER: ! think we've got direction. MR. OLLIFF: While it's not a requirement, too, there is actually a -- as Stan refers to the often-overlooked intergovernmental coordination element of the comprehensive plan that actually has language that's been approved by both cities and the county that indicates that if there are some development restriction-type plans put in place, that governments will cooperate with each other and try to develop those similar-type standards. So I think all of the governments that recognize that should the situation occur, that we will try to work to development-consistent standards. MS. WOLFE: Good afternoon. Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning department director. As we all discussed, we've gotten over a long period of time into the situation we are, and we're working our way out of that backlog. But part of what I've provided to you is a written synopsis of the opportunities we have within the current Land Development Code under the adequate public facilities section to make change and how we actually apply it as well as introduce other components to that Page 113 December 18, 2001 section that will enable us to continue moving forward, although perhaps under more of a metered situation but, perhaps, keep this county out of any type of prospect of issuing those words of moratorium. One of the things that we've been talking about for more than a year now is the need to deal with concurrency on more than just a once-a-year basis of reviewing and saying, yes, we have all the capacity and everyone who comes to the door asking for a building permit throughout the year we just sign off on of it regardless of what kind of impacts or cumulative impacts they may have on our road system. The Land Development Code currently refers to two separate programs, that of monitoring and management, which we believe the AUIR is that tool to help us establish and maintain our five-year capital improvement element. The other component of that is actually the regulatory side of it. We see that as being the actual checkbook side of it. It has not been handled in that way. The AUIR has been handling both management and monitoring, as well as that regulatory on that annual basis. What we will be proposing and bringing forward to you in January will be a series of amendments to that section that will put in place not only definitions for constrained and backlogged facilities but as well as how do we apply appropriate rules to development or redevelopment which may occur adjacent to or near those corridors of deficiencies or potential deficiency. The areas of significant influence, as they're described today in the Land Development Code, are that of a radius of influence from either end of a deficient segment. These may not necessarily be sufficient, or they may be overbearing in their intensity from a 1- to a 3-mile radius of impact. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just make sure I understood what you just said. So, in other words, instead of just taking each Page 114 December 18,2001 development, in particular, we're going to take a radius. So, like, for instance, with park lands and Olde Cypress and Mira -- Mirasol which would -- MS. WOLFE: No, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have -- have any impact at all? MS. WOLFE: No. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, under the current the Land Development Code criteria, if we have a deficient or a potentially deficient road for which we cannot address, either by widening it or lowering its level of service, we're supposed to identify an area of significant influence by which no development may be permitted. And it's just a -- a radius area of anywhere from 1 to 3 miles around that segment of deficiency, and that holds on for a one-year time period of regardless of what level of development that may be, or perhaps there's a development that is just outside the boundaries of those areas that may be a substantial magnitude but would have a significant impact on that deficient segment but because of it not falling within the confines of the area of significant influence would be required to be permitted. What we're going to be recommending is a concurrency management system that, as developments come forward, that more so than we would look at under the current traffic impact statements under a rezoning, as we get more to a site development plan stage that we look at their impacts within a specified area of influence. Right now we have a criteria under the comprehensive plan that says we look for those impacts within a 5 percent. We're going to be proposing that that be a stagger based on the level of development proposed, anywhere from a 1 up to a 5. Five is the criteria for developments of regional impact. We would not suggest that something which is only a 30,000-square-foot retail business apply a 5 percent to it but, rather, we'd be closer to a 1 percent in defining how far out their impacts are defined and how far we look. Page 115 December 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: So you really got to bring this forward to us in the next LDC cycle and you're just looking today -- MR. FEDER: Next month. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- for the board direction in order to pursue that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm nodding my head. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't have any problem with that. MS. WOLFE: And, like I said, we're going to see some massive changes to how we actually apply -- what the AUIR means, that's basically going to be when you get your, you know, bank statements in the mail and you go back and check and make sure those checks that have come through, that you check those off, that you may still have some of those that are outstanding. That's going to be our balance statement. But as we write checks during the year, gift certificates for adequate public facilities, site development plans, that we write things in the checkbook, and at the end of the year we check them off to make sure we still have enough room to actually allow that development to continue. That could be -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been ready for a while. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why did it take so long to get to this point? CHAIRMAN CARTER: It takes a long time to get to where you want to be. So as far as this board is -- I'm getting all the nods just to go forward. MR. FEDER: And we appreciate that. That was the key for these three. You addressed really the AUIR today. But we also wanted, with your indulgence -- I know it's very late, and some folks' stomachs are grumbling -- to hit on a few other policies, just so you know you'll be seeing over the next month or so. And, again, particularly for the listening audience, this is really the most Page 116 December 18, 2001 important part of it: How do we not replicate where we got to and where you had to work so hard to address today. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we kind of tick those off-- MR. FEDER: Yes. Give you an idea what they are. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- for listening America? MS. WOLFE: Certain specific criterias, once again, what is proposed is redefining what is an AUIR and what would be the regulatory tool by which we actually approve and issue our certificates. What we currently have in process that you'll be seeing on Wednesday is some elimination of access criteria from the Land Development Code under activity centers where we've kind of boxed ourselves in a comer telling people that if you come in here, two major arterials, these are the access points you'll have. Those are all -- a lot of those are dated. We've updated our access management policy. We are making references to the outside policies; we can change over time, and we're eliminating the specifics within the Land Development Code, and we're referring them to the technical documents where they should be at. In interconnectivity and collector roadways, we're coming forward with amendments to the LDC that you'll also see this week requesting or requiring interconnection between developments through the PUD process. Rather than encouraging, we're going to be a little bit more forceful and are looking for the board to approve a hammer for -- by which staff can bring forward applications to you for considerations that mandate it and don't just encourage it. We will also continue updating that as we move forward with the secondary road system or collector road system development, although we have somewhat eliminated a level of funding to that. We need to put in place a plan that as development comes forward, we can preserve or encourage connectivity to those developments through this collector roadway system, and at the same time we're Page 117 December 18,2001 bringing that forward, we also will be getting a price tag as to what will it cost and can address the financial implications in the future. Right now we don't have that specific dollar amount, but staff, with consultant support, are working toward that end and will be bringing that forward in the upcoming year. Other things in process is to eliminate vesting of access under old PUDs, that we don't have the level of specificity at the zoning stage to say you will have absolute full median openings and signalized intersections when we don't know exactly what is going in. There is some discussion over that. We are asking that there not be a presumption, other than the fact that they have a right to access to the public roadway system but not until such time as a site plan comes forward do we make the specific determination, and it will be consistent with our policies in place at the time. That's going to be coming forward this week. Also in process for the comprehensive plan is the removal of the level of service tables from the comprehensive plan. Those have been tying our hands. I've had to come before you on many occasions. And regardless of what our professional opinion may be in regards to level of service, I've had to advise you that you are required to find projects consistent because of old dated tables. We're removing those, letting them be a technical document that can stand alone, be updated as necessary based on changing conditions and changing technical criteria. We've already made our initial changes in regards to access management. We've updated our policy, including Livingston Road, as well as Collier Boulevard as controlled access facilities to preserve their capacity. We've also come forward with a functional classification update to our entire roadway system. We're tying that into the development of our collector road system because right now we have roads on our system we define as collector, such as Pine Page 118 December 18,2001 Ridge and Immokalee Road, which we all well know are arterials under their actual function. We want to bring forward to you a full system that includes everything from minor collectors all the way up to our principal arterials and interstate plans. That's something that we'll be seeing after we bring forward a collector secondary road system plan to you. We've already identified to you that we would like to bring forward the definitions as prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation for local planning purposes. The Florida Department of Transportation does not regulate land development. That is the obligation of local jurisdictions and specifically us here in Collier County. They have prepared for us a means by which we can define a constrained backlogged facility, and we need to take advantage of the criteria that they have established and use state wide. We have also identified for you, we will be coming back with LDC changes that allow us to actually have a specific checkbook concurrency management system that we will be recommending be maintained and overseen by the transportation division and that signoffs for adequate public facilities will be coming through transportation and not specifically just at the time someone pulls a building permit. We're talking to you also about redefining what the areas of significant influence is. Arbitrary circles of influence aren't necessarily appropriate. We need to look at them on a project-by- project and segment-by-segment basis, and introduction of a concurrency management system will allow us to do that. Timing and issuance of certificates of adequate public facility or other issues we'll be bringing forward. Right now they may defer them until the time that they pull the building permit. We're going to be recommending that that deferral no longer be in place but that we - - at the time the site development plan be issuing those certificates of Page 119 December 18, 2001 adequate public facility, it becomes an onus upon the county that if someone moves forward to the point of, "Well, I'll just wait until my building permit is pulled." And all of a sudden under the system, "We don't have enough capacity for you." "Well, I've spent all this money on zoning, the site development plan. I've done my site preparation. Well, now I pull my building permit, and I can't get an adequate public facilities." That's a little late in the game to be telling someone now. We believe -- and this is appropriate and has been applied throughout other counties and jurisdictions in the State of Florida. It is appropriate to do it at the time of site development plan. I have provided for you a synopsis that generally outlines all of these conditions for your reading pleasure. Copies are available up here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In our spare time. MS. WOLFE: In your spare time to read over that and in my spare time to prepare the details and work with staff both in transportation and development services to bring those forward to you in a timely manner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So what you need from us is staff direction. MR. FEDER: We got what we needed, and I very much appreciate your indulgence. I want to thank Dawn Scott, who is new to my staff, and others you know and the like that are here. The last thing I will raise to you, besides the decisions you've already made, is also hopefully nods of confirmation. You do want us -- particularly on those yellows we identified on the map -- you want us to go back and recapture some of that. Obviously, we will bring those incrementally to you. But please understand that those will be hard choices, and we will look for your support as it's Page 120 December 18, 2001 appropriate at that time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Appreciate that. Stan, we have some other business to do? MR. LITSINGER: We have just to formally complete this AUIR process. I need to axe -- ask you to take three separate actions, based on what you've heard here today, if Norman -- MR. FEDER: We thank you. MR. LITSINGER: What we would ask the board to do, in order to complete the annual update and inventory report process, is three things: We would ask you to accept and approve the attached documents that you have received on the 30th of November and 12th -- 18th of December as your 2001 annual update inventory report. You've given staff direction by separate motion and vote, all of Category A and B facilities that has been very specific relative to funding and projects. You have given staff recommendation to projects, revenue sources for inclusion in the FY '02 annual CIE update amendment which will be coming back to you in the next couple of months. And you have included, as I understood it, $257 million in general fund revenues, as they will be defined in the capital improvement element, as identified in scenario or option 4, as was presented to you by the budget director, which, in my assessment, does create a financially feasible plan. Further, we would ask, finally, that you find upon analysis and review of the actions taken, based on this 2001 AUIR that adequate -- adequate Category A public facilities will be available as defined by the Collier County concurrency management system as implemented by Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code is to support -- develop order issuance subject to the provisions of Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code as it may be amended subsequent to direction received on November the 30th and on 12/18, as you have recently heard, and will be coming back to in the form of LDC Page 121 December 18, 2001 amendments. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I so move. MR. LITSINGER: That's a mouthful. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I so move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear. I move -- I moved the motion by Stan Smykowski (sic) on the AUI (sic) report, a second by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's say Stan Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger. CHAIRMAN CARTER: MR. LITSINGER: Stan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I don't know. You know, I got too many names. Stan Litsinger. And I apologize. MR. LITSINGER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion carries 5-0. Stan, thank you for a wonderful job. You're a real pro. You've been here a long time and had to go through a lot of frustration. Commissioner Coletta asks why does it take so long. Number one, you got a county manager who is looking over his shoulder worrying about his job. We went out and recruited the top administrators. We took -- Norman Feder came in here and in 16 Page 122 December 18, 2001 months built a division. And he brought in people like Dawn Wolfe and others, and that's why you've got what you've got today. And if you don't have the professional management in place, the board will never get there. And what they ask from a board is what we did today; set policy, give direction. I compliment this board. I thank you. I wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any correspondence at this workshop or meeting? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public input? CHAIRMAN CARTER: There can be. Is there anybody signed up? Does anybody want to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody looks happy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- lay any more wisdom on us? No. They all want to go have Christmas lunch. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a --just a brief comment. We've received a memorandum from staff indicating that we were not given all of the information that we should have had concerning the La Quinta development in Golden Gate city. At -- at the time we were debating that, Commissioner Henning raised the issue about the possibility of changing that multifamily facility to a single-family facility. I argued that the penalty would be too great to have to remodel the whole house. I nigh -- I now find out that the house really wasn't finished inside. And so out of courtesy to Commissioner Henning as one of the people who voted to approve it, I would be happy to -- to bring it or vote to bring it back towards -- for reconsideration if you wanted to do that. I don't know that it will change the vote, but I think it's important that -- that -- that Commissioner Henning have the opportunity to consider that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: As a commissioner voting in favor of that, you certainly have a right to bring it in front of the board for Page 123 December 18, 2001 reconsideration. MR. MUDD: Let me help just a little bit. I think you're looking for John. MR. OLLIFF: No. Actually, I was looking for an attorney's interpretation of the time frame on the reconsideration ordinance. And we'll double-check that and make sure that we're within -- I think the ordinance calls for a 30-day motion in order to reconsider. We will assume that -- that we are at this point unless we go back and look at the schedule and the time frame and find out that we're not, in which case we'll -- we'll look to bring that to your attention at the next regular meeting that we have and provide whatever options the board has in that regard, and we'll make sure that, in any case, we get you the full information on that item. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I just want to leave that to Commissioner Henning, if he thinks that would be useless to do COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't really -- I think you need a second on that, and I voted against it. But -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: the courtesy you deserve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll give you the second on it, I appreciate it. I think it -- you know, it could be lost at this point, but they're going to take a look at it. MR. OLLIFF: Well, keep -- keep in mind that the developer was continuing at his own risk up until the point when he came in front of the board, and there were certain risks assumed on his part along the way. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. All in favor of bringing it back for discussion for reconsider, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) Page 124 December 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. I think it carried 4-0 because he voted against it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: At any rate, we're going to bring it back. Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think we should do it fairly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. You're ahead of me in the mail. Anything else in front of this board before we adjourn for the holidays? MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to take an opportunity to thank Norman and Dawn and the entire staff and budget office and growth management. I can't begin to tell you how many hours they put into getting here today. None of these decisions or options were easy. And I appreciate you-all making the tough decisions. But do keep in mind that when the Land Development Code hearings come back with a lot of these specific detail issues that Dawn ran you through, they're not nearly going to be as easy as is Dawn's summary of them, and you will end up with a lot of discussion about each and every one of those issues. But I do believe they are issues that at one time or another this board has talked about, wished they could see some -- some opportunity to -- to look at the impacts of those kinds of changes to your Land Development Code. And you need to keep in mind that you changed your Land Development Code process so that you can make amendments at any time you wish to, so you're not stuck to an amendment cycle anymore. That's why we're probably going to bring you not only the current Land Development Codes that are in process but going to bring you all of these things that Dawn brought up today at your second Land Development Code hearing. Page 125 December 18, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not tomorrow night? MR. OLLIFF: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no. Tomorrow night, though, is LDC, 5:05, the first of two meetings. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I'll tell you, this has been the most productive half an hour (sic) I've seen since I joined the commission. I am just totally amazed that we got to this point in one big jump. I'd like to see if we direct you to write a letter of commendation to the -- to Norm Feders and Dawn Wolfe and all the people there and that had a part in bringing this around. CHAIRMAN CARTER: My pleasure to do that. And what I would like is I'll draft the letter. You-all can make comments on it, but I'd like every commissioner to sign it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're standing adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:24 p.m. Page 126 December 18, 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTR~0k ~, JAMEg~D. CARTER, CHAIRMAN :--'~.D~tG~.',T~E. BROCK, CLERK ' .. ~r . t' ..' .,.".' 7' ~ ' ' "TheSe minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected ///~ ,as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 127