Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/06/2006 S (AUIR) February 6, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 6, 2006 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 has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :30 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS II", " '~.^" " '_~'M-:'~"",:::",;- Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) AGENDA February 6, 2006 1 :30 PM Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, Page 1 February 6, 2006 AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Presentation to the Collier County Board of County Commission (BCe) of the 2005 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 ofthe Collier County Land Development Code. _ Continued from the January 25,2006 AUlR meeting 3. Comments 4. Adjourn Page 2 February 6, 2006 February 6, 2006 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager. This is a continuation of the Annual Update of Inventory Report that we started on January 25th and we did not get it completed. If everyone seated in the audience would rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Before I turn it over because of the fact that I believe this room is going to be occupied later on this afternoon, I hope that we can hopefully finish up business on this report around five o'clock, if possible. So with that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about three o'clock? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hey, if we can get done by three o'clock, so be it. I wish we can. Though starting off with Category B and I see that the chief is here, so I believe we're going to start off with the -- I've got it here, the jail. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The county jail. Then we go to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: The county jail system. MR. MUDD: --law enforcement and then library emergency medical services and government buildings in that order. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Makes sense. MR. SCHMITT: Chairman Halas, just -- just for the record and I just want to -- looking at the county attorney -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development Environmental Services Division -- the county attorney just to make sure that this is a continuation of the January 25th meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that it was well advertised. MR. SCHMITT: And it was well advertised. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, correct. MR. SCHMITT: And the issues under Category A have been covered and certainly from a perspective in regards to your guidance Page 2 February 6, 2006 we received, we're going into Category B. And how do you choose to take speakers? Do you want to continue with any registered speakers after each category, reference that category? I know we have members of the audience that want to talk about another issue that related to Category A. And I would ask for your indulgence that we would defer that till the end of the meeting because I would like to get through these Category B facilities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That -- that's what I'd like to do and then we'll take one category at a time. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Randy, any -- any comments or county attorney? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No comments from the county attorneys. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Chief, we'll give you the microphone there so you can -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great story on you and your son today. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner. Very fortunate with regard to the outcome of that so... For the record, Chief Greg Smith. Okay. I think that's better. For the record, Chief Greg Smith, Administrative Chief for the Sheriffs Office. And what we're going to present to you today or assist the county with presenting to you today is the AUIR report for the county jail system and with the issues pertaining to the law enforcement impact fee. The -- the county jail system -- the -- the one thing of note or the biggest thing of note with regard to that is a change in the level-of-service standard to be -- to be used in calculation of the need for jail beds. Historically we have not played a part in the AUIR report. The -- the county manager rightfully so solicited our input and our participation this year. And we found it necessary to do two Page 3 February 6, 2006 things right away and that's to clarify and to clean up some issues from previous reports. First of all, being that previous to this year we had operated at a level-of-service standard at 2.4 beds per thousand, the historical utilization rate has always far surpassed that figure. 3.2 we believe is to be a more accurate reflection of that which we experience on a daily basis in managing the jail population. And it has been as high as 4.0. But had we gone on or if we choose to go with a 2.4 bed per thousand utilization, then basically what we're doing is we're making a statement that one in every three inmates will sleep on the floor. That, of course, gives concern with regard to -- with regard to managing populations. You'd find yourself always in a -- in a situation where you're trying to crisis manage and overflow the jail population. The good news is we've currently brought additional beds on line; however, as this report will show you, we -- we have some capacity. We have some surplus capacity. But when originally-- when originally approached with the -- with the 2.4 LOS, it showed that we were going to have capacity for several years, when in actuality, we're going to run out of capacity at FY'08. So that's one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to update that as the standard. And then, secondly, we had to go in and amend some -- some of the numbers with regard to the jail bed inventory which is found on page 62. And that's because some of the counts were just plain wrong. Some of them were -- were misinterpreted. So we worked diligently with county staff to go back in and identify and recognize those beds that are actually in the current inventory. That also had a -- a negative impact as far as what our future jail capacity was going to be. So those are the numbers that we went back and adjusted. And as a result you can see on the -- the graph that's provided what that's done for us in terms of current capacity and any future surplus. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question. Oh, do you have a question? Page 4 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. Go ahead. You go first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. So I'm having a problem understanding the level of service. You built for a level of service 2.4, but then you found out that you really had a 3.2. Is that what you're saying? And how did you not know that you had that so that you could have built up more in the first place? CHIEF SMITH: We recognized all along that it was greater than that. We encouraged the board in 1997 to adopt a higher level of service. They choose to go with a 2.4. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- so -- 2.4. I said 4.2. I'm sorry. 2.4, but it's actually a 3.2. And you say -- and you've come to that decision because of -- CHIEF SMITH: Just because it accurately reflects the current situation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And -- and so did you know that before you started building, so I note that this is, you know -- CHIEF SMITH: Yes, ma'am. We've known that for at least ten years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- but we built it for a 2.4 anyway; right? CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can you build on top of what you already have built there? CHIEF SMITH: No, we cannot. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you have to build a new facility? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: I have a question. Commissioner, and Chief Smith, help me here if I'm wrong, but I believe when they did the impact fee studies for jails that the -- the formula's functionality that basically they used equates to 3.2 beds per -- per thousand population Page 5 February 6, 2006 more than the 2.4 did. CHIEF SMITH: That's -- that's -- that's correct and an important point to make for the record. That when we were instituting the jail impact fee, the data that was supplied to the consultant showed that what we really needed to -- to aim at as a level of service was the -- the 3.2 beds per thousand. And that that's what the impact-fee calculation, I believe, was based on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is what is the -- what did you or the sheriffs department trying or doing to try to alleviate the over crowdedness of the jail? Are you working on any particular or working with anybody in the legal-service area so that some of these people can be released if they're not harmful to the community? CHIEF SMITH: We currently go and assess just exactly the nature of the offender that we are keeping in jail. We do have currently some alternative sentencing programs that are available and that we do utilize very heavily. One of the -- probably predominantly being the working weekender program. We've got about 200 participants in that program that would otherwise be in the jail population and -- and reflected in those numbers. With that said, we've also taken off some other initiatives so that we have revitalized, if you would, the Public Safety Coordinating Council. That's a -- a committee that is required by statute to address just those types of issues. Commissioner Coyle currently sits as chair of that group and those discussions are ongoing at this time. Weare looking at ways to speed up the judicial process because it's very easy to determine that your -- your jail population is going to have a direct relationship to how fast offenders move through the criminal justice process. So we're taking on some -- some initiatives in that regard to try to speed that component of the system up. Because I think that that's probably the single most thing that we could do to -- to have a real impact on our jail population because I -- I don't think you'd ever achieve capacity by just a brick-and-mortar solution. Page 6 February 6, 2006 I think you've also got to look at some internal equities as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. From what I can see on the graph, it looks like we're going to be continually building jails or building onto jails. And I think we've got to find another means here of addressing the system, the issue. CHIEF SMITH: I -- I agree. It's -- it's -- it's no different than stormwater, roads or any other utility. With growth in the area, you're going to have to have larger facilities as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Obviously we're not going to be able to build anything I don't believe on -- on this campus. We'll probably have to build it someplace else. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have land purchased? MR. MUDD: The County supplies the jail. So you can look at the sheriff you have land purchased. It's the county, you, as the Board of County Commissioners have to supply those jails. Yes, you do. Out in Immokalee where the jail is kind of an annex jail that's out there, there is property there. I've directed staff to start taking a look at that and to design and potentially build a jail out there that will serve Collier County at its buildout. And we'll do it by floors, adding onto each other. And that's -- and that -- that seems to be a pretty good location with the available land that we already own. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So just to clarify, so when you say at buildout, what you mean is you can build for, like, in ten years, but then there's accommodations to build onto or additional so that you can use that piece of property to continue to expand? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, with the growth that we're looking at presently in the county, do we anticipate that any new structures are going to be paid for fully by impact fees or are we going to have to continue to bond additional monies to address this situation as it -- as we go out to a number of years here? Page 7 February 6, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: You'd have to look to your staff for that answer, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not on mic here, but go ahead, Amy. We'll tell you what we're doing with our impact fees. MS. PATTERSON: Do we have a court reporter? No. For the record, I'm Amy Patterson. The answer to the question on your current impact fees is they have paid for your -- your jail 1 00 percent. It is one of few impact fees that actually pay for the expansion in full. And, therefore, it carries no existing credit for additional revenues. Whether or not those fees continue into the future, it is our plan to maximize the impact fees and to maintain our update cycle being sure that we can utilize the impact fees in full. So we would do that before we turn to another funding source. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hi, Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Hello. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize to everybody I was late. My meeting ran over. The -- the original impact fee study was based upon permanent populations that are weighted. MS. PATTERSON: The original jail studies? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, impact fee study. MS. PATTERSON: I -- I don't believe so. I wasn't expecting to look, but I believe it was based on weighted population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Weighted population? MS. PATTERSON: It was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If you could verify. MS. PATTERSON: I'll verify it for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Chief Smith, the -- we're -- we're to get two new judges in the court system. Have you based your needs or asking based upon those judges coming on, therefore Page 8 February 6, 2006 moving some of these people through the system faster? CHIEF SMITH: We've taken that into consideration when making the recommendation to adopt 3.2. We think that it's going to be a collective number of solutions to maintain this as a level-of-service standard. If you take those judges out ofthe mix, then you're probably going to be looking at something closer to a 4.0. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- have you -- do you have a master plan for the needs, the future needs? CHIEF SMITH: We have a -- we have ajail master plan that's dated 1997. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: We advocate strongly that the plan be updated. We have spoken with county facilities department. They are currently looking at allocating funding for a fresh look, a new jail master plan to establish needs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think it's a -- a good idea to wait until that's established before we make any changes? CHIEF SMITH: I think that you -- you could. You could -- you could wait to see what the result of that's going to be. I think if you do that then there needs to be a -- a commitment that we are going to go ahead and fund and participate in that update. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let me ask that question just a little differently. Do -- in order to be able to raise the impact fees on the jail to cover the cost that's going to be, do you first have to update your master plan? CHIEF SMITH: I'm not sure. You might want to ask Ms. Patterson that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. The master plans you have for jails, in order for us to be able to raise the impact fee, does it require your master plan to be updated first? CHIEF SMITH: Again, sir, you may want to ask Ms. Patterson Page 9 February 6, 2006 that question. MS. PATTERSON: Hello. Amy Patterson for the record again. As far as the master plan goes, the master plan always needs to be updated in order to show the need for the impact fee. So as other facilities come on line, it continues to show the need that -- that equates to your impact fee. So you want to keep that master plan current with what -- what we want the plan to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In order to pick up funds as soon as possible on this, how soon would it be before a master plan can be revised and an impact fee that's more in line to what the actual cost today is could be put into place? MS. PATTERSON: This impact fee was just adopted in September. This was implemented in September. So it's relatively current. There are other factors that can be looked at easily other than the master plan. That's just one part. And that's more to show need and less to show -- to be able to increase the fee. The components that really go to increasing your fee are not only the things that you built and paid for, but also increases in population, increases in land costs, and increases in construction costs. So while we have an indexing escalator that addresses those on a year-to-year basis, any time when we see anomalies like we're seeing now with huge increases in land or construction, we can immediately go back and address those in the impact fee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what it does, it's not predicated on the master plan? MS. PATTERSON: Master plan. Only if you were having a problem where you built more than you needed, that's where in your master plan would be something that -- that you would really have to look carefully at. But right now we need more than we built so we're in -- we're okay as far as the master plan aspects go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only suggestion I would have here is it would be most helpful if this graph went back into time Page 10 February 6, 2006 a little bit farther than '05 so we could see where the anomaly was when you passed the bill and be able to draw our conclusions on the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I entertain a motion approval of this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- what -- what about the -- can we talk about some of the other information that was provided in here beyond jails? The -- let me see. Oh, that's law enforcement. You're up on that one next? CHIEF SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll hold the questions there. Commissioner, I -- I would like to wait before we do a master plan update before any changes to the jail facility and I'll make a motion to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll-- I'll second that for discussion, but didn't I just hear that we didn't need a master plan in order to do this? I think -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's -- here's -- here's my point is how -- how do you know what you really need unless you have a master plan? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we got a master plan -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's '97 was just stated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, Greg, why don't you answer that? CHIEF SMITH: Okay. We have a current master plan. It gives a ten-year-running forecast for need. I -- I think that the point is well made that we need a fresh master plan study done. I -- just knowing what I know in the daily operation of the jail system, it's -- it's going to come back at least 3.2. It may come back more than that. And -- and typically those master plans come back with some -- Page 11 February 6, 2006 some qualifying statements or caveats that, you know, if you do this, then it may have this impact. Or if you -- if you don't do this, then this is a consideration to be looked at. But jails being a Category B facility, you can set the LOS at whatever level you'd like. Although we would just issue the cautionary statement that given what we are now experiencing to adopt that as a level of service, you're basically saying that one in three inmates will sleep on the floor. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is, with the plan that you're presently using, how close is it following the real trend in the jail system? CHIEF SMITH: It's -- it's not that far off, really. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's not that far off? CHIEF SMITH: It's -- it's pretty much called it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, when you say not that far off, do you have a percentage rating? CHIEF SMITH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Within 5 percent or 2 percent? CHIEF SMITH: No, sir. I have not calculated percentage rating. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I can understand the concerns over when we implement an impact fee as legally defensible and justified. In this case they're going to have to bring it back to us for another consideration. So I, for one, would have a difficult time supporting the motion as it's presently worded. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I -- I'll -- I -- I agree. I put my second in there just for the sake of -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand. That's a good thing to do. I think I would have done the same thing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just vote it down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Page 12 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many state and federal inmates do you have in the jail? CHIEF SMITH: None. They're all in on county charges. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're all what? CHIEF SMITH: They're all awaiting the judicial system on county charges. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On county charges. Okay. So we're not housing state -- CHIEF SMITH: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, the motion's been made and seconded that we wait until an updated report from the -- the jail facility. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute. She-- Commissioner Fiala removed her motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, she didn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you didn't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just voted against it. Same thing I guess. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yup. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, no, I didn't remove my motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well -- this will be accepted as it is and Page 13 February 6, 2006 we hope that in the near future you'll come up with a -- MR. SCHMITT: Can you make a separate motion? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We need a -- we need a motion to accept it. MR. SCHMITT: A separate motion to accept. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Approve and accept it as satisfactory . CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion to accept this plan? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then a motion and a second in regards to accepting the 2005 AUIR County Jail System Report. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries 4/1. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item which is law enforcement. I believe Chief Smith is still up. CHIEF SMITH: Again, for the record, Chief Greg Smith, Administrative Chief for the Collier County Sheriffs Office. What you have before you is the -- the AUIR related to law enforcement officers and attendant capital cost needs of that staff. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have anything more to give on your report? CHIEF SMITH: This report was -- was authored primarily by the county planning department. We've looked through it. There are a couple of just statements we'd like to make for the record. Page 14 February 6, 2006 First of all, it encourages the adoption or recognition, if you would, of a level-of-service standard for the population. Sheriff Hunter very strongly opposes as his methodology regarding budgeting. It fails to take in a lot of other considerations like calls for service and time spent in proactive patrol trying to take on measures that decrease the likelihood of a crime that are not calculated in as part of that or to the degree that he would like to see. So just as a cautionary 1.96 or as -- as just a black-and-white snapshot of what's needed relative to county population may not be the best definer of need. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a question. Are you saying that the -- it costs the county $140,258 for each person on the sheriffs department or is that just road patrol? CHIEF SMITH: That's just road patrol. And some of the larger expenses related to that are the vehicle, radio, laptop computers and all the equipment that goes in that vehicle as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what's the breakdown for administrative people? CHIEF SMITH: I am not sure but you would -- you would take out some of those costs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, I believe you're up to bat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. In the recommended action on -- on page 66, the very last sentence says, Further, the board is requested to provide policy direction relative to future additional law enforcement officers as a possible modification to the absolute number of officers that might be needed or might be required. Could you -- could you explain that for me, please. CHIEF SMITH: I wish I could. I don't understand it myself. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love it. CHIEF SMITH: You may want to direct that to your countya Page 15 February 6, 2006 staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Randy. MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director, for the record. I believe that that language was added because Chief Smith had a concern about the 1.96 police officers per thousand population. And the language was added with respect to potential additional need that may exist in -- in forthcoming budget cycles for your consideration that you're aware of the fact that that possible additional need may exist and that's why it's there. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. So basically it's saying we might need more? MR. COHEN: And you might need less. We're not sure. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. Right. Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cohen, on page 70, Table 10, the weighted population, is that taking -- taking out the municipalities? MR. COHEN: That information, Commissioner Henning's from the impact fee study. So I'll defer to Ms. Patterson on that. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, again, for the record. The municipalities with the City of Naples and the City the Marco Island are excluded, but the City of Everglades is included as the sheriffs office provides them services. The other two have their own police forces and, therefore, couldn't be included. COMMISSIONER HENNING: While you're there, Table 14, page 74, let -- let's say boats. It said units, ten. Is that a need? MS. PATTERSON: No. This is actually -- this is what they have. This is -- this is the historical units and the cost of replacement. This is establishing their inventory -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: -- that they actually have and that would set Page 16 February 6, 2006 forth a need if they needed to purchase additional based on population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- how do you figure out the needs for future needs on those capital items? MS. PATTERSON: As far as boats and other-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: All of these things are set up by the impact-fee consultant. And so what they've done is they've gone through a detailed inventory and -- and used formulas to determine how many there are and how that equates to population and number of officers. And -- and it doesn't tell you how many you're going to need in the future, but basically the value of what you have today. So this is what we have now and if we needed to -- if our -- if our population doubled, then this is the cost of what it would be to replace those for the new population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: This just breaks it down in a per-person cost or something that simple. It's more of a theoretical doubling of population equals doubling of inventory. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Table 15, page 76-- MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the buildings are included in the law enforcement impact fee? MS. PATTERSON: The buildings are included. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So did we remove that from the general government building? MS. PATTERSON: Right. Nothing that appears in law enforcement appears in general government. And anytime there may be a shift of a building -- and occasionally and probably in the future, we're going to see some things come off of law enforcement and move to government buildings -- at that time, they'll go off of one inventory and out onto the other or vice versa. They will never exist at the same time in two impact-fee inventories. Page 17 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was the Planning Commission's recommendations on this? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Approve the element as presented. MS. PATTERSON: The Planning Commission did have a concern on the -- on the -- on the inventory issue. There was one building they had a question. We cleared that up for them if that's the question. There was one building that's going to be moving from law enforcement to general government building at some point in the future and we did address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the Planning Commission recommendation is listed on page 66. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the last sentence under the Recommended Actions of the -- ofthe summary, it appears to me that we have to make sure that the impact-fee calculation and any figures approved by the board today concerning absolute number of officers must be an agreement. If we, for some reason, decide that -- that there should be 20 to 30 percent more officers authorized than the current level-of-service standard, we would have to go back and calculate the impact fee based upon that. And since we have not done so, it would be my recommendation that we leave the level-of-service standard as it is contained here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Two -- two other questions. On page 4, this is Table 1, land and building inventory, just two fast questions. Drill Academy office and it says "portable." Does that mean we own this portable or is it gone now that we don't have a Drill Academy or -- Page 18 February 6, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: I saw that on there and just judging from the square footage on that table it must be the entire Drill Academy including a portable that's located there, but we -- we did not own the physical plant. That belongs to the Department of Juvenile Justice so that would need to be removed from the inventory. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then underneath it, the sheriff CID building on Horseshoe, don't you just rent that? CHIEF SMITH: I -- I think we purchased that. I think the county purchased that on behalf of the sheriff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. Fine. Okay. So the one needs to be removed, but the other one is -- is -- okay. Thank you. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just a question for the county attorney. We didn't need a court reporter for this, did we? Or did we? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'd be happy to answer that. There are no court reporters available from our contract pool; however, there's a verbatim transcript and video and audio being made and the court reporter is going to take that video and make a verbatim transcript from it so we are fine. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just happened to notice that we had a vacant chair there so I wanted to clarify that. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think my -- well, no. It hasn't been answered completely. With respect to the population estimates and the recent release of the -- I guess what some people would term is surprising buildout in Golden Gate Estates and the population estimates there, how do -- does that compare with the population estimates that were used in development of these figures? MS. PATTERSON: The population -- Amy Patterson, again, for the record. The population estimates contemplated in this study are about a year old. So what we're doing now, actually we're working on, is going out for an update to this particular study to not only look Page 19 February 6,2006 at population, but also look at the construction and land costs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so if your population goes up dramatically, as I presume it will based upon this most recent buildout study, then the requirements for facilities for the jail and for police officers will go up rather dramatically also? MS. PATTERSON: The requirements in the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, for the future. And that really affects almost everything in this AUIR, not just Category B. MS. PATTERSON: True, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the -- the concern I have is we're dealing with data a year old that is apparently dramatically different than what our most recent estimates would indicate would be correct. How are we going to deal with this when we know it's wrong? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen again. The population figures that were used in the AUIR were-- were supplied by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research in April. They're -- they're provided every April. And what -- what our department does is we take a look at the trends in all the various areas and the traffic, the TAZs basically, and we interpolate that data and-- and modify it accordingly. So right now the data that you're seeing is approximately nine months old. We will be repeating this cycle again in April with the data that comes on in with the additional population figures. We'll be updating that accordingly. And you'll be seeing an AUIR again relatively quick. There's going to be a lag every time when we have these type of numbers that come on in, but we're going to try and reduce the lag as much as possible. And we'll work in concert with Ms. Patterson and the impact fee study as well too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we'll do this again in April? MR. COHEN: We will get the population figures in April. We will do the population projections based off of that. I think our target Page 20 February 6, 2006 date if I -- correct me if I'm wrong, County Manager, about our target date for the AUIR is probably going to be around July or August if we can. MR. SCHMITT: I would guess, Commissioner, from what I mentioned this morning, you will probably see this in August or September in your binder version for a -- to meet the requirement for the December CIE that we have to have the first fiscally feasible completion which now I know is deferred into '07. But we're projecting -- that will be the 2006 fiscal year AUIR. We are actually still working on the 2005. Now, that's a long story, but the short of it is we've had three meetings with the Planning Commission. Your meeting was delayed twice because of the amount of work the Planning Commission put into this. And, of course, this is a follow-on meeting that really was supposed to have been over back in January so... COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I presume that everything we're doing here as of -- has absolutely no consequence whatsoever. MR. SCHMITT: That's a lot of consequence because it's going to serve as a foundation for where we go forward. These -- this AUIR is probably much more -- much more detail has been put into this AUIR -- AUIR than the past AUIRs. And we -- we have gotten some significant guidance from you especially in using the population data and the weighted averages and the other type of issues that have been raised by you and the issues provided to the staff so... COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so you're saying to me that the updated figures that we will get in September will not be as important as what the figure -- as the figures we have right today on this particular AUIR? MR. SCHMITT: They will be important. CHAIRMAN HALAS: More important. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was exactly my point when I said this was of little consequence. Page 21 February 6, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Oh, okay. Now I understand, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because if you're -- you're AIR-- AUIR that you're going to provide us in September has substantially increased population estimates, then -- then our requirements for facilities is likely to escalate dramatically, thereby the necessary funding we require is likely to be significantly higher. And our -- our problems with respect to forecasting revenues which will provide us that funding is going to be even more difficult. So I guess my -- my feeling and reaction is that we can approve anything we want to here today and it won't have much bearing on anything at all, but we'll get it right in September and we'll have new updated -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or August. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- figures or something. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, every -- every year the population estimates change. Okay. That's why you do it on an annual basis. So you're right. We could have some startling growth data that comes in from BEBR and we might not. I can't tell you that for sure. I can tell you the growth rate in the Estates is a little bit more than what we had thought, but maybe the growth rates in the other places in the county where BEBR thought we were going to have some growth didn't materialize; i.e., the Ave Maria area, the Big Cypress special district which we haven't seen any plans on. So I can't tell you that. And we won't know that until April until we take a look at those particular Issues. I think this is important, though, that you basically set how you're -- how -- how you want us to look at population, what kind do you want to use: Permanent population, weighted population, and what those level-of-service numbers are per population that you want us to use in those specific categories. I believe that is important. And I -- if the population increases to a point in time where you can't fund -- physically fund any of that stuff at level of service, then you as a board have to have the wherewithal to -- to reduce that level of service Page 22 February 6, 2006 so that it becomes financially feasible because that's what the state's asking you for as far as level of service is concerned. And I believe they will have conversations with this board if they drop the level of service so that it puts the county in some kind of a -- a straight that they object to. They've done that to us once before based on some changes that we wanted to make to our concurrency particular system. But I believe it's important to take a look at that. We have spent a lot of time as a staff and -- and through the Planning Commission going through this with excruciating detail. And in the Planning Commission's case, they have looked at every one of these level of services against the impact fee that's been used in -- in that impact fee and -- and made sure that those things are tied in. I believe the next update that you will do will be a lot easier than this one because you will have seen this. The -- the population data, if it's changed dramatically, we'll be able to point that out so you'll know and then we'll be able to bring that forward to you in the August/September version. But the reason we wanted to spend so much time on this is because the growth management plan legislature puts a lot more emphasis on this particular product. Second, is we knew we had to do it this time and we knew we'd have to come in with a shorter period oftime for the next AUIR because there is a December reporting suspense that we have in the growth management bill. And so those things have to be done by December. And I can't remember what day it was. It was the last day of December or the first one, Randy. MR. COHEN: I want to correct that for the record. What ended up happening, DCA adopted a schedule just recently. And I -- and I provided the information to the Planning Commission. And our suspense date actually now is March 1 st. So we got pushed back two months in the -- in the cycle. So we have a little bit more lead time on that. MR. MUDD: But what is it going to be years after that? Page 23 February 6, 2006 MR. COHEN: We'll be on a March 1st cycle. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you. Well, that helps us a little bit. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, and then maybe we can come -- bring this to a close and move on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's basically where I'm coming from. First, I understand where we are with this population. You're always going to be an estimate. You're never going to get anybody to stand still long enough to count all the noses. And if anything, if the number's a little bit on the low side, that's a little bit better for the budget and we keep adjusting as we go forward. I'd rather have just enough services or slightly below it based upon maybe a number that's a couple of months old than to try to procrastinate and have numbers that's way in excess of what we need. First, I need the motion reinstated -- stated so I can have a better understanding. And I've a question on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he said to approve the budget as recommended. MR. MUDD: The motion was to leave it at 1.96 officers per thousand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we're not changing that. That -- that moves up and down. MR. MUDD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's basically what was recommended here? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I understand that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe that was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Yes. Approval of this element as presented. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 24 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I -- I seconded -- MR. MUDD: I believe it was seconded by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Commissioner Coyle's motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I looked -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for the correction. That was seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnone -- no further discussion we'll bring the motion to a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item on our AUIR is county libraries and Ms. Marilyn Matthes, your Director of Libraries will present. MS. MATTHES: Good afternoon, Marilyn Matthes, library director. Library impact fees pay for new books and new library facilities needed due -- due to population growth. The current rate is about $180 per thousand square feet of construction and it's based on the cost per square foot of construction of about $200 and the cost of a book of about $25. The five-year estimate in this AUIR is based on the current impact-fee rate and current ad valorem book rate, book Page 25 February 6, 2006 budget. Ad valorem funds are intended to purchase replacement books, not new books. The nationwide average of books needing replacement annually is between 4 and 5 percent of the collection. We've used the more conservative 4 percent to figure the amount of ad valorem funds needed to -- for replacement books. The construction expenses, however, in this report are based on the current estimated construction cost of over $316 per square foot. The cost per book remains at $25 per square foot. The library is expecting an updated impact-fee study shortly from the consultant that will be presented to the board for approval. We anticipate an increased rate that will cover the shortfalls noted in this report. The additional revenue noted at the bottom of the library book stock summary on page 83 is the difference between the projected ad valorem funds for books and what is needed for replacement books. We anticipate, however, that an impact fee again will pay for the shortfalls in -- in this report. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the impact fee was based upon books of 1.6? MS. MATTHES: We had been directed some years ago to increase the books per capita by 0.075 annually until we reached the state average which at that time was slightly over 2.0 books per capita. The rate last year appeared to stabilize in Florida at about 1.8 books per capita. So we at that time decided to shoot for and -- and that 1.8, not the 2.05. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It states in the impact-fee study that it is 1.6; correct, yes or no? MS. MATTHES: Not sure. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson for the record again. In the current impact-fee study it does state that the current level of service is 1.6, but they may be trying to achieve the level-of-service Page 26 February 6, 2006 standard of 1.8 and that's -- that's fine. But the impact-fee study will only reflect what they've actually done, not what they're hoping to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, the fact is, I mean, it's actually a double dip. We're changing population from permanent to weighted increase in the population and now the level of service has changed. So if it's good enough for collecting impact fees at 1.6, why isn't it good enough for overall services of 1.6? MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, I do believe that the libraries have always been at a weighted population, not a permanent population in the AUIR. And we are currently doing update on the impact fees which will take into consideration the 1.8 books per capita along with the additional costs for square footage for library buildings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I have a very basic question. If it's 1.6 or 1.8, what does it come out to be and what is the difference between the two? COMMISSIONER HENNING: One million dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One million dollars -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in books. So at 1.8 it costs us a million dollars more than at 1.6. Is that what you're saying? MS. MATTHES: Approximately. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is: How much additional staff? When I look at this curve and look at the -- the rapid rise in library facilities, what are we talking about as far as staff here? MS. MATTHES: For the South Regional we would hope to add about 20 full-time equivalent people as that building comes on line. The Golden Gate branch is an addition and perhaps only two or three additional people at that time. The Marco project funded by donated funds is -- adds no new staff. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the reason that we got 20 for Page 27 February 6, 2006 the South Regional is because of the fact that it's a brand new facility from the ground up? MS. MATTHES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is the size of that library? MS. MATTHES: Thirty thousand square feet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty thousand square feet. And why did we come up with 30,000 square feet? MS. MATTHES: Population projections at 0.33. CHAIRMAN HALAS: For that particular area? MS. MATTHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then I believe we had a library where we expanded the service in Golden Gate, correct me if I'm wrong, was around 15,000 and now we're going to 25,000. Is that because we expanded it because of the population projection? MS. MATTHES: Population, yes, that used that location. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that's projected population in that particular area, then? MS. MATTHES: Yes. But also people that use that location that aren't directly in that planning district. People actually use the library from the area east of951 from other areas of the county too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would that -- would that also be the same for the South Regional Library? MS. MATTHES: Definitely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. MATTHES: We drew a circle around the South Regional location. And at the time we proposed the building, it was about 90,000 people in that area in the area around that building -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. MATTHES: -- for about eight miles around the building. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so you're using the same criteria in other areas of the county, then? MS. MATTHES: As much as we can. Some of the other Page 28 February 6, 2006 libraries are in -- are -- are much closer to each other and their service areas do overlap. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, can you explain to me why the reporting of the weighted population from an '04 chart is different than '05? MS. RAMSEY: I don't have a copy of the '04 in front of me. If someone has a copy of it, I'll take a look at it for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's one here. It actually shows that in 2004,2005 somehow we added --let's see. MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking about square footage? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm talking about if you got the -- if you have 2004, go to page 52, 2004. And then if you look in today's AUIR, it looks like we -- the projections for '04/'05 has increased almost 30,000 residents. MS. RAMSEY: Sir, I can't explain to you why the numbers are different other than the fact that that's the projection that I've been given by the Planning Commission. But as you can see on the -- on the sheet itself, it talks about population and a countywide weighted in both of those columns. MR. COHEN: And the population -- for the record Randy Cohen. The population figures on an annual basis as Commissioner Coyle indicated, when we -- when we get our -- when we get our statistics from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research every -- every year and we take a look at what's actually transpired, they are going to be modified on an annual basis. So what you see in terms of your projections from all the way from this year forward, they're going to differ next year forward as well too and be adjusted accordingly to reflect the actual population. So you may see some tremendous amount of changes in population based on actual construction, actual changes in residential population, and also actual changes possibly when we talk about weighted in Page 29 February 6,2006 terms of our peak population as that actually goes on up which affects the weighted as well. So there can be some drastic changes in population figures that you've got before you on an annual basis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what it's showing is we had a 10 percent increase above and beyond historical growth. And, in fact, our permits have gone down. I went to BEBR last night. Okay. And -- and what's available to the public, the information that's provided on the permanent population is actually lower than what was reported in our strategic planning and what's also on the web site. I don't -- MR. COHEN: It depends whether you used low BEBR, medium BEBR or high BEBR as well. There are three different figures that are provided. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the permanent population? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just what was reported on their web site. MR. COHEN: And we receive -- we receive information from BEBR that's low, medium and high. And we -- you know, those figures that you saw on the web site could have reflected the low or the medium where we used the high. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, what we have on '04 and '05, the 10 percent difference above and beyond what already was, you know, anticipated and knowing that the permits came down, it's just hard for me to understand. And that's why I'm just questioning it. That's all. MR. COHEN: Yeah. The difference is actually in the '04/'05. It's in the weighted difference and it's 8,000 people. It's 356,976 in last year's AUIR. And 364 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about one line up? But -- but permits went down. MR. COHEN: Well, you -- you have an increase of population Page 30 February 6, 2006 of 8,000 people for that particular fiscal year. And it's just an adjustment based probably on the weighted average of the peak and the permanent that was provided subsequently by BEBR. So this is the adjustment that was made. So it just reflects actually what was transpired in the new numbers that they provided. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, the permits could have been down, but might have been permits from the year before that might have been higher and it takes about a year to build a residence. There's a -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm probably 23 to 25 percent higher in permits than I was last year at this time and revenue almost 40 percent in -- in planning fees so... COMMISSIONER HENNING: In '06. MR. SCHMITT: Right now over last year at this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I was talking about '04 and '05 and I remember that the permits were way down. That's all. MR. MUDD: Let's -- let's -- let's just make sure -- let's just make sure that we -- we're talking about permits, strictly volume or you're talking about new residences being construction. MR. SCHMITT: New residents. MR. MUDD: Okay. And I think there's a difference because you're talking -- I think that's what you're talking about, new residences versus permits. Okay. Permits we're way up. Okay. A permit could be an addition to a house. It could be a screen enclosure to the backyard. They're all that number. New residence, though, would be a number that's down a little bit as far as that's concerned. And I think you're seeing that in the Naples News when they're-- when they're talking about the difference between Lee. And I would say the number of new residences are down, but I don't know if they're down drastically is what I'm trying to get at. Joe. MR. SCHMITT: I can pull up the numbers right now. Give me Page 31 February 6, 2006 a couple minutes, I'll find them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On new construction? MR. SCHMITT: On -- basically I keep track of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, in can get that information later, maybe that will answer my question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it would be great if you could and move on. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. With the $1 million in the books and the -- and the difference in 1.6, 1.8, I remember when you opened the Orange Tree branch -- MS. PATTERSON: Orange Blossom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- actually, they were shy of books. Actually there were a lot of empty shelves. Is -- is -- is that what this million dollars goes for and is that why you changed the calculation? MS. MATTHES: That's -- that's not really why we changed the calculation. We had been changing that calculation annually since impact fees -- we started to collect impact fees. That number kept going up annually. And it was a difficult calculation to make because the population went up each year as well as the books per capita went up. So it was really even more difficult to administrate. And to figure out which pot of money paid for new books and which pot of money paid for replacement books. And the intent of the original impact-fee study was to get to the average per capita for Florida books throughout the state of Florida. And we're approaching that. And -- and, as I said, last year the average seemed to stabilize for the state of Florida at point -- 1.8, not the point -- 2.05 which it had been originally. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, then, by using this new calculation, do you think that -- because we have ravenous readers here in Collier County -- do you think that will better equip our libraries to supply books? MS. MATTHES: It certainly will definitely. Page 32 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And, Commissioners, that is a recommendation by staff is that we take it from 1.6 to 1.8 and you get to make that choice today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I say if it's -- if it's good enough for the impact fees, it's good enough for the taxpayers. And if -- I mean, you're increasing the level of service. And the county manager is talking not only of continuing raising taxes by assessed values, but actually raising the millage rate. So if it works for impact fees, it should work for the rest of us. Let's leave it alone. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll need -- need Amy to -- to get this -- this question answered I think. If -- if we approve the AUIR with a level of service for book replacement at 1.8, when are you going to recalculate impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: We're in the process ofrecalculating the impact fees now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: On what basis? MS. PATTERSON: We're revisiting all of the components of the calculation. But the thing about the books and the 1.6 versus the 1.8, all the impact fee does is tell you what you have now. There's nothing to prohibit you from saying that we want better. You just have to have the funding in place to be able to get there. And your impact fee can't get you there. Your other funding source is what gets you there. Now when we calculate this impact fee, it may be 1.8 or 1.7. But if you still want to achieve 1.8, it's okay for your AUIR to say 1.8. It has -- it has no effect on your impact fee. Your impact fee only tells you what you have now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But if you develop an impact fee on the basis of 1.6 and you actually sell -- spend at a level of 1.8, where does that additional money come? MS. RAMSEY: It's been coming from ad valorem. Page 33 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: We've been spending about $750,000 a year to purchase books. Some of it new, some of it replacement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's -- that's the point. It -- it -- it seems to me that the impact-fee calculation is a more scientific method of arriving at what an acceptable level of service really is. I mean, you're -- you're going to take a look at what other people are charging, I presume, across the state or are you just taking the figure? MS. PATTERSON: Right. Your level of service only tells you what -- what you have now as far as -- as your books for your population and that establishes your level of service. Just like we talked about with the officers-per-thousand population, if the board decided that they wanted more officers, that's okay. Your impact fee only tells you what you have now. And if you want more than that, you have to find some other way to pay for it. You can't charge somebody an impact fee and then come back and charge them to increase the level of service. That's -- that's what's unacceptable. This difference between your 1.8 and 1.6 is okay. If that's what you're -- if you're trying to achieve that for this community, that's fine. It's just that you have to have -- you have to pay for that gap in the funding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the level of service will continue to be based on 1.6? MS. PATTERSON: It will continuing to base -- be based on whatever it is we have. But as they add money, as they've added money over the years, that's how they've been able to increase the level of service from whatever it was when we started back in 1990, 1991 to now. That -- that movement has not been impact fees that's done that. It's been other funding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Amy, the 1.6 is what is recognized by -- the impact fee is the amount of -- the 1.8 that we're Page 34 February 6, 2006 talking about is the needed resource we need to make this function? Is that why we're going to 1.8? MS. PATTERSON: That's what -- what Marilyn was explaining as what's been the standard in the state and I'm -- I'm not going to get into library matters. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, with the standard in the state. MS. PATTERSON: But that's the standard they're trying to achieve because they're looking around saying this is what other communities -- I don't want to step in on Marilyn. Maybe she can explain. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. That's fine. That pretty much answers it. Now, let's go back to the 1.8. Ifwe adopt this at 1.8, will you be able to adjust the impact fee in the near future to reflect that? MS. PATTERSON: We're going to be adjusting the impact fee coming forward. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reflects the 1.6 or the 1.8? MS. PATTERSON: I don't know what the actual number is. I could -- you know, as soon as the consultant gives us -- it's going to be based on whatever it is we have. Now, ifthere's been -- if there's been money since the last update that's helped improve that level of service, then it's going to reflect a little better than 1.6. It might not be this time. It may be in our next update. I -- I -- I don't know. If I had the study in front of me, I'd be able to answer your question. But this -- remember that this impact-fee study was updated last year so you're running at least a year behind. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let me ask a question of you, Marla. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The 1.6 that we presently have, are we deficient books in the library? Is there a waiting line for Page 35 February 6, 2006 people? Is the library under -- MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- understocked with the inventory? MS. RAMSEY: I would say yes. Staffs recommendation is that 1.6 is not an adequate level of service for the -- Collier County based upon the number of readers and retirees and the people going out the door. And Commissioner Fiala is exactly right. When we opened up the Orange Blossom Library that first week, there wasn't a single children's book left on the shelf after we opened that building. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this is -- there's an actual need for this 1.8? That's -- that's what's established? Actually, this ties in a little bit and we might want to consider this is the education that's out there. We're trying to offer the very best we can for the youth of this county as they're growing up. And if we can't keep our libraries stocked at what's the state standard, then possibly we're failing. MS. PATTERSON: In may? There's an upside to this as well. There's an increased level of service then equates to a higher impact fee. So in the end when you get there, the return on your impact fee is going to -- is going to balance it out. So it's not that you're using this additional revenue to get nothing in the end. In the end when you're trying to maintain a higher level of service, it requires a higher impact fee. So it's just -- it's just that it's filling in that gap. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. So the question comes down, is 1.6 an adequate number and we heard no. 1.8 would get us closer to where we need to be and eventually the impact fees will come into play to be able to cover some of the cost. Let's be honest about it. It's not going to ever cover all the cost. It'll bring down what the ad valorem would be. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with that I'm going to make Page 36 February 6, 2006 a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's been a motion by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala for approval on this library building in Category B. Any further discussion? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Patterson, during your impact-fee calculations don't you have to take into consideration the historical other funds as a part of it? MS. PATTERSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So-- MS. PATTERSON: And the ad valorem that is directed would also serve as a credit that you -- when you're -- when you're using that money, that credit doesn't nearly come to offset your increase traditionally unless it's something really large which we experienced for the first time in law enforcement. And because of it being a brand new fee, you saw an extremely large credit in that fee. In libraries you have a relatively low credit even with the infusion of ad valorem money in. It doesn't -- it -- it in no way negates the increases that come forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would be fair to say that our existing residents will be paying more than our future residents once they come on line because you're -- you're always having -- having a general fund infusion. And you're not -- you can't compensate for that 1.6 to 1.8 because always general fund monies are used? MS. PATTERSON: That's why the credit's given, though-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: -- is to promote the fairness. Now, I wouldn't say they were being -- they're not being charged more one way or the other other than that the increased costs are present where they're paying more. Page 37 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion that was presented signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. I think it still passes 3/2. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It fails. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it fails. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was there three? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's three against. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, super majority. Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. It was three. You, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle voted against. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they need a new motion that of something else. I'll make the motion that it be approved at the level of 1.6. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the motion -- new motion on the floor is that we approve the level of service at 1.6. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in could -- in could say one thing. I want to make sure that we -- we understand what's going on. And I don't think that's the motion. This has everything to do with the number of volumes that you're going to produce with impact fees and the amount of building you're going to build. I'm going to tell you what, you're going to come out with two brand new buildings ande Page 38 February 6, 2006 you're going to have a tough time putting books in those. They're not going to be there to put in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm worried about. MR. MUDD: You're going to have buildings that are going to be empty for quite a while with shelves or annexes throughout there. I just want to -- if you take a look at the buildings on page 80. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess that's what we're going to do. Build a building and no books. MR. MUDD: If you look at page 82 with the buildings and then you take a look at 85 which has the volumes that you're going to buy, even at 1.8 you're going to have some issues. But at 1.6 they're even going to be more discernible and that's why. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in order to get the books, then you have to dip into ad valorem taxes? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. If you're going to go above and -- if you're going to go above and beyond what you're getting for impact fees for volumes in order to build those shelves up, you'll have to use ad valorem dollars in order to make that up. MR. SCHMITT: Or -- or you fill it at 1.6 and it's going to take a number of years before you actually can fill those shelves. So that's -- because if you look at the chart that's now displayed, you have two libraries coming on line and that was your direction. And for all intent and purposes what that shows is certainly a -- an excess of square footage, but now the books will not be at the same pace of development as the library. And -- and you're going to end up as Jim said with library space with few books. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, if I -- if I could clarify one more thing because I'm not sure how clear this is. But on page 83 underneath Replacement Books where it talks about the million dollars we're going to need from ad valorem. Whether it's 1.6 or 1.8, we still need the million dollars because we are short in our number of books that should be on the shelves because we have not been Page 39 February 6, 2006 purchasing aggressively enough to replace at a 4 percent the loss that we've had on our shelves. So in order to get even, we're going to have to spend over the next five years about $900,000 additional ad valorem in order to get us back to where we should be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about staff -- expenses on staff? MS. RAMSEY: It's not included in this at all. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But that's -- that's another part of the scenario also. MR. SCHMITT: You get -- this is as Jim says two knobs again. If you want to turn down the knob on one and not the other, you end up with more space than books. If you want to turn down the space knob and not -- and the book knob, again, you may have -- you may start filling the books. You're going to be able to acquire more books and -- and certainly not have the space. You won't have to deal with the increase in space to fill. So you have two motions. You have -- you have two pieces of this AUIR. One is square footage at 0.33 square feet per capita. And then you have another AUIR level of service, the 1 point 18 -- 1.8 books per capita. So it's two separate entities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's take a look at this chart before us very, very carefully for just a moment before we get led too far astray. We've -- we are approving -- apparently have already approved the construction of library space to serve 550,000 people by the middle of, what, is that FY'08? No. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we've only got 400,000 people required. Four hundred thousand people serviced at that point Page 40 February 6, 2006 in time. So we have the space to service an additional 150,000 people who do not exist, by the way. Now, are you telling me that we're going to -- to fill those libraries with books to serve 550,000 people and a staff? You're going to fully staff those libraries or are you going to partly staff those libraries? Now, if you do not staff -- if you do not have books to serve 550,000 people in those libraries because we only have 450,000 people then, of course, you're going to have a lot of empty shelves. And you're going to have a lot of empty shelves for the next seven years because you don't get up to the population level to justify that level of -- of service. MR. SCHMITT: That next chart -- would you hit the next and go to the next chart? It shows the purchase of books. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand that one. MR. SCHMITT: And that -- that one shows regardless -- Commissioner, your point is -- is well taken. Regardless, even on this track you're going to have empty space in these libraries. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. MR. SCHMITT: It just -- it just won't be -- if this is at 1.8 per capita, if we were at 1.6, that figure certainly would be lower. But-- but, yes, regardless, you're going to have empty space in the libraries. It just won't be filled as fast at 1.6 as it would be at 1.8. The -- the time line is to have as shown here when you purchase the books to meet that -- that projected, let's say, 500,000 figure you use at -- at approximately fiscal year 2013, I think that pretty much-- Marla, you can correct me -- but that's what -- what we -- what we have here is, again, kind of a straight-line projection of purchasing books at a -- at a metered rate to meet that demand at 2013. But, yes, we are going to have excess capacity because we're -- we're putting two -- two expansions on almost simultaneous. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this assumes no escalation in the cost of purchasing a book. Page 41 February 6, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Again, this is only a snapshot in time of -- of -- of actually at the end of the fiscal or actually at the end of this -- this 2005 fiscal year. It's a snapshot in time just to project the capital investments. That's all this is. The need for -- it's not -- not the rest of the budget. It's just the -- the capital -- investment in capital assets to support this -- this level of service under the -- the -- well, library services that you're asking us for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I just wanted to -- I just wanted to address the statement that we're going to have lots of empty space in these libraries if we don't give you 1.8 level of service for book replacement. Of course, you're going to have lots of empty space. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One way or the other you're going to have lots of empty space. So I just don't want you to -- to get -- to go down that path because it is irrelevant. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things that I've noticed and I -- I can only tell you the library I've researched and that's the East Naples Library. Yes, it's just a postage-sized library. I understand that. It's a 6,600 square feet library that's serving 90,000 people. But even though that's the case, we're still short of books. I get comments all the time from people saying, How come we never have any books in the East Naples Library? And if it needs -- if we need to increase this level of service in order to have books for people to read and programs for children, then I'm all for it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All for 1.8 or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1.8 is what we need. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We just voted that down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe we'll have to go back and revisit it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner -- Commissioner Coletta. Page 42 February 6,2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Schmitt -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a few minutes ago you were talking about if we don't have -- we don't have -- if we free up the libraries, we don't have the books, we got empty space. You were mentioning the fact that if we're going to turn one of these dials down, we should be turning the other dial down. MR. SCHMITT: No. No should. If you wanted more books and not to spend more money, if you wanted more shelf -- more books on the shelf, so to speak, then you would reduce the square footage. I mean, that's what I was trying to point out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But then we're right back to where we were before. We'll just try -- be building another library that much sooner. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's a lot more expensive to build it in the future and increase the -- and then try to -- try to add the addition on. So it's one of these Catch 22 situations. We either get ahead on the books for a little while or we -- we have facilities that are underutilized. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To do what? CHAIRMAN HALAS: That is to change it from 1.8 to -- the motion is 1.6. To approve 1.6 in regards to people per -- per books. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and accept the space and book standard of 0.33. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And accept the space level of 0.33 square foot per -- per individual. And I believe I have a second on that motion. Am I correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. Page 43 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion before we call the question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So now we're back to where we failed agam. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So maybe we can restate a motion differently to make it all legal, huh? MS. RAMSEY: Maybe you want to split it and go 1.7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1.75 I was going to make a motion for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor for 1.75 on books and still retaining 0.33 square foot. Okay. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The only thing with that is make sure you don't send all your kids to the library at the same time. That's the only catch to it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Won't have any -- won't have any books. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Still be a little short. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. Page 44 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we got 3/2 in favor of and that is 1.75. MS. RAMSEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this rate we'll be here till midnight. I don't know if there's a couple commissioners that are missing. And we're trying to -- hopefully we can get this moving along. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we can't be here till midnight because the Republican Executive Committee is coming in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Roll into their meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think we want to stop for lunch too or dinner so... MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you want to take a break or take a break now or do you want to keep on? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Drive on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wishes of the panel here? Let's take a break for ten minutes. Be back at -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three o'clock. How about -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three -- three bells. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, three bells. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Take your seat. We're back from recess and we'll continue on. I believe the next one is county emergency medical services. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Jeff Page, your Director of EMS will present. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could please take your seats. Page 45 February 6, 2006 MR. PAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. In fiscal year '02 we went from a weighted population back to a permanent population. And the thought was then was that we would put up seasonal units to address that seasonal crowd of 100,000 or so to compensate for that. It also immediately gave us a surplus of three units at that time period when we converted. The first year it worked pretty well. The second year we lost about a percent and our response times increased about a percent. The third year the same thing. So what we're asking is we -- we're requesting that we revert back to a weighted population. That would be consistent with what our impact-fee study says is based on a weighted population. And also it would improve the response times. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else you have to offer? MR. PAGE: Sure. Here's our current level-of-service standard. This is from fiscal year 2000 was the last time it was adjusted. This is the -- the goal of our county responses with an eight-minute travel time. What we call travel time is what the National Fire Protection Association adopted as the national benchmark for ALS arrival and response. EMSAC also approved that, our EMS advisory board. Currently right now we're hitting that goal 78 percent of the time. Where normally we'd shoot for 90. What we do -- originally when the level-of-service standard was conducted, it was based on a mean average of six minutes or less in the urban area. What that basically means is 50 percent of the time you arrive in six minutes or less and 50 percent of the time you don't. What's now the national standard are using fractal (phonetic) analysis. And if you'll look at the chart here in front of you, you can see in the -- the light blue areas there's four areas that we are able to meet that standard of -- the first one, Zone 1, what's labeled as Zone 1 is one of the city fire stations that we operate out of in the south. Zone 15 is the North City Fire Station we operate out of. Zone 4 is Marco Island. And then Zone 22 is relatively a new station. That's the Grey Page 46 February 6,2006 Oaks Station that came up. You can see if you look all the way to the right the number of calls in those zones. There's only 527 listed for that Zone 22 so far because it came up mid year. This -- this is a kind of interesting map here. What we've done is through GPS coordinates, if you look in the area that's the red area that's circled up at the top left, all of these dots, the brown dots, represent calls that exceed ten minutes in response and we track that. And that specific area in the north is where we seem to be hurting the most. So, obviously, one of our main goals next year is to put a station up in that area to address that. It's not just the number of units that you have, but you have to correctly put them in those areas. This is an actual breakdown showing the rural versus urban, the goal and the actual of what we're currently doing. And then this -- this actually shows the cost of how that's calculated and broken out. Obviously, what we're proposing in the AUIR is -- is probably not the best way to say it, but this is the worst-case scenario. In other words, in the next five years what we're looking at is to have six owned stations and three co-located. Of course, co-located is what we usually try to do either with the sheriff or the fire districts. But in some cases there is districts that do not participate in that kind of a co-location. So we're hoping that everyone will and if it does, of course, the cost of this would go down. The availability of land through different trusts, that would be another thing that would reduce this overall cost. I have had some discussion with school board officials about possibly locating. They're not necessarily saying they would sell the land but a long-term lease, maybe 99 years of where we could co-locate on their properties, that would be the ideal situation. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions? Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had -- I had heard that one of Page 47 February 6, 2006 the charges is $9,000 to transport by helicopter a patient plus $100 per nautical mile. Is that true? MR. PAGE: I believe the base for your helicopter transport that was approved by the board for the user fees is a $6,000 base and the mileage maybe 100. I believe that -- that may be correct. Now, there are -- if you're talking about when I met with the Planning Commission, there are med flight 135 providers in the state that are private that do charge that much. There's a $9,000 base and some of their mileage is $185 a mile to transport. We -- we do benchmark with those each year when we bring that to you, but currently in Collier County it's 6,000. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- what other calls that you go on to besides medical calls that dispatch asks for an ambulance? MR. PAGE: Well, typically the breakdown is 49 percent are trauma related. Now, these are -- a great majority of those are car accidents where even before we confirm that someone's injured, that's an automatic dispatch. You take an incident on the alley, that's something we would respond to even before there's law enforcement on scene or fire. The same way within the City of Naples. If it's a car accident, it's an automatic dispatch just due to the probability that there will be a transport involved in that. Sixteen percent of our calls are cardiac related. I would say about 2 percent on an average month are cardiac arrest, whether in full arrest, but 12 percent are respiratory in nature. If you'll remember back when we had gone back to a permanent population, we came to the board and one of the things we were going to do was reduce the number of calls that were what we felt not necessary. In other words, it was typical back then that if there was a structure fire, it was an automatic response for EMS to go and to provide support to the fire fighters, rehab, things of that nature. We've Page 48 February 6, 2006 discontinued that. I met with the fire chiefs and basically told them if they're en route to a fire that they think they're going to need support, they can call us. Or if they arrive on the scene and find that they actually have a working structure fire, that they need support, to just request us and we'll come at that time to stand by. So we have tried to reduce the -- the number of calls. If the board remembers, we allowed Naples Community Hospital had their own COPCN, that eliminated those routine transports between the-- the other facilities of theirs. We've discontinued doing routine interfacility transports out of county. We still continue to do trauma alerts. And if the helicopters available and the hospital guarantees that they'll be the provider should that go -- go unpaid after 90 days, we will transport to another facility out of county. But typically there's a lot of private providers that provide that service and there's not a great need for us to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When we made that decision, I believe it was last year, to stop the transports between interfacilities, I don't see a credit on the -- on the graph of -- on page 94. The one you had out previous. MR. PAGE: Okay. Are you -- this one here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. PAGE: This one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct. We're on page 94 of our -- MR. PAGE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Jeff, it's the graph. MR. PAGE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MUDD: Right before -- just before this one. There you go. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You put that -- you had a dedicated unit for intertransport. You're not doing that anymore. Where's the credit for that? MR. PAGE: Those three positions were reassigned to the Page 49 February 6,2006 bureau, actually. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, so they're not on the street anymore? MR. PAGE: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Page 92. You want to -- you want five fire trucks staffed by five licensed fire apparatus or staffed by -- oh, they're already staffed by Collier County? MR. PAGE: Right. We -- we exchanged personnel through the ALS engine program where they give us a fire fighter, EMT or paramedic to drive our rig. We put one of our fire fighter, paramedics on theirs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I misread it. I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. PAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It was my understanding that -- that when we worked out the transport agreement that it would free up one that would be used to actually improve our response time. But now you're telling us it's been removed from service? MR. PAGE: What we anticipated the way that it would work is because of the reduction of the number of transports we provided in Naples Community Hospital, that that would alleviate a growth unit for the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But you're showing here that you -- you need a unit at least in the years 5/05, '06 and '07 and I presume '04. What happened? It didn't result in the approved level of servIce or -- MR. PAGE: Well, we -- we did try to address it through a couple of different ways. One was to have seasonal units to -- to take care of that seasonal growth. It worked for one year, but the season has just seemed to expand a lot longer than those three months that we first anticipated. Additionally, the ALS engine program, we now have 19 Page 50 February 6, 2006 engines throughout the county and -- and we do track their response times. However, it's not uncommon for some districts not to have all their engines up that day. In other words, they're not mandated. Oftentimes this same unit is responding with us to the same call. So there's really no benefit realized there. I don't really control their units as far as -- as putting them to the best place where we need to have them. And the other part of it is ifthere's a fire, forget it. They're not available. They're going to work the fire. They are -- they have helped us but, again, the goal and the national standard is that 90 percent were not able to meet that urban -- I wouldn't expect us to meet it in the rural setting but, you know, we continue to benchmark against other agencies and we do -- do need additional units. There have been a few occasions where I've only had one unit available in the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my -- my -- my concern isn't that you need additional units. I think that's fairly clear. My concern is that -- is that you're going to wait until FY'09 or FY' 1 0 before you -- you meet the number of units required. So -- so that -- that bothers me a little bit. MR. PAGE: Commissioner, I can understand that. One of the -- the productivity -- or the planning commissioner, excuse me, had the same question. But to be quite honest, I'm not sure I could staff that many that quickly. There's a huge paramedic shortage in the state. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but our -- our performance at least meeting the 90th percentile is -- is not good. Only, what, four out of all of the -- the districts that -- that we're dealing with. And since at least, what did you say, 43 percent of the responses are for some sort of trauma? MR. PAGE: Yes, 49. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forty-nine percent. Then -- then it would appear to me that it would be very important that we get up to the appropriate level of service as quickly as possible. Some of the Page 51 February 6, 2006 areas that were not experiencing good response times were, I believe, in Golden Gate City and in the northern part of the county. And -- and those -- neither of those areas is considered a rural area. They're-- they're pretty densely populated. And I -- I would suggest that we -- we adopt a level of service that is realistic to get us to the minimum performance level as quickly as possible rather than trying to do it by sometime in the next four years. And -- and I might suggest that you either recalculate the level of service based upon peak or weighted average population rather than -- than permanent. Clearly we have a big increase during the summer -- during the winter season. And -- and that puts a big workload on you. Or as you -- you indicated, seasonal units would be brought in to service during peak season to accommodate greater workloads and staff to work overtime personnel. Apparently, you haven't been able to do that, have you? MR. PAGE: I'm sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. PAGE: Just the last -- the last sentence, the question itself. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- you've made the observation here that seasonal units would be brought into service during peak season to accommodate greater call loads and they would be staffed by overtime personnel. There's no indication that you have done that. What is the outcome of that particular proposal? MR. PAGE: Well, traditionally each year we have done that. And -- and it's still-- the first year it did work, but the last few years it has not. It has not taken care of it. It -- it puts a Band-Aid on a deep-gaping wound is what it does. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess my position is that we ought to develop a level of service that gets us to the performance level that we think is appropriate which I would presume would be that 90th percentile. And -- and it looks like we've got a long way to go before we're going to get there. Page 52 February 6, 2006 MR. PAGE: Understood. CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many units per day are deadlined or out -- out of service because of mechanical problems or whatever else or scheduled maintenance? MR. PAGE: At -- I probably have ten in reserve, Commissioner. And at anyone time I wouldn't say more than two are down. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. PAGE: So-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: So does that reflect your level of service here then? MR. PAGE: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: With those units being out of service? MR. PAGE: No. No. They're -- I've never had -- I always have the full amount out. And -- and most of the time more when needed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Well, as Commissioner Coyle stated, what do we need to bring up the level of service so we're in a 90th percentile? MR. PAGE: Well, staff believes that if the units are properly placed, if we can go back to a weighted, we believe we can do it based on everything staying just as it is. The level-of-service standard staying at the figure that it is now, but based on a weighted population we think we can do it if we can get the units in the right place. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, your weighted population, is that based only on three months or is it based on six months? Because it seems that people are staying here for longer periods of time. MR. PAGE: We would prefer to have a weighted population for the entire year -- to use a weighted population. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Have you -- have you seen a significant difference in the last few years in regards to how long the season seems to last or is that just not a reflection of what I think it is? MR. PAGE: Well, I think most of us would agree what used to be three months about a year or two years ago was six months and Page 53 February 6, 2006 now it's, like, nine months of the year. It's almost as if they're not leaving. And -- and if we're using -- basically the way it worked is for 15,000 people we would have one unit. And that's based on that -- that number of people generating a little less than 1,700 calls. Now, when we go over 100,000 people during that peak season, that's way more than just three units. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Going back to this again. Weighted BNA an average across the whole year? MR. PAGE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other being-- MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner -- Randy, go over it one more time. You have to do it four months and then eight months. MR. COHEN: Yeah. The -- the calculation for weighted population is is we take the peak population which is four months out of the year and we calculate that, basically it accounts for a third of the population and the weighted population. And then we multiply two-thirds times the permanent population. So the calculation is basically assuming, you know, that we only have that peak population here for four months out of the year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't this the same scenario that got us in trouble with the sewer treatment plant? MR. COHEN: Potentially. And it's a concern that we have in-- in -- in our department that I think the last time we actually looked at figures pertaining to peak population was probably maybe five or six years ago. And we need to take a look at it again and look at the figures that actually determine when the people are here and how long they're here. And if it's the direction of the board to do that, we'll do that this year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're looking to deal with the situation by going with the population estimate that will give us the least number of units that we need? That's what we wanted to do Page 54 February 6, 2006 to be able to bring it in line with what we have? Is that what we're trying to do or is it the other way around? MR. COHEN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're doing it by level of service, I believe. MR. MUDD: In 2002 it was changed from weighted population to permanent population. There was -- there was great hope that the ALS program and -- and some other things that -- that Jeff could do, like, bringing on a unit during the high season or two units during the high season for a two-to-three-month period of time could alleviate the issue and we could get -- and we could provide the level of service and -- and basically use those resources as efficiently as we possibly could. As -- as the time has gone on the population is staying here longer. High season is stretched out. It's not so pronounced in the middle anymore. It's out on the ends of that curve. They've gotten a lot higher. So there isn't so much of a peak that you can see till about June time frame. And then they start coming back in October again. So -- and the ALS program is -- is a wonderful program. But I will -- I will tell you Jeff -- Jeff can't count on them like he can count on one of his own that's being dispatched in order to handle an EMS call. He mentioned in his conversation that if one is out fighting a fire, they're fighting a fire and they're unavailable. He could get a call where that ALS engine responds the same time that his paramedic unit goes. And Commissioner Henning mentioned that this morning. In some cases you could get three people showing up. You could get a sheriffs deputy, a fire engine and a paramedic all at the same place. And maybe it wasn't even a place where you had a medical call. It could be a family disturbance. And we're trying to work through that particular issue with the 911 and some other things to try to find some efficiencies there. But this is a change from permanent trying to just get by to Page 55 February 6,2006 weighted to try to -- to see that peak period and -- and the units that he's got. So I believe that's an increase in level of service to Commissioner Coyle's question. Jeff might want to bring on a unit sooner to -- to try to catch up with that backlog through 2010. You might want to front load that a little bit when those replacement or when those new paramedic units come on board. And we'll take a look at that. But I believe your level of service has been increased because of going from permanent to weighted population. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only other question I got is you've taken into account the fact that when probably the response time is the slowest would be when we have more residents here and the demand's more. But is the road -- condition of the roads and the crowding of the highways have a lot to do with it and -- MR. PAGE: Certainly it does. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but by adding staff will we actually be able to alleviate it or is nothing going to change? MR. PAGE: Well, it will reduce the amount of travel time they would have especially in the urban area if the stations were -- ideally when we do a co-located station, I've got fire and EMS responding out of the same station. As we move out further east, I -- I'm not anticipating that a lot of those stations would be co-located just from-- from history. But as that happens, as you have a station that maybe now is eight miles apart as opposed to eleven, that may make a difference. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One other -- one last question and forgive me for dragging this out. But in order to have an ambulance station some place, why does it have to be in an official EMS station? We have a lot of facilities within the county. Why couldn't it be at even on the water treatment plant? If it was a strategic location, would it really matter? MR. PAGE: Not to me. I'm -- I'd be the first one -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you already have surplus Page 56 February 6, 2006 ambulance. You said you had ten in reserve at all times and two of them may be down. So you're still running with eight over and above what you need allowing for that two to be down at any point in time. If those units were just put out there to those locations, maybe just during the high season, you know, when we have the crowded roads, wouldn't that take care of it and maybe keep the cost down? Too many questions? MR. PAGE: Well, no. I think -- yes, it would take care of it but, obviously, I mean, these people need a place to rest. I mean, it's not just -- they're not in their trucks all day. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put cots -- put cots in the water treatment plant, whatever. There's got to be ways around this. MR. PAGE: Oh, I agree. There are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A lot of the facilities have showers and break rooms that have -- must be a full kitchen. Let's-- I'd love to see what we could do in the short run to be able to utilize the materials that we have in hand to be able to get the maximum effect out of it in the shortest time possible. So right now if you're running a deficit and running over that ten-minute window that you're trying to respond and you got eight extra ambulances, you got personnel to be able to put into it, I guess they're coming on line now? MR. PAGE: Well, I mean that's the other part. Yesterday I had ten mandated for overtime. This is not offering. They were mandated. Today I have nine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the contracts with them allows for overtime every single week, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PAGE: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which is another issue I'm not going to get into. MR. PAGE: No. But this is above and beyond their 56-hour week. They were forced to work doubles because of vacancies. Page 57 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My God. I'm telling you, I know you're having a hard time filling these positions, but at some point in time I hope we reach the point where 56-hour weeks go by the wayside and we get down to something more realistic. If they're really going 56 hours, and hopefully they're not, how -- I'd hate to be that person they respond to on the 56th hour. They've got to be exhausted. MR. PAGE: Commissioner, sometimes I have people that work over 200 hours in two weeks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know, but it scares the daylights out of you, though. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. MR. PAGE: They're prepping themselves. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we approve the level-of-service standard that will get us up to the minimum performance criteria of 90 percent as quickly as possible and hopefully before the end of this year. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that if you'll add that they'll look into the possibility of utilizing the resources available as suggested. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question and the motion is by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Coletta that we approve this, but we need to get the level of service up to 90 percent as soon as possible and to look at other avenues of where Page 58 February 6, 2006 we can establish a criteria for EMS to basically be there on a -- on a temporary basis like, say, during the season. Is that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's basically, you know, just to look at it and traffic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, can I -- can I interject for a second? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. COHEN: I think it may be more appropriate to -- to adopt the AUIR as presented with the proviso that the Commissioner just added with that condition as well too. Because the AUIR as provided does reflect the level of service that will bring you up to that particular 90 percent goal, but what you want to do is expedite it. So I think that would be a proper way of stating the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. By about three or four years. MR. COHEN: Correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the motion was made to expedite it as soon as possible, ASAP, within this -- within this year's time frame, if possible. Is that the way the motion is stated? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the difference between what I said and what Randy is suggesting is that we adopt this level of stand -- this level-of-service standard. Because it is designed to get us up to the necessary performance level in 2009, 2010, but we want it to be done earlier than that. So it should be expedited hopefully no later than the end of this year. Okay? Is that CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that clear? MR. PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay with the second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Along with the other -- Page 59 February 6, 2006 the other points that was brought up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of adopting the level of service and the motion that was made signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign. (No response.) MR. PAGE: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is government-- county government building. And Mr. Ron Hovell and Mr. Skip Camp will present. MR. HOVELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I guess there isn't necessarily a record today, but in case there is I'm Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department. First, let me start with some background on this one. This is only the second year in which an AUIR is being reported in this category. Last year it was reported that the level of service which reflects -- which was based on the impact-fee study was 1.9 square feet per capita weighted. And what you have in your book today is based on 1.7 square feet per capita weighted and we're going to get into some discussions about what should be the right one. But the other main area I wanted to point out is that probably unlike any of the other categories that you've probably heard where there's a main operational proponent before you discussing the support facilities needed to do their jobs, in this case it's sort of the other way Page 60 February 6, 2006 around. Our department provides facilities for a wide range of users, many of which for various reasons can't own or maintain their own facilities. So we represent a number of elected officials and other user departments, not necessarily limited to just the Board of County Commissioners. So, for instance, the courthouse with the -- the judges, the Clerk of Courts, Supervisor of Elections, Tax -- Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, et cetera, all fall into this category of government buildings. So with all that said, what -- what's on the screen before you is also in your package is the list of specific projects that are felt to be needed based on all the various user inputs and various pieces of master plans over the years. And what we've tried to do is tailor that to meet the most urgent needs. We actually -- if you go back to -- to the master plan that was approved by the board in 1998 and that has been brought back to the board on other occasions just in support of various projects, we're actually well behind the curve in trying to provide the spaces needed for various entities. And we've got a fair list of leased space to accommodate the difference between what we've actually built and what the needs are out there. As a matter of fact, a couple years ago I think the annual lease -- dollar amount for leases had exceeded a million dollars a year. And I believe it's within the -- the last couple years that between the county manager and perhaps this board the direction was given that we really need to work our way out of leased space. So as we looked into this category, I think what we have found is not dissimilar from a number of the discussions you've had this afternoon about other Category B facilities. And that is that at the snapshot in time when the impact-fee study was -- was done, the -- the assets that the board owned, not leased, because those can't count into impact-fee studies, as compared to the population, at the time equated to a 1.7 square foot per capita level of service. But when the master Page 61 February 6, 2006 plan was done and -- and not necessarily funded, had we had the foresight to do an impact-fee study back then, the population was a lot less, but the -- but the assets at the time were probably a lot more similar. So the level of service at the time might have been significantly higher than the 1.7. As I mentioned before, last year when -- which was the first year that this category was reported upon, I think somehow it came to pass that the 1.9 square foot per capita was adopted. And it's -- I think the confusion factor was in the impact-fee study, both 1.9 and 1.7 are -- are referenced in there. And it gets into a discussion about, are you talking -- which type of population are you talking about? The way the impact-fee study was written, the 1.9 actually referred to 1.9 square foot per functional resident, but then when you flip the page, the next page went on to say, but since the county doesn't tend to be able to do all the detailed calculations to come up with a functional population, they recommended that 1.7 square foot per weighted population was actually the appropriate level of service that could be supported by the impact fee. So I think the main questions that we would have for you today would relate to, do we want to reconsider what the appropriate level of service is? I think if we were to look at things such as leased space and the history and -- and try to support the master plan, it would appear that the 1.9 would be the more appropriate level of service. But the other area would be to specifically look at this list of proposed projects, some of which bring their own funding with them. So it's really not a funding issue. It's just whether or not they're going to -- to get done or not to see do we want to start working on the design of some of these projects so that, you know, in another year or so as we go through this process again, we will not have stopped any progress on -- on being able to execute these as they become needed. As you've noted on page 103, the first page of the government building's AUIR in your booklet there, when it got to the Planning Page 62 February 6, 2006 Commission and we tried to go through these issues, their bottom line seemed to be that we should (A) be consistent with the impact-fee study calculations and -- and, therefore, if -- if there -- if a need was driven for more ad valorem taxes, that should be minimized. So their recommendation was to take the roughly 100,000 square feet that's proposed as the FY'06 through 2010 capital improvement element and basically defer all those out past the five-year reporting windows so that there would be no costs planned for the next five years. I think that summarizes where we are so far and perhaps you want to focus me in on which areas you want to start discussing in more detail. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question. MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where the property appraiser's presently located across the street, is that also in this -- this isn't -- he's not in -- listed in here, is he? MR. HOVELL: It's leased space, sir, so it's not included as -- it's not included in the inventory, but it is, obviously, a space that we're having to provide through another means. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So is it better for us to lease or is it better for us to own? If it's better for us to own, shouldn't that be part of the -- part of the needs in the county? MR. HOVELL: There's a lot of subjectivity there about what -- what do you mean by "better"? There's economic analysis, et cetera. So I'm not sure which part you want to talk about. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the most cost-effective, leasing or building? MR. CAMP: It's more cost-effective to own the property with one caveat. And that is there's an interim period of time between projects that then it's -- it's -- it's appropriate to lease between one project and the other. Hopefully, that amount of time, though, is short. Page 63 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what you're telling us here, the courthouse annex stays No.3. That's what it's going to take to accompany the two additional judges along with their staff? MR. HOVELL: Well, just to make sure we're clear on what that means. Courthouse Annex Phase 3, the board has already approved the construction of all seven floors, but not all the floors would be finished out for occupancy. So the Annex Phase 3 means that we would finish the last three floors of the courthouse annex. If -- if your question is, who wouldn't get to move into the courthouse if we -- or the courthouse annex if we don't finish out those three floors, maybe Skip could better answer. But is that the gist of your question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the gist of my question is, as we-- as we put more judges on staff here, I believe it's our responsibility to make sure that they're adequately housed. MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And, therefore, is there a formula that the judges need for square foot to accommodate probably not only their staff but I'm sure they've got some type of a library or whatever else? MR. HOVELL: The -- the space was -- was anticipated in the courthouse as part of the overall master plan. The courthouse annex in the master plan should have already been built a couple years ago. So as we now bring on new judges, the courthouse would already have the judicial spaces available for them to move into. As it turns out, because we haven't already built the annex, in order to accommodate the judges that you read about in the paper as coming here imminently, we're actually having to move people out of both, I think, the courthouse and maybe even this building into leased space to make room so that we can modify some of the space that's currently in the courthouse into courtrooms and judicial spaces so that they can -- they can operate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And when I take the square Page 64 February 6, 2006 footage that you present here and I round off the figures it comes out to about 103,000 square feet. MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir, 100,000. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this the -- is this the 104,000 square feet that the Planning Commission took away? MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're -- you're showing a surplus of 100,000 square feet in the five-year -- in this five-year plan. MR. HOVELL: Well, that goes back to the discussion about what's the appropriate level of service. Ifwe use only the impact-fee study as the basis for what's the appropriate level of service then, yes, the math works out that it appears that there's a surplus. As I say, though, at the time that the impact-fee study was done which was already, let's say, three to five years after it started to become apparent that we had no other real funding source to -- to execute the master plan. When they took that snapshot in time and you do the math of what we owned, it turned out that we owned 1.7 square foot per capita. But what did we need? We needed more than that. We -- at the time we probably accommodated about 10 percent of our space needs by having people in leased space. That 10 percent isn't included in that 1.7. If you were to take 10 percent of 1.7 and add it to -- you know, increase it, you roughly come out to 1.9. So I think from a what-do-we-need point of view, I would argue that we probably need closer to 1.9 square foot per capita. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm all in favor of slowing the growth of government down. I'm okay with 1.7 personally. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is the 1.9, is that based on -- you're telling me that the courthouse annexation or annex that we're putting on there, not annexation, but annex, is here to accommodate the Page 65 February 6, 2006 judges that we're going to be taking on line as the population increases and this is something that should have been addressed two years ago; is that correct? MR. HOVELL: The original courthouse -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're behind -- we're behind the eight ball? MR. HOVELL: The master plan that was approved in 1998 showed the courthouse annex being completed in 2005 or 4 -- 4. I'll be more specific too. The -- at the end of 2007 per the master plan, we should have 900 -- almost 935,000 square feet. If you look at what do we have right now today, we have 604,000 square feet. If you look at between what's already approved and what's being proposed in the capital improvement element, by the time you get to the end of '07, I think we're looking at about 725,000 square feet. I mean, no matter which way we've looked at it, we -- we wind up with over -- over the last two or three years we've been bringing down from a million dollars a year down to -- I think we got down to just under $400,000 a year in leased space. And it kind of bottomed out sort of between last year, this year time frame. And now as we go forward because we don't already have space to move some people into, we find that our lease costs for the current year are now approaching $600,000. And as we move into next year they're going to continue starting -- in that upward trend because we don't have space to put these people into. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's hard for me to believe that you can build a building, payoff the debt of whatever you are spending for rent which includes CAM and now you're adding a building and then you have to maintain it on top of that. Six hundred thousand is not going to get you very far in the square footage as you were growing government. I mean, I don't -- I don't think leased space is all that bad in some cases. Page 66 February 6, 2006 MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, if you take a look at the leased space and what you get, all the maintenance of the leased space, all the configuration of the leased space, it's all at your cost. So you're leasing a facility. They take no maintenance on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's -- I'm -- I'm sure the statement of 600,000 or 400,000 is a part of the CAM price. And when you build the building and pay the debt off, you have to include the cost of the maintenance in there except for the taxes. I mean, you're not paying property tax. And leased space, you're paying CAM and property taxes. We're not exempt from that; correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we still pay those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So, you know, you got -- you got to include all those figures when reporting to the board. Again, I'm okay with 1.7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. You want to go ahead? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, no problem. A little bit of help on this. The Planning Commission recommended 1.7. Staffis looking for 1.9? MR. CAMP: We feel the 1.9 better represents the direction to get out of leased space. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's --let's ask the honest question. This is the question that's begging to be answered right now. Give me a comparison of where we stand as far as other counties go as far as the amount of square footage per capita. Can you give me something like that to give me a comparison? I imagine there are some numbers someplace. MR. CAMP: I don't have that number. The number I remember was that our square foot per employee was much smaller than the average when we did the master plan. And that our standards -- for Page 67 February 6, 2006 instance, a -- a clerical person or a technical person has much less square foot than the -- than the average. They're very, very conservative, but I don't have per population. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I remember it too. And I -- I -- I don't remember the exact numbers which would have been a little helpful now. Also, too, the number of employees per capita, that would -- that's an interesting statistic also. And someone has that here I assume. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I've -- we've got that. And we're -- and we're low as far as the number of employees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where are we as low goes? I mean, there's 67 counties -- counties out there. MR. MUDD: Well, I provided -- I have to go get that information, but I don't have it right here at my -- my fingertips. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You don't recall it? But I remember the chart myself. Per capita we have one of the lowest rates going within the state. Forgive sometimes the questions. I'mjust trying to lead up to something more substantial in my memory. Did I say that right, Donna? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know either. But we've been doing a good job of maintaining that. And now we're at the question, do we want to -- do we want to grow the government square footage to be able to put it under our own domain rather than renting it? I can always tell you, you're always better off if you own the land and the building that's on it, better than you can rent it. Now, sure in the short-term, I mean, if you've got a business and you're not too sure if it's going to be here in five years, you're going to go in and you're going to lease and you might take a three-year lease out with a two-year option for renewal for that -- with the idea you might be there. And after five years you might know if you're going to be able to swing it and then you might look for your own building. Page 68 February 6, 2006 I don't think Collier County Government's going to go out of business in three years or five years. I think we're going to be here. I, for one, would like to hold with the 1.9 unless somebody can show me the science that we're not going to come out ahead by doing that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, 1.7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. 1.7 was recommended by the Planning Commission. I'd like to stay with 1.9. MR. CAMP: Could I just get one thing on the record also? Our space is somewhat compartmentalized. I would -- would ask you to -- to look at the State Attorneys Office that you -- you by Florida law have to provide them space. Look at their space. Look at the attorneys that are in closets. Look at some of the -- the clerks' space, some of these Constitutional officers. Some have adequate space because in the last year or two we've -- we've increased their space or we've improved the space. Other ones have not had that. And -- and two that come to mind are the state attorneys that are literally, they've taken break rooms and closets and those kind of places and put employees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can take a break right now and go up there and take a look. I don't know if anybody wants to go there. MR. CAMP: That's -- that's one and, of course, the clerks' area. But there are a number of these areas that -- that it's very, very tight. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for 1.9 as staff originally recommended. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess the motion fails for a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make the motion to approve the Government Building Category B at 1.7. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Page 69 February 6, 2006 Commissioner Henning for building -- or the factor to be 1.7 square foot per capita. And it's seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. I guess the motion passes 3 to 2. Commissioner Halas and Coletta rescinded. MR. CAMP: In could, sir, the level of service is something that we, in essence, grade ourselves against. And part of the drill with -- with doing this AUIR is to get direction of what you'll-- what you would expect to see in the upcoming budget cycle. The list of projects that was proposed in the five-year plan, the Cap-Ops facility, as an example, comes with its own funding and it's a relatively small project. I guess I would propose that we continue moving forward on that one even though it's going to increase our square footage and make it look like we're -- we're further overbuilt. Some of the others, you know, perhaps we'll bring forward on an unfunded basis and to get your specific direction on as the time comes to see if you specifically do not want to pursue those. Would that be the general direction that you would expect us -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why are we going through this exercise? If -- if we already adopted a level of service, why don't you just carry it out? MR. CAMP: Well, no level of service can be matched exactly when you're building buildings in the neighborhood of 30 to 50,000 square feet. I mean, it's -- it's very difficult. You're always either going to be over or under. And as you can see in the charts, by Page 70 February 6, 2006 adopting 1.7, we're -- we're going to be -- even with the projects that are already approved, we're going to be over out through about fiscal year 2013. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we just keep that? MR. CAMP: That's why I wanted to clarify. So you're suggesting that we cancel the Cap project even though it's coming with its own grant money? That's why I'm asking the question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that makes sense if -- if it's going to fund itself. You know, that's something that you should bring to the board. That -- that wasn't just stated. MR. MUDD: You want -- you want us to -- I want to know if the commission wants us to cancel these projects there in front. And what happened on the master plan is I already moved 112,000 to Building F that was scheduled for 2007 out to 2014. If -- if that's what the board wants to do, you are going to be tight with space. And I can no longer try to get people out of leased space and get them into government owned based on board direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- which one are -- are self- funding besides the county? MR. CAMP: That's the only one. MR. MUDD: That's the only one, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's -- that's exactly what I was going to ask. Number 1 is which came with their own funding and as long as it came with their own funding, then I -- I don't believe that's a drain on -- on the taxpayers. So I think we should move forward with that. That's just one recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the matter? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's we're into public category -- Page 71 February 6, 2006 public comment. We've got our answers on the particular issues. I need to get some -- some clarification on the board as we go through the particular AUIRs, but you want to go to public comment? They have everything to do with roads, I believe. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I don't know how many speakers we've got signed up. MR. MUDD: Five, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five? And if we can limit to three minutes a piece, that would be wonderful. MR. MUDD: The first particular -- or, excuse me, the first speaker is Tom Comercode and he'll be followed by Bruce Anderson. Okay. The first speaker is Bruce Anderson followed by Reed Jarvi. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress Law Firm and I'm here on behalf of the Bonita Bay Group. I want to address myself to some action that -- that you-all took a week or so ago that -- that we're all still trying to figure out what you did for sure with regard to the Annual Update and Inventory Report. The -- the way I read the comprehensive plan, the AUIR is supposed to identify problems with our capital facilities, public facilities. And separately, the amendment of the capital improvement element is supposed -- is supposed to fix the problems that have been identified in the AUIR. And any delay or removal or speeding up of road projects is supposed to occur as part of the Capital Improvement Element Amendment. And that it's premature to delay, remove, or speed up a specific project in the AUIR. I think that by -- if that is, in fact, what you did, I think that unintentionally you -- you may have short-circuited the public hearing process that's supposed to occur when the capital improvement element is required to be amended to reflect what happens in the Page 72 February 6, 2006 AUIR as far as identifying future needs. The Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.4.3 states in pertinent part that projects for which appropriations have been made in the annual budget will not be removed once they have been relied upon for the issuance of a final site development plan, final plat, or building permit. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who's running the time -- is anybody watching the time over there? I don't see a -- no. No. No. There's supposed to be a little counter or something over there. I'll give you one more minute, sir. MR. ANDERSON: To summarize that policy, once the county has issued a development order based in reliance on a road project listed in the capital improvement element and funding for that project is in the annual budget appropriation, it would appear to be a violation or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan to remove that specific road project. There are six implementation programs for the CIE that are set forth in that CIE, one of which is your concurrency management system. And the capital improvement element states that the AUI-- AUIR summarizes actual capacity of existing roads and forecasts the capacity of existing and planned public facilities for each of the following five years. This same paragraph states that AUIR forecasts are based on the most recently updated schedule of capital improvements. In other words, it looks backwards. So before a road project and its projected capacity can be removed from the AUIR forecast -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bruce, can you wrap it up? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: You first need to amend the capital improvement element. There are some contradictions it appears to me in your comprehensive plan. And bottom line, your action may have Page 73 February 6, 2006 been premature. And because delay of a project has the same effect as removal, you need to -- you have some -- you have some impediments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: And I hope you'll reconsider. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: The next speaker is Reed Jarvi, followed by Daniel Delisi. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we go, the county attorney, did you want to respond to any of these comments? MR. WEIGEL: Why doesn't -- why doesn't the county attorney respond at the conclusion of the public speakers? Then we can serially take care of any of the questions or issues that they've raised or that you have for us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Reed. MR. JARVI: Thank you, sir. Afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer practicing in Southwest Florida and I'm actually representing my firm who represents several developers on this issue. I was at the AUIR -- AUIR hearing about a week and a half ago. And as I understand the rash -- what went on is the commissioners have voted to take out of the two-year concurrency window all projects that are not -- do not have a signed construction contract. I want to talk about a couple of issues there where I think that you have an unintended consequence primarily doing -- to deal with contractors working on the projects. I know one of the issues that led to this was we can't get the projects done on time. There aren't enough contractors in the area. They don't do enough work, et cetera. I think you have an issue by doing this that's going to make it worse, not better. I know, I see why you did it, but I think the consequences are going to make it worse. Page 74 February 6,2006 One is that if you take it out ofthe two-year window basically, now at year three and it moves to year two, now all of a sudden the project -- construction project doesn't have a construction date. It goes to zero or stays at year three for however long until such time as you put out a construction contract. So either you are putting out a construction contract premature before you get all your permits, before you get all your right-of-way takings, before -- excuse me, right-of-way acquisitions, before you do all your design or you basically have elongated your process because now instead of having that done at time zero, you have it done at time two -- two years. So you've added or would add potentially up to two years to your whole work process. I know one thing we want to do is move the roads faster, not slower. We've just added time to it possibly. Other things are talking to contractors about this. If you have this two-year window at times zero or, excuse me, the contracts come out at two years, one of two things have to happen. Either the contractor has to now hold his prices for an extra two years, so instead of a two-year construction schedule from his perspective, he's got a four-year construction schedule, that can only drive prices up. It's not going to drive -- it's not going to help the prices. So it's going to make it more expensive and cause more problems from that aspect. And the -- and the third thing is that if you want to attract more contractors to the area, which has been a stated goal several times over, we need to have more contractors, having this period of two years when we're going to have a construction project coming in but we don't know when they're going to come in, the contractors aren't going to worry about Collier County. They're going to work in Lee County, Dade County, Broward, FDOT, wherever, who have, you know, in three months, we're going to have a construction contract, not sometime in the next two years. So I think you're doing some of the consequences that certainly weren't intended that are happening that will lengthen the construction time. Page 75 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wrap it up, please. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. Will-- will actually be against what you're trying to do. And the last thing I'll just bring up is if you do this, now there are projects that would go in the pipeline -- that won't go in the pipeline, excuse me, development projects. And instead of paying their road impact fees early which we have in our system currently to pay it at the time of plat or SDP, half of them, they won't get there. So you won't get the revenue stream. And I don't believe this -- excuse me. I think this also negatively will impact your revenue stream and possibly your road program. Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Next speaker is Daniel Delisi and he'll be followed by the last speaker who's Tammie Nemechek. MR. DELISI: Good afternoon. Dan Delisi for the record. I'm the Director of Planning with the Bonita Bay Group. Recently I've had the experience of working with a number of you through my service on the state's impact-fee task force. And I can just relate to you my personal frustration with that process is that we took an issue out of context from the broader scheme of how do we pay for our infrastructure. How do we get things built. And really the issue here is very similar to that. We're -- we're taking one thing out of context from the larger issue of how do we fund our infrastructure and how do we get it built in a -- in a timely fashion? What we're talking about here -- because as Reed just mentioned, we're not talking about new growth and the impacts that will have. Because if you cut things off at the -- at the SDP or plat stage, you're not going to ever be able to collect impact fees for that. So you're really talking about paying for new deficits -- paying for existing deficits, excuse me. And so how -- how are we going to be able to do this? Well, this also has spin-off effects. Let's take our project on Immokalee Road. Page 76 February 6, 2006 It has a very serious impact to that. We've been working with the county for the last two years. We've been working with the environmental groups, with staff to work on the TDR program, make that program work. And all to do with what would be the county's first rural village and now that that's potentially in jeopardy. Well, if you don't have a receiving area, and remember, Immokalee Road is the major receiving area for the county or one of them, you're not going to be able to send the units to that area. You're not going to be able to achieve the environmental goals the county's laid out. You're not going to be able to achieve -- achieve some of your infrastructure goals. And I say "infrastructure goals" because that project in Twin Eagles we project will generate around $20 million worth of impact fees. So as far as Reed's comment about disruption of impact fees or revenue streams go, that -- that's -- that's pretty valid. Now, what I'd ask you to do is let -- let's take a look at this. Let's figure out how we can collaboratively work together to address the infrastructure needs. There are things that we do need to work together on. We need to work together to make sure that the state legislature doesn't do anything in this next session to -- to diminish the county's ability to -- to collect a fair impact fee. We -- we need to work together to make sure that we get more funding for roads. We need to work together on the glitch bill so -- for SP 360. But if you -- if you proceed down this road, really you close the door on a lot of that. All I'm asking for is -- is to hold off on doing something with the AUIR that will stop the ability for us to -- to collaboratively work together and address some of the -- our collective needs with road infrastructure. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, if you don't mind? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 77 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The -- right now you're permitted to do what, about half your project? MR. JARVI: You know, I don't have the answer for -- are you talking about Twin Eagles Phase 2? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, yes. MR. JARVI: Right now we have -- and I think Bruce can better answer that, but we haven't submitted the SDP for the units. We've only submitted that and got approval for the golf course. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So -- yeah. So this is something that went through the whole process. You received your approval. MR. JARVI: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if -- if this went forward, this would technically, it would be almost like a moratorium that would identify you rather than Ave Maria and Heritage Bay. It would be specifically aimed at -- at you. MR. JARVI: That's exactly correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if it takes place and you aren't able to pull your permits, that's when we get our impact fees; is that correct? MR. JARVI: That's when you get-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Half of them up front? MR. JARVI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When was that supposed to come on line? MR. JARVI: We were going to submit within the next month or two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be about $29 million, you said, or is that the total -- MR. JARVI: No. For -- for Twin Eagles Phase 2 it would be about 6 million for the project on the south side of the road. It would be about 14 million. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Total 20 million. Page 78 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've been through all this 100 times. You went through the whole process and here you are today. Thank you. MR. JARVI: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Your last speaker is Tammie Nemechek. MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak here today. Tammie Nemechek with the Economic Development Council. Speaking on this analysis of roads and transportation and how we pay for it and we went through a strategic planning session this morning and identifying economic development as one of the top priorities, talking about development out in Eastern Collier County, lack of strategically located business and industrial parks out in eastern Collier County. Looking at the lack of infrastructure out in Eastern Collier County it's the top priority for -- one of the top priorities for the Economic Development Council. How can we start putting jobs out in Eastern Collier County? With develop -- development of new industrial parks being able to bring these on line as quickly as possible is one of our top priorities over the next five years. In the short-term we're doing an analysis right now in the population growth of Collier County and -- and how much industrial and business park land we're going to need and how quickly we're going to need to put that on line. I don't have -- I don't come to you today with the answers to all of this as far as -- as what implications there might be as a result of some of the decisions related to the AUIR. What I do come to you is to say give us a chance and some time to be able to analyze what those implications might be. And whether or not we might have an opportunity to put in an industrial park on line, get a business sited there but not be able to move forward on it because of some of the transportation issues. How can we probably Page 79 February 6, 2006 fund that to make sure that we're doing both concurrently in order to allow us to have the best chance for success for economic diversification. So, again, I don't come to you today to say that, you know, I have the answer that this is the right way or the wrong way. All I'm saying is just give us a chance to be able to analyze it a little bit -- a little bit more in depth to be able to make sure that we're heading down the right path with regards to ability to develop these parks in Eastern Collier County. Thank you. MR. MUDD: That's all the public speakers, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any comment or dialogue from the commissioners? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in order to -- we're still working on the 2004 capital improvement plan. And the action that we did we still -- we still need to adopt it in the growth management plan; correct? MR. COHEN: The -- the AUIR from last year was adopted in the comprehensive -- was adopted in the comprehensive plan as a capital improvements element update. And this particular AUIR was subsequently adopted as a capital improvements element amendment as well too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It hasn't gone into the growth management plan? MR. COHEN: No, sir. This particular AUIR will be forthcoming as part of your evaluation and appraisal amendments and which you'll see in the beginning of April. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. MR. SCHMITT: Transmittal in April and adoption in November. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I assumed it would be next year that we would adopt that based upon private sector submitted last year and paid gobs of money. It took them more than a Page 80 February 6, 2006 year before to get -- get through. MR. COHEN: The recommendation from DCA is that the capital improvements element be incorporated in with the evaluation and appraisal report amendment as well. And that's the tact that we're going to take. And the Planning Commission will see it in March and you'll see it in April. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I have a concern if we're not going to collect impact fees. I think we all know that these -- these roads scheduled for 2006 are going to happen. But we're -- I have a concern that we're not collecting impact fees are going to hurt other projects down the road. If we're -- if we're going to get out of the collecting impact fees at a 50 percent level at SDP or plat, then -- well, that's my concern. I know it will. I think it will hurt the other roads. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think where we -- with the dialogue that took place on the Board of Commissioners here when we were going through this segment was -- the discussion that came up was the challenge that was thrown out to Norm Feder was, can you get these roads built this year or next year and he said basically probably not. And I think that's where we started to go on that dialogue, if I remember correctly, about letting contracts out because we couldn't make that. And I stand to be corrected. I thought it was that -- there was no way that we were going to make that boggie of the roads that were laid out in front of us for 2006 and 2007. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think there are a couple of issues that -- that need to be refreshed in our memories. Number 1, the -- the Board of County Commissioners merely provided guidance to staff about how we should deal with the capital improvement element. The -- the -- the idea that the AUIR and the capital improvement element should somehow be inconsistent is a little strange to me. That they should be consistent. So that if you -- if you want to establish a policy that assures uniformity in handling Page 81 February 6, 2006 those, then we did that. And we did not avoid the public hearing process. The AUIR process was very clearly advertised and as will be the capital improvement element review and approval and the growth management plan update will all be properly advertised and it will be debated at that point in time. We haven't created a capital improvement element at this point. The other thing is that we are obligated to provide financially feasible projects in the capital improvement element. Yet we don't have anybody who can tell us whether or not the projects are financially feasible. We just had to turn down a bid to construct the road. If we have bidders who are giving us prices that are 70 percent over what we estimated, how does it suddenly become financially feasible? It doesn't. The state has removed $30 million, the Davis Boulevard/Collier Boulevard intersection improvement. Is that still financially feasible? I don't think so. So we have a situation where the staff cannot tell us whether or not they can afford to pay for some of the projects. The only way you find out is to get far enough along in the planning process to determine roughly how much it's going to cost. And so that's essentially what we -- the guidance we gave to staff. Don't put it in the capital improvement element unless you are sure that you can do it in the time allocated. Why? Because the new Growth Management Bill permits a developer to proceed with construction even if road capacity does not exist if we have the road improvement program, not completed program in the first three years of the capital improvement element. Now, I don't want to go there. And -- and I am personally not going to go there. And I don't believe the people of Collier County will go there. And if that's where people want to force us to go to get the real answer, we can do that. So I think there's ample opportunity for us all to cooperate on getting a glitch bill to solve this problem. We've got 60 days or so to do that. And if we take advantage of that and we work together, maybe we can have a solution that -- that Page 82 February 6,2006 works. But right now, in my opinion, we're in a position where everything has been taken out of our control. Our concurrency process no longer will work. Developers can proceed with construction even if road capacity doesn't -- doesn't exist. We cannot get projects done within budget because contractors are charging us exorbitant sums of money. We can't get the contractors to deliver on schedule because they can't get enough labor. So the government, in my opinion, does not have control of this situation. And until such time as we get control of the situation, I'm not going to put the people of Collier County in a position of suffering more traffic gridlock just because some developer wants to proceed early with their -- their development and construction. I'm not going there. The rest of this commission might go there. I -- I already see a substantial amount of backsliding here. So I -- I suspect not only with the commission, but with the staff. So -- so it would not surprise me if the staff and/or the commission didn't -- didn't -- didn't proceed down the path of backing off on some of the guidance that we previously had established, but you're not going to get it with me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I can assure you I'm not backsliding. I'm right where I was when this whole thing started and I haven't changed yet. I represent a large portion of the county that's going to be looking for these roads in the very near future. And I can tell you it is the responsibility of this commission not to say we'll wait to see if we can do it one way or another. It's the responsibility of this commission to find a way to make it work. You can't say we're going to take a look at the option down the road that we're not going to be held hostage. We're going to wait to see what develops as far as the state goes and then we'll proceed for everything is just fine and dandy. Well, the people I represent don't think it's fine and dandy. They've got an hour and a half drive to get Page 83 February 6, 2006 to work and it should only be about 30 minutes. The roads have got to be finished. And we have the responsibility to make sure we bring everything into line. The question is, is the system broken? And I say it isn't broken, not yet. It could be down the road a little ways. But remember, what's before the state legislative body can easily be changed. That glitch bill is alive and well going forward. Mike David's sponsoring it from the house. Burt Saunders is sponsoring it from the Senate. We've got to give a little bit of support to these people. Now, suppose something goes terribly wrong and all of a sudden they roll over the top of us and they decide that their -- their will's going to be done and that the building industry will have their way and the glitch bill isn't going to go. We always have time to react at that point and go forward. What we're doing now is pure -- it's dangerous. It's dangerous as anything else. Also, too, you got to remember, who's this going to effect? Think about it for a minute. It's going to effect -- not going to affect Ave Maria. That -- that was a development of regional impact. It's not going to impact Heritage Bay. Two of the biggest ones going are completely off the hook. Nothing to worry about. God forbid, the biggest -- what we got the problem with, what you see as far as those graphs goes about a week or so ago showing Golden Gate Estates, forget that. That's all platted. That's protected by Florida State Statute. You cannot go in there and start carving that apart and say you can't build now. We're going to hold back on it. That's individual houses. That's going to go forward. It's going to catch a couple of developers out there. And I don't know what purpose that's going to serve except shorten our ability to bring in the funds that we need. And we went to a very lengthy process to get to this point to be able to prove. And we made them jump through the hops -- hoops. We made them come across with all sorts of, what do you want to call it, gifts to the public to make sure Page 84 February 6, 2006 things would come out right. And now -- we're at the point where, now where we want to redraw the lines on something that mayor may not happen. I'm really concerned about it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess I'll throw my two cents worth in. I don't think it's so much our legislators that are -- lived here and have been elected by the citizens of Collier County. My concern is about the other legislators up in Tallahassee that we don't have any real control over. And I'm -- I'm concerned in regards to what -- what issues we're going to have in front of us. And I think this is something that we need to come back and readdress again as we find out how the legislation shakes out up there. I know there's a couple of people up there whose names will remain anonymous that are -- are deaf against impact fees. I think there's -- I -- I don't think the issue of GAPs is dead yet. I think there's some people in the legislative session that think that that might be an avenue to pursue. I also think that they're looking for -- for the commissioners to impose additional taxes to -- to address the growth issues in the county. So I think what we're trying to do here and the message we're trying to send out is that we're very concerned about what's happening. And we don't -- want to make sure that we don't burden the citizens here in Collier County. And I hope that we can, one way or another, work together. And I think that's the best plan is to try to work together as we -- as this legislation goes through the -- the House of Representatives and in -- into the Senate. But I think we -- we have to make sure that we are astute to what's going on and make sure that it's in the best interest of all here in -- in Southwest Florida or in Collier County. So with that I turn it over to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, the answer to Commissioner Halas's question, because I understood it differently, you said that you can meet these time -- time lines to get the road Page 85 February 6, 2006 under contract. MR. FEDER: What we pointed out in the AUIR is that we had some projects, actually, four of them. One that's under construction that moved from 2005 to 2006. Other than one project that we brought to you for some cost savings and right-of-way Immokalee between 4l and 75, we had had and experienced no delay over the last five years. And also showed you a slide of what lanes had been added since 2000. But we did have those four projects. We reviewed with you on those four projects. One of them was Santa Barbara. I think we all know why we had some delay on that project working through some of the community concerns. We had County Barn on that list. And that's going towards construction this year. And that one was waiting on the LASIP permit issues and we have that and we feel comfortable and moving forward there. We had Rattlesnake Hammock, which as I relayed to you, went from '05 to '06. It's now under construction. But that delay for many months was resolving the issue on panthers which was resolved by us putting up some signs on 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. The largest one of issue was 951 from Immokalee to Golden Gate Boulevard. There we had had some delay for various reasons. We've got all of the right-of-way in hand. We didn't -- we didn't and do not at this time have all the permits in hand, but what we had pursued was going out to a bid based on doing Tree Farm Road first while we're in season, getting that construction going. And then resolving our permit issues which we pretty much resolved with water management permit. They've told us that they're going to their board with issuance. We're working with the Corps and they've already started the notifications, not wetland issues. We'll find out if we have fish and wildlife, which hopefully we don't. So we're working through the last of that. The issue is to get Tree Farm moving during season and then go to the construction on 951. As you know that bid came in some 70 percent high. Major Page 86 February 6, 2006 components of that bid that were very high were PVC pipe, as well as fill, as well as excavation and other issues. We went through, negotiated with that single bidder that we had on that project, weren't able to bring it down appreciably. And, therefore, brought to you a recommendation to reject that. We and staff are making some modifications and will put it back out to bid. That's a lengthy way of presenting to you that we had some issues. And we recognize that we are facing some risk factors right now both in the level of work that we have going, what the state experienced in escalating costs, what we're experiencing with petroleum prices. And so that's why we recommended to you two things. One which was if a project was out of that two-year window that it wait until it goes under construction because it can't be a moving two-year window. And the other was a workshop which I think in strategic planning today we agreed we'd do to talk about how we moved some of the risk factors of where we get fill, where we get rock, utilities, our long-range plan and our commitment to it and other Issues. In answer to your question, we did not say that we cannot deliver. What we told you was we could not guarantee time and we definitely could not guarantee in this climate price. And that was the concern that was raised by the board. Weare neither supporting nor backtracking on that position. We're here to carry out the wishes of the board. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not sure if you answered -- answered the question. MR. FEDER: I hope I did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't -- we can't depend on time and cost? MR. FEDER: You hopefully can depend on time because we're Page 87 February 6,2006 going to continue production. Although it was said by Reed, I think the direction from this board is even if we took the action, we're to continue our production cycle and to try and deliver as we intended to deliver, but only then to bring to your construction contract hopefully on time and then at that time the impact-fee issues would start to flow. If we could not bring that construction in, we wouldn't be taking that money from the impact fees and we wouldn't have been in a position to deliver. The issue at hand is probably the most outstanding is one of money, with the unknowns out there with the contractors for various reasons. The issue of production, we had some delays. I explained why permitting being a big part of that. And we feel comfortable that we're going to continue to do our effort to deliver on time. And other than the few that I've mentioned, I think our track records been very good, but we do have a time of greater risk and greater vulnerability right now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing is we've got everybody -- all the road building companies are busily working the issues in Lee and Collier County. And that's why we only ended up getting one bid on a particular project. MR. FEDER: Well, for the state and private sector and they're stretched fairly thin. That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I haven't changed my vote. Responsible growth is -- is where we should be at. That's what we're here for and so I have to stay with how I voted before. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, thought you were going to get away for a moment, huh? MR. FEDER: Tried. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Sir, let's --let's talk turkey on this. Page 88 February 6,2006 MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're having a hard time right now dealing with the contractors that are out there on roads. And the simple reason is what you already stated. They're overextended. They got their choice of where they want to work and when they want to work. They can't get enough employees. They probably get enough machinery, but not enough people to put on it. There's a limited amount of rock out there that they can send anyplace they want. So would this be weakening our position? If you were a road contractor and you had a choice of anybody you wanted to deal with, would you want to deal with somebody that was uncertain about when things were going to come or that we're leaving it open because their AUIR is now open the way we're talking about doing it or the way we've already voted to do? Would this leave you with some uncertainty . MR. FEDER: Talking to the industry I get a feeling that if we resolve some of the risk factors, some of which you've noted, but there's others as well, whether or not they're going to get held up by utilities. I have one contractor working two jobs now that just paved right down the middle with the telephone pole still sitting in the middle. Because they pointed out to me, which I thought was refreshing, that when they bid a two-year project, they lose money when it goes to three. And if we can't get the utilities out of their way, then they lose money. So I think we've got a lot of things that we have to resolve. In answer to your question, Commissioner, I'm not trying to -- this policy will get our direction. But what I will tell you is that if we are continuing our production, if we're putting it out to bid, if we resolve some of the issues of how we deal with the industry and there's things we need to talk about in workshop, issues of risk that they're talking on that we place on them about their time and their ability to Page 89 February 6, 2006 deliver because of other issues that aren't in their control, then I think we're in better shape on the bidding process, but it's still true that they have an awful lot of work out there. There's a lot of competition for it. The state has seen great increases in their cost. Lee County has. Lee County just bid out another one and came back at about 15 percent over and they were happy with that which I would have been on 951 as well, I guess. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you're saying is that this would have no effect at all on the process as far as it goes to choosing us over some other -- MR. FEDER: It depends on the message the board gives. Ifwe produce it, are we going to then move on it if we bring you a construction contract? If that's the message that we're committed, as soon as we're ready to produce it and we produced it with all permits, all right-of-way and everything ready to go and we have worked through some of the risk factors, I think the industry is concerned about, while we still recognize, we're still arms' length, we still have to manage them, then I think we're fine, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So I understand that we're going to be looking at this AUIR again, what, in April did you say, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: We will start the process in April with basically the population figures. You -- you will not see it until late fall probably. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So if we find in Tallahassee we have -- we have the legislators working with us on this glitch bill so that then we find that it won't be an impediment to us, we can always modify what we do right now; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: You asked a couple of things here. One -- first of all, let me explain with this. We're going to produce the CIE which is our -- actually becomes an element in our growth management plan. Page 90 February 6, 2006 That's CIE, the capital -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- improvement element will be -- you'll see that as part of year-based amendments in April and then for final adoption in November. About the same time you'll be seeing an updated AUIR for the following year CIE. So it's a kind of a repetitive process. But so to answer your question, so you laid it out, yes, you're going to -- this is a moment in time, but as the program -- Norm experiences changes over the year and -- and when you see the next AUIR, it'll -- it'll reflect that. But the issue here today is applying the rules as directed which we're ready to do exactly that. In fact, we've got our guidance and we're applying the rules. The county attorney can clarify when those rules will be -- actually be in effect. And -- and -- and from the county attorney's opinion, they will not be in effect until we actually adopt the CIE and -- but that's -- that's the issue at hand. Once we adopt your guidance, we basically have new numbers and Norman's checkbook that we now use to approve or disapprove development orders. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, in could point out another thing relative to your question. We have a project coming up very shortly for -- we've already let. We're looking at the technical side of a design build and then shortly reopening the actual bids after we've done the first part of the equation and then bringing that to you. Maybe that will give us a better feel for our bid situations and where we're going to be. And the other was, again, as Joe pointed out, ours is to follow the staffs -- the policy guidance from the board and that's the staffs role. What I told you before was I don't mind being held accountable, but I cannot guarantee. And for the public the guarantee is what the board is seeking, then I understood what the direction we're being given. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. Page 91 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Commissioner Fiala, if I could, let me try to answer the question you asked that was never answered. Yes. We will see it again. This is merely planning guidance. You will see the capital improvement element process. It will be fully debated. Everybody will be here. We'll hear their comments. We can -- we can make those decisions at that point in time. We hopefully will have additional information about whether these projects are moving along or not. Now, No.2, does it make things easier for people, for contractors? You bet it does. When they know that we've got permits, when we properly plan the project, we've got the right-of-way, everything is set up, you bet that's easier for them. Because it's more predictable for them to get the job done. So -- so there's a lot of scare tactics going on here that -- that simply don't reflect reality. Now, with respect to our predictability, I will tell you no matter how -- how strongly Norman feels about his ability to get these things done, there is no way to predict that because it's out of our hands. Somebody else makes a determination about how much it costs and how long it's going to take. It's not us. And if we are wrong -- if we are wrong, the people of Collier County suffered as a result of that. What Commissioner Coletta is trying to prohibit will, in fact, occur as a result of the action to move forward as he has suggested. So -- so it is a serious situation that desire -- that deserves careful consideration. And, yes, there -- there is time for us to take a look at how the glitch bill goes through the legislature. There is absolutely no need for us to change any planning guidance at this point at all unless it is to establish a planning moratorium. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I don't want to disagree, but I have to. What Commissioner Coletta said about Golden Gate Estates will continue to grow, the quarry will Page 92 February 6, 2006 continue to grow and the Ave Maria is under construction. Those affect the Collier -- the Immokalee Road and the Collier Boulevard. And that's not going to change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and neither will anything else that we've got where we have the money to do it. The only thing we're talking about are those things that are unpredictable so... COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- but -- but let me --let me point out to you, if it's in the plan and it isn't completed, that traffic's going to be there anyway. So you're not -- you're actually -- by taking the position of going ahead and putting these -- these projects in the first three years of your capital improvement element, you're saying that that impact can occur whether or not you've completed the roads or not. You're actually committing to putting more traffic into the Golden Gate Estates area. So -- so what I'm trying to do is to get some degree of control over just how much traffic can be loaded into roads that are already failing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about government accountability and predictability and -- and -- and the process of getting the right-of-way on time and getting the permits on time to see that we get good estimates on the projects coming in? I mean, we-- we -- we have taken issue with the State of Florida about funding. And the funding issue is not an issue from what I'm told. I mean, we can anticipate it's going to be higher. We don't know that; right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know it. We're not going to get the money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in order to have accountability, shouldn't we be getting involved in the process and making sure the right-of-way and -- and the -- and the permits are obtained on time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would -- I thought we were doing that. The problem is that we're always dependent upon other Page 93 February 6, 2006 people. You can't -- you -- you've got to sit down and negotiate the purchase or the gift of right-of-way. Sometimes it goes to court. It takes time. We don't control that. It -- it takes time for other agencies to issue permits. We don't control that either. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we can help and assist on that -- on those issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we can but I'm not sure we really helped and assisted too much on the one in effect for Immokalee Airport and -- and the concern about the panther study out here, you know -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I'm told that a representative and myself helped to get the permit on Vanderbilt. I would hope that's true. So why aren't we doing more of that? Why don't we see that these projects are staying in time and on line? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We ran into a problem, I believe, with the Corps on Immokalee Road. That held us up over a year. And every time you deal with either the Corps or you deal with the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what our Congress -- Congressmen or Senators -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: But it all takes time. It all ends up taking time. You don't get it overnight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just -- you asked me the bit about the funding. Let -- let me tell you, there is no way the legislature can or will deliver the funding they promised. The reason for that is they didn't anticipate the huge increase in -- in construction costs across the state of Florida. That's the reason that the Department of Transportation is hurting for money right now and the reason that the Davis Boulevard project was shorted $30 million. That money will not come here. We might get some of it, but not nearly the amount of money to do the job. So the only thing we can do is to slow down a little bit until we plan these things properly and find a source of funding. Page 94 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. Can we get this wrapped up soon? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm fine. I'm going to be very brief. Everything was going quite well for a moment there until we used the expression "slow down" until we find the proper, appropriate source of funding. We're talking about slowing down the roads? Is that what we're talking about, the construction of the roads? I need clarification of what you're suggesting and where you're coming from. I'm talking about the roads that we're going to be planning out for the next five years in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me ask you this question: Do you want -- do you want the traffic added to the roads before the roads are completed? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I -- of course I don't want that, but I want the roads built because they're desperately needed now, but the idea we're slowing the roads down, that's an unacceptable statement. That's the first time you've said that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got some pool of money that we can use to do this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but that's our responsibility to find the money. And I -- I'm not going to let anybody off on the hook on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll -- I'll be looking forward to your proposal on funding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're finally down to what the truth is here. The truth is to slow down the roads that we're building, to drop back a bit and see what happens in the future. Ladies and gentlemen, that's not what I heard earlier when we had this discussion started. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that was pretty much what I heard the first time we discussed this on the dias. That's exactly what I heard Page 95 February 6, 2006 when they said we're going to push it back -- some of these roads back two years. That's exactly what -- what we were talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Push them back two years just in name only and run two sets of books is what was explained to me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, somebody said we couldn't run two sets of books. So I think -- I think what the direction we need right now -- I don't think we're going to get anything accomplished this way. I think what we need to do is when the next AUIR comes before us in April, hopefully we'll have a better understanding of what's going on up in Tallahassee, and I think that'll -- it's going to be our guiding principle in regards to how we're going to address this. So I really don't think it's a real issue other than the fact that we give staff direction right now to -- to look at what we have on the books. And then I think what we can do is readdress this when the next AUIR comes before us. I think we'll have a better handle on it. And I don't think two months is going to make that big of a difference; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: You'll see the CIE in April, not the AUIR. The CIE is going to implement the guidance you gave us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you said there's another AUIR that's going to be coming out. MR. MUDD: We start -- we start it in April. MR. SCHMITT: You won't see that until fall. But the CIE to implement this guidance you will see in transmittal as part of year-based amendments, you'll see in transmittal in April. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that still gives us the flexibility at that point in time when we see what's going on up -- up in Tallahassee; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. As Commissioner Coyle said, it'll be -- if that is transmittal, that is -- will be debated. It'll go through the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. And then it comes back for adoption in October/November from the Page 96 February 6, 2006 Planning Commission, then to the board. So the key here is in -- probably this is where David needs to define the guidance you gave we cannot implement until we have an adopted CIE. So for all intent and purposes we -- we -- we will adjust the plan. Norman's program has been adjusted. But legally the -- as far as the -- any implementation of, quote, checkbook concurrency will still be deferred until the CIE is actually adopted. Now, we talked about other measures that you may want to discuss putting in place in an interim until that CIE is adopted. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what we'll do is -- at this point in time we have the flexibility before us. And what we basically did is basically sent a message out there that we mean business in regards to concurrency for roads. So hopefully that with whatever -- whatever the process up in Tallahassee is, hopefully we -- the message will be sent there that we mean business as far as concurrency. And -- and we'll go from there. And when the CIE comes before us, I think that'll be the guidance. David. MR. WEIGEL: Hi. Yeah. I'd like to have a few comments here. I think I'd like to, by your leave, respond to the public speakers as well. I think it might assist here. The vote that the board took at its January 25th meeting relative to this transportation element, it does have an affect, notwithstanding that the affect will come into place ostensibly several months from now. As Joe Schmitt indicated and Norman as well, there is a process where the AUIR becomes a basis or an evidence of capacity taken into account with the CIE. This CIE is yet to be implemented. And the implementation process is one which will occur some months from now. Ultimately the adoption of the CIE becomes an amendment to your growth management plan. And, as we've indicated, the CIE having its basis in this AUIR will have to be reviewed and approved through the Department of Community Affairs, the DCA, and that is Page 97 February 6, 2006 months away. Now, Mr. Coletta mentioned -- mentioned that vested and we have indicated that those developments that are already vested will not be affected by the vote already taken on the AUIR transportation element even when it is implemented through the cm Growth Management Plan Amendment process months from now. Vested development will not be affected. Neither will out in the Estates, as an example, the residential development in platted subdivisions. That has what's called the diminimus standard that applies and so those can go forward. Mr. Anderson -- Bruce Anderson speaking had read from a Section 1.4.1 and was concerned about the projects being removed. However, in reading that section I would reply that, no. In fact, by the vote that you took with the AUIR and the timing element that your vote effectively indicated did not remove projects from the capital improvement element. It changed the timing in regard to letting of contracts having -- moving out two years, but they were not removed. So I wanted to assure Bruce in that regard. Mr. Jarvi had talked about a disruption of the revenue stream such as impact fees. Well, again, that would not occur even if the AUIR -- AUIR transportation element is adopted and continues through its path of eventual implementation through the cm and amendment of our growth management plan through the DCA months from now. In the meantime, things will continue as they are right now. And so if we, in effect, are telling everyone who listens or cares to learn that there is nothing happening immediately from the vote that was taken by this board on the AUIR transportation element a week or so ago, it would be many months from now that it would start to have an affect. But the vote is more than merely a statement. It will have an implementation affect through the cm and the growth management plan several months from now. Page 98 February 6, 2006 Now, in that process there's a possibility of contest of -- in -- in the review by the Department of Community Affairs which conceivably could delay to some extent the eventual timing of adoption of our CIE as amended in -- within the growth -- as an amendment into the growth management plan. What does that do? It would drive the date further away that there would be a potential for the nonissuance of development permits from our CDES offices through this implementation of the board's direction the other day on the AUIR -- AUIR transportation element. Yes, in regard to the, quote, disruption of the revenue stream. Impact fees at that point in time would be lessened to the extent that there were projects in the pipeline ready to be submitted, but for -- but for -- were related to that roadway area. That has been backed up in construction on our -- ultimately on our CIE. The other gentleman, his name may be Mr. Delisi, I'm not sure, had talked about let's work together collaboratively, talking about working with us at the local level and also working with legislators and others at Tallahassee and the legislative process. This is consistent with what a couple of you commissioners have -- have mentioned both today and before in the sense that we are looking for a process still to evolve with the legislature in the next 60 days, whereupon, sure, I think it's not news that Collier County has issues and grave concerns vis-a-vis its intense interest in having a local policy of construction that works for all of its citizens, entrepreneurs and citizens alike. So, yes, that's going to occur regardless. There will be opportunities no matter what the board should do today relative to its previous vote just taken on the AUIR transportation element. There will be opportunities for collaboration. Ultimately, Ms. Nemecek talked about development of industrial and business parks way out east. Yes. Ultimately with the implementation of our AUIR -- AUIR through the CIE with the amendment of the growth management plan many months from now Page 99 February 6, 2006 that would be affected until the opportunity occurred that we could let -- let the contracts for the road -- for the roads that fall within the, call it that sphere of influence that affects the potential for development way out east. And, yet, Norman has told you that he is going to continue to come forward to let you know when contracts and projects can come together to be let. There is an opportunity for what I call a truing up of the process rather than waiting from one calendar year to the next. Additionally, Joe and -- and -- and Randy Cohen have talked about the fact that the new AUIR process is just about to get underway. If it's expedited, and as you know this is a -- this AUIR process is coming in late. This is really last year's being finished up today or soon. So if the 2006 AUIR process gets going early and processes through, I can't say that it'll actually dovetail with the process that we'll be marshaling through the DCA later on, but there may be a fairly close timing of the two and so that no one is hurt too far out into the future as far as their respective interests are concerned, but the message to the board is still felt. Now, if this board wishes to implement its prior vote on the transportation element of the AUIR -- AUIR sooner rather than later, it would be through the form of adoption of a temporary or interim planning moratorium. This has not been formally discussed. It was mentioned in passing here today. And, as you know, that requires creating of an ordinance, the advertisement that would make it necessary to go to the Planning Commission once, Board of County Commissioners twice. It probably could not be accomplished in less than four weeks and probably more towards six or eight. So that's -- pretty much responds to the speakers and I think some of the questions and -- and issues that you had there. If there is anything further, Ms. Student, or I will try to respond. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions from the commissioners. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that was an excellent Page 100 February 6, 2006 summary . COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have to take any-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the action -- MR. SCHMITT: No action required. I need to have Randy -- we'll turn to page 5. It was part of the executive summary. And between Randy and Marjorie, we need to just close out this meeting with a vote on the Category A and Category B. And I know Mr. Mudd has some questions for guidance for future actions in the AUIR. So in regards to recommendations, we're on page 4 and 5 of your executive summary. MR. COHEN: With respect to the first recommendation on page 4, I believe because it includes the analysis and review of action taken and direction that you've already given, you can provide a motion as -- as -- as written to approve that. That will accomplish what you've already undertaken. CHAIRMAN HALAS: On category -- for both Category A and Category B? MR. COHEN: That particular one deals with Category A, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: And what I would ask is that you just make a motion to approve No.1 as -- as written. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As amended. MR. COHEN: As amended, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: As the board approved each element. MR. COHEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion from -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- I'm not even sure I understand where we're -- what we're doing. Page 101 February 6, 2006 MR. MUDD: Over on page 4 in the recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners take the following action: No.1, find about analysis, review, actions taken and directions given based on the 2005 AUIR that adequate roads, drainage canals and structures, potable, water/sewer treatment and collection, solid waste and parks and recreation facilities will be available as defined by the Collier County concurrency management system as implemented by Chapter 6.02.02 of the Land Development Code to support development order issuance until presentation of the 2006 AUIR. And the board needs to have a motion to accept that particular recommendation. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that includes all the changes that we made in the AUIR -- MR. MUDD: And direction given, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I so move with the caveat that it be in accordance with the directions provided to each of the elements of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion's on the floor from Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not we'll call the question. Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 102 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by the same like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have one opposed with it. Okay. MR. MUDD: The next -- the next recommendation is that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners take the following action: Find upon analysis review, action taken and directions given that there is sufficient road network capacity in the transportation concurrency management database for continued operation of the real-time declining balance ledger to support development order issuance until the FY'06 end of third quarter status report. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seconded. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's discussions on this one. I haven't received any evidence that that's the case. What I have heard, Don Scott has told us that some of the roads are -- have probably already failed. So how -- how do we certify that -- that there is adequate road capacity until the FY'06 and the third quarter status report? That's -- that's the end of June. MR. SCOTT: You probably don't. It's more from an aspect of keep using the concurrency system that it says -- what it says when we review it. Will there be some on some roadways that can't go forward, yes, like 41 South, for instance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and if -- if we -- we have a motion that finds there is adequate capacity, what does that -- that do to us with respect to our concurrency management system whenever a road fails, say, between now and end of June? MR. SCOTT: That's probably an old statement versus what, you know, versus one we enacted the concurrency system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But is it necessary that we actually take a vote on this particular statement since it apparently is not necessarily true? Page 103 February 6, 2006 MR. COHEN: Well, myself and Ms. Student have concurred, we don't think there's any action necessary on No.2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No action required. MR. SCHMITT: We already have your guidance on that, Commissioner, so no action required. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other business? MR. MUDD: Randy, you need to do Category B. MR. COHEN: On No.3 that says, Accept and adopt the attached document as the 2005 Annual Update and Inventory Update Report on public facilities. I would like you to -- to make the motion on that with as amended by the action that you've taken with respect to the Category A and Category B facilities with the direction that you've given as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Henning that we're going to accept the -- the portion of B and A and with the caveat that's been discussed this afternoon. So is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner. Page 104 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just did four? MR. COHEN: Yeah, we need to move to No.4. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to move to No.4 now. MR. COHEN: And No.4 is a little bit -- but before we get into that particular recommendation, I want you to recall that we provided you with a -- a letter from the impact-fee consultant with respect to Category A and Category B facilities. More specifically, that if we adopted the -- the AUIR and approved that as part of a formal action, that it did not need to be included in the CIE. And this particular Recommendation No.4 asked you, one, to adopt Category A facilities and the revenue source is identified in the AUIR and also to incorporate them into the annual CIE. So I would like a formal recommendation just with respect to the Category A facilities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I thought we did this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We did this individually as we went through the process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. We already did this. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That -- that's exactly what I was going to say. We've already done this. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I -- I think probably to make it clear because we've done this before on -- when we've taken votes element by element on the comp plan as sort of a wrap-up. We've just done it again, again wrapping everything we've done together and say as amended by our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that's -- that's tricky. First of all, you told us that we don't need to do it for B facilities. We don't have to have -- MR. COHEN: Well, the -- the recommendation for Category B is not to -- not to include it in the CIE. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And -- and for A facilities, we've had a lot of discussion. We didn't accept the revenue Page 105 February 6, 2006 projections and -- and recommendations on the projects on a number of them and we cited our objections to that as we went through them individually. It's going to be very cumbersome to try to wrap all that together. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've already addressed, yeah. We've already voted -- addressed it and voted on it and I think we had direction -- gave direction. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah. I think we need the formal action, though, to include that in the CIE. I think what the motions were, and I'm trying to remember back more than a week's hence, was to accept the AUIR. But I think we need to go one full step further and include -- just include those actions in the CIE. You don't have to repeat everything. You can just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not making a motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm confused seriously. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- I'm not making a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about a motion that would just say that according to the records of the last part of this meeting -- it was all the same meeting. This has just been continued. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continued. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we -- we incorporated all the particulars that we agreed on earlier. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah. And it's to be reflected in the capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the motion. What, that doesn't look good? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I tell you what, I'm not buying it because -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then you make the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm not going to make a Page 106 February 6, 2006 motion. I don't think this is necessary. And I'm -- I'm not buying it. But -- but here's the problem. We're making a motion to do something about all of these items that we have spent probably ten hours discussing over the past several weeks. None of us can recall exactly what we told the staff as we voted on these individually. We don't know what you have recorded. Now, if you presented to us a list from the official record of this meeting, here's what you said on each one of these items and we could read it and review it and then we could say, okay, we will agree with that, that's one thing. But -- but telling us to give you a blanket approval on something that we don't even have a written -- written record of is -- is -- I simply will not vote for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already took the action. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board -- the board -- MR. SCHMITT: Just have a motion that staff bring back all the Category A facilities as -- as individually voted upon and bring that action back as part of the CIE. I think that solves the problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that -- that's just guidance. That doesn't have to be a formal motion because it's not -- MR. SCHMITT: What do you want to do? We have to bring it back in the CIE that is -- that comes before you through the public hearing process. All we need is guidance to tell staff as -- as -- as previously approved in the last -- this meeting and the last meeting to bring that guidance back in the CIE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sounds good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Three nods? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Page 107 February 6, 2006 MR. MUDD: Now, I need to ask the question. Do you want-- now, according to -- according to what I've been told, you don't have to do Category B to the CIE. And the question that -- that I initially talked about with the board during the first session and said we'd get back to it at the end is: Do you want to include the Category B in the CIE document for the future? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to include it in the AUIR. MR. MUDD: AUIR, absolutely. You'll get it in AUIR. You have to have a document for the AUIR if you're going to do -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: CIE that's going to go to the state. MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to see it in the CIE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think then we're going to be-- we'll be held to it. MR. SCHMITT: You have a letter from a consultant that says right now that what is in the impact or what are in the impact-fee studies is sufficient to support the -- the need for the impact fees. It does not have to be in the CIE. And our recommendation is that it not be included in the CIE. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Me too. MR. SCHMITT: If we could have a motion to not include our Category B. MR. MUDD: At least get direction. If I could get three nods, then I -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You get a nod from me, yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- MR. SCHMITT: That -- that concludes our presentation here. MR. MUDD: I got to ask a couple of questions real quick. Commissioner Henning, we adjusted the gas tax revenue fee so Page 108 February 6, 2006 we'll make sure that gets included. Do you want schools to be in your AUIR? I don't want an answer. That's a rhetorical question on my part to you that you need to ask the school board when you have your joint meeting with them in April-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going through this again. Put it on the agenda and that should be direction. Put it on the direction for the workshop. MR. MUDD: I'm not -- I'm not controlling this agenda. The-- the school board is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm asking you a question and they're going to talk about AUIR and what the requirements are. This is -- this is a question for you. Because if you don't get it on your AUIR and they don't do what they say they're supposed to do, you're going to lose your -- you're going to lose your revenue-sharing issues from the state. And that's who's going to get held responsible. It's you for their inaction. So there is no more of this, it's the school board's issue. No, it's got to be -- it's got to be our issue together as a group because you're the one that gets -- you're the one that gets penalized or punished for inaction on their part. And I don't know how you're going to be able to keep track of what they're supposed to do unless you at least see it someplace as you did the law enforcement and the jail side from the sheriffs side on your AUIR and have them come brief it to you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to be held accountable as commissioners. Who was first? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Why don't -- why don't we ask the chairman to write a letter to the chair of the school board asking to put this issue in a workshop? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 109 February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yup. MR. MUDD: Do you want the -- the Planning Commission to be involved next year in the review of the AUIR? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. I've got one more question from Commissioner Coyle before we go on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That -- that was exactly what -- what I was going to suggest. But could I broaden it a little bit and suggest that any other item we want to have on the agenda, that the chairman should include that request -- request in his letter? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have you got it this item to just say et cetera. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Do you have any others? Is there anything else we should be talking -- MR. SCHMITT: Then we need to address the -- the issues with roads, sidewalks, other issues -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: -- associated with the school construction? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And impact fee. MR. SCHMITT: And impact fees we -- we would expect are going to be resolved by then, but who knows. It may not. MR. MUDD: This is a joint -- I just want to make sure you understand what this joint meeting context is. This joint meeting is with all municipalities, the Board of County Commissioners and the school board. I'm trying to -- you know, I've asked them. If you're going to have that kind ofa group -- you know, if -- if you have an issue that you're directly relating with the school board and all of a sudden in that joint forum you now have 15 or 22 other folks trying to help you that have -- that have nothing to do with that particular issue, it gets a little -- it gets a little cumbersome. MR. SCHMITT: On the -- MR. MUDD: Hang on, Joe, let me finish. And -- and so that-- Page 110 February 6, 2006 that's my concern with this joint workshop. Yeah. There's lots of issues that get in with sidewalks and all of those other particular items. I'm not too sure that's the right forum to do it in. I believe in talking about AUIR because I believe that impacts the municipalities if you get cut off on revenue sharing and what goes to them. It's an item and issue that basically hits everyone that's in that group. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's going to impact the CIE. Are we going to have a joint workshop with them at that point in time too? MR. SCHMITT: This workshop is really to address all the issues associated with the House Bill 360, the Growth Management Bill, school concurrency. And -- and some of that may be part of concurrency. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that's exactly right because MR. SCHMITT: The funding source. Yeah. We -- we -- we will -- we will have -- because we're going to have an -- an amended interlocal agreement by 2008. And, frankly, it's going to probably take us that long. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Start working on it now, then. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That has to go to DCA. But -- but it defines this whole school concurrency issue. And -- and, yes, I think somehow there will be at least in that interlocal agreement -- I can't tell you today, but there'll be some process where between the school board and the Board of County Commissioners and the municipalities, all to understand the burden and requirement for school concurrency and the funding source for school concurrency. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, should I -- we should address the letter just to say the responsibilities of the school board in regards to the AUIR requirements and the CIE requirements for 2008? MR. MUDD: How -- how that's going -- how's that going to be addressed with this Board of County Commissioners. Page 111 February 6, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: And just leave it at -- as an open item that way. Because I'm sure that roads, sidewalks and impact fees are going to be entered into it, but that should basically be the -- the consensus of what we're going to be discussing, is the AUIR requirements for the school board and how it affects the community. Okay. MR. MUDD: The other issue is continued involvement in the Planning Commission in the -- in the AUIR for next year. I need board direction on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- just one point I want to bring up. I do think the planning -- the Planning Commission did offer something to us and gave us some reason for thought. But I'll be honest with you, the Productivity Committee works not only on the budget, which the AUIR sort oflends itself towards, but they also work on the impact fees which was a good part of our discussion. And I -- I want to just see what the opinion of this group is that maybe we'd be better served if we had the Productivity Committee working on it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not both? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would be the quickest way. Make the motion to have the Productivity Committee-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Added. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- added and be the person that reviews the AUIR next year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I said, why not both? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why not both. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not both the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's an interesting thought. Because I really would like to hear the Productivity Committee on it because they -- they're right there all the time dealing with all these different issues. February 6, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd go for both. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think you better look at also is the time frame that you're going to have to start initiating this so that it gets to us at a -- at a reasonable time so that we can address everything. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't bring up the topic twice. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't bring up the topic twice. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, I think we're an inclusive government in Collier County with something like 52 advisory boards. So, you know, the more the merrier. I mean, that's what they're there for is to give us guidance on it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, here -- here's an idea, Commissioner Henning. I think you're on the right track to a point, but why not for staff time and everything else have them do it over a course of a couple meetings together, then they can bring their expertise in at the same time? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we had the Planning Commission that worked on this thing for I don't know how many hours. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Free. Free. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was done with the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No charge. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Productivity Committee will do it for half the price. Just a suggestion. You know, that I -- I think we would be really served if we had some expertise from that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're taking up staffs time to sit here and -- and go through all this stuff. And when you tie up about 10 or 15 people out of staff, I'm wondering if it's really cost-effective. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how much time do we spend, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, then we've got staff back in here Page 113 February 6, 2006 too. So we spent ten hours on this whole program where it should have been probably -- in at least four or five hours we should have had this wrapped up. That -- that's just my -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One -- one way or another, let's just see which -- which way that goes. Are you interested in just the Productivity Committee? If you're not, then go to the other direction. Vote? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vote. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got -- if you do it separately, then you got -- you're going to tie up staff all that time. Everybody's complaining about the meetings. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about two groups? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hey, whatever the -- whatever the board wants to do here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't mind doing it both of them together at the same time rather -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it would be more cost-effective. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know dam right it would be, plus you'd have the extra fees so strong on both ends all come into play. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm -- I'm thinking about the two at one meeting and I'm thinking how cumbersome that could be. So I'm still thinking -- thinking that one through. I -- I like the idea of both of them looking at it. The more input we can get, the better. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just -- just leery about -- I'll tell you why. I'm liking Commissioner Henning's motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: What? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the same time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What, status quo? Let the Page 114 February 6, 2006 Planning Commission review it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee meeting on the AUIR at the same time reviewing it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think that's what his -- what his thought was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then, I'll make that motion just to try to move it forward. If I get a second, then we'll be able to vote on it. If I don't, it makes no -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had the direction last time by the county manager by three of us. You're bringing it up again. So we already have that direction; correct? MR. MUDD: I -- I asked the question at the end of this particular issue and I wrote it down as a question that needed to be answered. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you asked the same question at -- at the first time we met and you -- you got an answer. MR. MUDD: I don't believe I got an answer. I believe Joseph's got the same thing written in his book and that's why I'm asking -- that's why I'm asking the question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It didn't get a second. So I make the motion, then, that we -- he didn't -- his motion died for lack of a second; right? Okay. So-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I dont' know if I got a second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second on Commissioner Coletta's motion that he made prior before we move? I mean a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We got a second on Commissioner Coletta's motion that he made. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your motion is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion is that we have both Page 115 February 6, 2006 the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission look at the AUIR and advise us as a single group so the staff time is minimized. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. All those in favor of having the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission work simultaneously on this -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, jointly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- jointly on this. All in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. Commissioner COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What happened? CHAIRMAN HALAS: What have we got two or three? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I voted against it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I voted against it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think it's for -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three, two. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We got -- when we sing together it's amazmg. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go. MR. MUDD: Okay. The other issue that's there and there was one that we talked about the last time had to do with interest on impact fees. And there was some discussion about that that we talk about in the process. I believe this board through actions by the clerk have taken the interest where -- off of impact fees where he could and those Page 116 February 6, 2006 particular interest funds if put into the general fund and come back to you as -- as carry forward or -- or a return monies at the end of the year. There was some discussion by the Planning Commission that those interest monies go to each fund, Commissioner, and I will tell you if you do that, you've got a hole where you're going to need to find some new monies because those monies have been used in road programs and other things in past budgets. So it -- just wholesale say this is what you want to do, you're going to be looking for anywhere from ten to twelve million dollars and I don't believe that's a good idea at this time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question I didn't get a chance to ask the last time this was brought up and I'll probably need Amy to help me with this. You know, as I go through the logic of this process it seems to me that we're shooting ourselves in the foot. And tell me if I'm wrong, Amy. You -- you take impact-fee money, let's just use transportation as an example. Take impact-fee money for roads and you invest it. It earns interest. You take that money and put it in the general fund and then we spend it on something else maybe. MR. MUDD: That's what this board has decided to do and there was an executive summary that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I understand that. Then that was the clerk's recommendation that we do that. Now, when you do that, you have to grant a credit against the impact fees and the impact-fee calculation because you used general fund money to do something that impact fees normally would pay for. Am I right so far? MS. PATTERSON: Any -- partially. Anytime you use a revenue source other than impact fees to fund an impact-fee project, meaning general fund or a grant, then, yes, it serves as a component of an impact-fee credit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, is it better if you just Page 11 7 February 6, 2006 gave them the interest that they earned off their money which is the right thing to do, I think, and put it right back into the -- into the impact-fee fund for transportation and use it there? Where do we -- how do we wound up -- wind up better? MS. PATTERSON: I don't know that there's an answer that's better. There was a policy decision by the board to do it this way and there's obviously financial reasons why. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but there really weren't. The -- the only -- only reasons that this -- this was done was because it gave us greater flexibility over how it would -- could be expended. But, quite frankly, since we pay for 41, 43 percent of all of the capital improvements in transportation out of ad valorem property taxes, there is no real advantage to doing this, at least for transportation. Maybe it's true for something else. But I -- I believe if I were to work the numbers through, we would find out that we're shooting ourselves in the foot by doing that, but I'm not sure. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm following everything that you had to say except when you got to the point that said you have to give credit. If you're using those dollars and because it's a general fund and you've got greater flexibility, you could use those on a project that's not impact-fee eligible; i.e., past sins where the impact fees weren't high enough at the time to get over that $267 million worth of issues. That's how we got to where we are. When the referendum for sales tax failed, we were in -- we were in -- well, we were in a little bit of a -- of a panic to try to figure out how we are going to fund those particular issues, those past road projects and be able to do that all on the taxpayers' dollars. One of the ways that -- that came up to do that was the -- the interest on non -- nonstatuted impact fees. Some things you can't take the interest out of, you have to leave it in that impact fee and some you don't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is getting way too complicated for me at this time of the day. So forget it. I just thought Page 118 February 6, 2006 I would raise it to see if there was an obvious problem. There apparently is not an obvious problem. Although I still feel that somebody pays an impact fee and their impact-fee monies are invested and they earn an interest on it, they ought to get it. This -- you know, this is really -- MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, if that -- no, now hang on. If that's what the board wants to do, I would -- I would ask you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm not going to go there. MR. MUDD: Well-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to do that. MR. MUDD: Okay. But if you do it, wean yourself over a series of years. Don't do it in one year or you're going to be looking for $12 million worth of revenue that's new in order to makeup for that shortfall. That's all I'm -- that's all I'm saying to you right now. You've got it and you've counted that revenue in your budget as -- as a new revenue source and it -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all right. I don't need to go down that path anymore. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: A lot -- okay. Commissioner Henning, I guess he's left. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm leaving too, by the way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, hold on just a second here. I think a lot of that interest was used -- as used to glorify the roads out there too. Well, when we -- when we end up putting all the stuff in the medians and I think that's from the impact fees, the interest on the impact fees are helping to offset the cost of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think so. You want to ask Norm on that. No, we don't. MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, we have no direction in order to move the -- the interest back into there out of the other. Is that -- is that correct? That's all I've got, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Leave it where it is right now. Page 119 February 6, 2006 Okay. Any -- there's no other discussion, no other items to be brought up, we're adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the Special meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:35 p.m. . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL FI<MI~~N ATTEST: . "';, DWIGHT.RBRO<<K, CLERK , ~" . - -., ",.,.~ ... .~. .., .l:. ., BY~B '()19'~,bC-kU-oW, [JC These minutes approved by the Board on (;l -dZ -<:io , as presented ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR Page 120