Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/18/2006 S (EAR) April 18, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 18, 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 district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION, BCC EAR-Based GMP Amendments, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Randall Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA April 18, 2006 9:00 a.m. BCC/EAR-Based GMP Amendments Special Meeting (Transmittal Hearing) 3rd Floor Boardroom W. Harmon Turner Building Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 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 PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 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. 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 IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments to the Growth Management Plan. (Elements listed in order as they appear in notebook.) a. Capital Improvement Element (CIE) b. Transportation Element c. Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of Public Facilities Element d. Potable Water Sub-Element of Public Facilities Element e. Drainage Sub-Element of Public Facilities Element f. Solid Waste Sub-Element of Public Facilities Element 1 g. Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of Public Facilities Element h. Housing Element i. Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) j. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) k. Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) I. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) m. Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) n. Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) o. Marco Island Master Plan (MIMP) p. Economic Element 3. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the BCC EAR-based GMP amendments special meeting to be held today. And at this time if everyone would stand and rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe at this time we'll hear the presentation by the director of community development/environmental services, Joe Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, and Mr. Chairman, good morning. For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Community Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator. We're here this morning to address the EAR-based amendments. Those are the evaluation/appraisal report amendments to your growth management plan. And just for reference, it was based on this document. Some of you may not recall. It's the 2004 EAR report that went to DCA through transmittal and adoption. I'm not going to steal David's thunder. David's going to walk through that, the background of this, and will guide you through the proceedings. With me today, of course, is Randy Cohen, my Comprehensive Planning Director, and Comprehensive Planning Manager David Weeks. They're the two professors, as I will call them, who will guide you through this process. What we plan to do, Mr. Chairman, if it pleases you, we will -- David will go through a detailed explanation of the executive summary just to preface what we're going to do today. We will go through each element of the EAR-based amendments presented by staff. The respective staff members will come up and present their elements. I would ask that it would be best if you would entertain public Page 2 April 18, 2006 questions at that time, by straw vote or by vote, you would accept or rej ect the element, and then we proceed through the next step as we go through those elements. As the County Attorney would point out, this is not legislative in nature. It's not quasijudicial, so it's -- and these are your submittal hearings. We do come back again through adoption. Once we receive what is called the ORC report, observations, recommendations and comments from DCA, we will make the noted changes in the document and bring it back for adoption. CHAIRMAN HALAS: One question. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is going to be a yearly -- done on a yearly basis; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. David will point that out. This is a seven-year -- once every seven years we go through the EAR-based amendments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And the reason I -- I want to just publicly thank your Planning Commission, your Environmental Advisory Council, for the hard work and really dedicated effort they spent in going through this document. Your Planning Commission spent 6th, 8th, 9th and 30 March reviewing this document in detail, a comprehensive, thoroughly comprehensive review. Understand legally it is your Planning Commission's document that is forwarded to you. It is the Planning Commission's document. We, as staff, will highlight areas where we may fundamentally disagree with the recommendation of your Planning Commission, and Randy and David will do that. I also want to note, these are EAR-based amendments, but we also have some housecleaning amendments as part of the GMP, and we also have taken the liberty to add some amendments dealing with board-directed issues, most specifically having to do with Page 3 April 18, 2006 environmental review and environmental review criteria. As you may recall, one of the issues that this board directed was to look at how we were doing the environmental review and some of the criteria, stormwater and preserves, preservation requirements, EIS requirements, those type of things. We moved the bar way down here. Your Environmental Advisory Council and planning council moved the bar back a little bit. We're going to go through that. Dave -- Bill Lorenz will cover that in detail during the CCME presentation, so I would ask you pay particular attention to that because those are -- were issues that you, as a board, directed us to look at in regards to the preservation requirements, stormwater requirements, some of the other type of things that are in our GMP. Yes, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Also, Commissioner Fiala has a question, then I'll direct her after I ask this question. All of these were reviewed by the Planning Commission; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- in detail. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You had just answered Commissioner Halas's comments by saying this is once in every seven years, but then why did we do it in 2004? MR. SCHMITT: Two thousand and four was the seven-year EAR report. These are the EAR-based amendments that are resulting from that report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. SCHMITT: So this was the report where we reviewed -- and David will highlight this in detail -- where we reviewed our comprehensive plan, identified areas of concern, areas that needed to be amended and that report was transmitted and adopted through Page 4 April 18, 2006 transmittal and then went through adoption to the state, through you and through the state, through 2004. Then we developed the amendments to the Growth Management Plan to implement what was identified in the EAR report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And it's a -- once every seven years. And David can -- will review that in detail. Before I turn it over to David, I also wanted to thank the entire staff because this is a -- truly a staff team effort, transportation, public utilities, parks and rec., EMS facilities. We're going to be discussing the implementation of the CIE and AUIR as well as part of this. So it is a comprehensive review of your Growth Management Plan. We have all day today. And I know last night was a rather long meeting. I would suggest that if you want to yell uncle at three o'clock or four o'clock and you've just had enough or whatever, we do have a second -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We probably will. MR. SCHMITT: We do have a second day scheduled on the 26th of April. It's an advertised hearing. I honestly think, given the comprehensive review of your advisory councils, many, many, many issues have been addressed. You're going to be dealing with some issues that are still contentious with density, density bonuses, issues dealing with the coastal conservation management element, the CCME section 24, so some of those issues will be addressed as part of these -- this amendment cycle. And I would suggest that at some time during the proceedings, you establish a cut-off time, and then we will come back on the 26th if, in fact, it looks like we're not going to finish today. So with that -- and with that I need to -- with that brief introduction, subject to your questions, I want to turn it over to David. And, ma'am, David will give a detailed history of the EAR and what Page 5 April 18, 2006 this means, what it means for the county and what it means for our comprehensive plan. Yes, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'd like to do, as we proceed through the day, we'll find out how much material we've covered, and I think we'll probably break around 3:00 or 3:30. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think all of us were pretty well stressed out in the last couple of days in regards to what we covered yesterday. I also will take a break at probably 10:30 for our court reporter. We'll take a 10-minute break so people -- and we'll also take an hour break for lunch today. MR. SCHMITT: And I would ask the public speakers to please turn in their public speaker slips, we will address your points after each element is presented if that's -- meets your desires. I think that's the best way to handle this, and we'll proceed element by element. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: David? MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioner. David Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning Department, Planning Manager. And I actually do not intend to go into a great amount of detail of some of these matters, most particularly the EAR itself, the evaluation and appraisal report. Joe held it up. You can see it's a thick book. It reflects the review that was done by this body, the Planning Commission, EAC, staff and citizen involvement, ultimately with your adoption or approval in 2004, July, and then subsequently the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee, the state agency that has oversight over all local government comprehensive plans, accepted that EAR report, found it to be sufficient in November of 2004. And again, based upon that thick document which identifies the various issues, the various shortcomings of our comprehensive plan Page 6 April 18, 2006 we've drafted these amendments to the Growth Management Plan. Briefly, as Joe had said, we also have included AUIR-related amendments into this packet of Growth Management Plan amendments. Also some housecleaning type changes as well. Some matters in the EAR are very specific. You might recall density bonuses in the future land use element as part of the density rating system. Those are very specifically called for to be eliminated in the case of three, and modified in the case of additional provisions. Other areas were a little bit more general. And I would put into that category the need for affordable/workforce housing. Some of the recommendations in the EAR were more general in nature, but you've held subsequent workshops last year both for the gap housing and for the affordable -- I guess it was just affordable housing workshop earlier in last year. And for both of those workshops you gave staff some direction, including investigating a density by right provision, and we'll get to that in a few moments. As Joe said, all of these amendments -- excuse me. These amendments affect every single element of the comprehensive plan, so it is a very comprehensive review, and that's part of the reason it's only done every seven years as opposed to being done on an annual basis. Once we adopt the amendments, we need time to implement them and see if they're working in the way that we want them to. I'll mention briefly that our first EAR was adopted in 1996, and then the amendments based upon that were adopted in 1997. That set of amendments are the ones that ultimately culminated in the final order from the governor and cabinet in 1999. That's kind of a negative item, but I wanted to mention that, emphasize the point of the magnitude of these changes that are being proposed, as occurred in '97, and the impact that they can have on the plan and on our community. It's serious business. This is not the cycle of amendments that you deal with annually Page 7 April 18, 2006 where a private sector is asking for a few different amendments. This is a true comprehensive set of amendments to our -- to our Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan. I would like to note one thing -- excuse me -- in the executive summary where a word is missing, and it's an important word for context. It's on page 2, the first full paragraph at the top. And the sentence should read, also a few EAR recommendations were not proposed as GMP amendments. The word not was missing there. Weare required to adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan based upon the EAR recommendations. If we choose not to adopt any amendments based on those recommendations, we need to provide to the Department of Community Affairs the rationale, an explanation and justification for why we have not done that. After all, the EAR identified an issue and said, here's what we recommend we do to resolve or address that issue. And then now if it comes time for an amendment and we don't do that, we need to explain to that state agency why not. And it's acceptable, it's a normal part of the process, but we just need to make sure that we do address adequately the reasons why we have not gone forward with the EAR recommendation. On page 2 as well as, as we're in the executive summary, under the heading amendments, commentary, identified various issues. My suggestion, Commissioners, is that we not get into the detail of these at this point, but instead we wait until we go through each of the individual elements. As Joe had mentioned, we would suggest that we walk through in the order that the elements appear in your binder. And as we get to the issues that are specifically identified here, we would take those up at that time; otherwise, we're going to be jumping around with future land use and Golden Gate and transportation, so forth. But I will just very quickly mention what those issues are. The density rating system changes. Both issues in the sense of the Page 8 April 18, 2006 magnitude -- there's substantial changes that are being proposed or that there is an area of disagreement either between staff and the Planning Commission or, perhaps, between staff and some members of the public. Second area or topic is the affordable/workforce housing density bonus by right. Third item is the guesthouse rental, the ability to have those rented out, which presently is not allowed by our regulations. The affordable/workforce housing and rural villages and in the RLSA, rural land stewardship area, receiving areas, and then the term of affordable/workforce housing. As you know, you very recently modified the definition of those terms in the Land Development Code. We need to correspondingly make changes in the Growth Management Plan. In some cases it's a very simple change, just change the terminology, but in other cases there's a real impact in changing the term from the way it presently exists and what that term meant at that time when it was adopted versus what that term would mean today. An example is that the gap housing now includes 150 percent of median household income and less. So if we just use the phrase of affordable/workforce housing, it's all encompassing, from 150 percent of median household income downward, to as low as it could go; whereas, the term affordable housing as it presently exists in various places in the comprehensive plan refers to the open standard of 80 percent or less of median household income. So if we don't make the distinction, if we simply say affordable/workforce housing, then no longer is a certain provision targeting 80 percent or less of median household income, but, in fact, we'd now be targeting the entire range, gap housing, as well as the affordable housing, the 150 percent down as opposed to 80 percent down. And, again, we can touch on that as we go through the particular elements. Page 9 April 18, 2006 Finally, another topic is the industrial district within the Immokalee Area Master Plan, a specific EAR recommendation there pertaining to the airport property and vehicle racing. And then there's some staff issues beginning on page 4. These specifically are items of disagreement between staff and the Planning Commission, which, again, I would recommend that we discuss in more detail as we go through the individual elements. As Joe mentioned, the EAC and the Planning Commission both met several times, I think three or four times each. They spent many, many hours vetting through this process, and there were also public participants at those hearings, just as there are today to voice their concerns and issues. Finally, as Joe has mentioned, the recommendation that is reflected in the elements that you have in your binders, each of the elements with the changes shown in underline and strike-through reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation. In most cases, staff was in agreement with that. Many of these changes are wordsmithing. They don't -- they're not substantial in nature. But at any rate, staff agreed with most of those. But, again, as noted on page 4 and 5, there are a few areas of disagreement between staff and Planning Commission. And, again, we'll go through those element by element. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I would recommend that we-- well, recommend that I continue here for another moment. There are three attachments to your executive summary that I want to draw attention to. The first one is the EAR recommendations not incorporated into these amendments, and then the explanation and rationale. And this is -- these are areas where the EAR recommended a change, staff has not proposed a change and our explanation for why not. And assuming you're in concurrence with these non-action items, this would be reflected in the elements as they exist now and will be Page 10 April 18, 2006 forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs so they can see that explanation. A particular issue, I know, is the density by right as well as guesthouse provisions, and there's a separate document here, the second attachment of the three, that shows the language staff had proposed. Again, the Planning Commission did not endorse the changes for the future land use element or Golden Gate Master Plan for these two provisions, but the idea of it including these so that you can see what staff had proposed, because if you look at the Planning Commission version, the language simply is not there because they did not endorse it. And then finally is a memo from the Environmental Advisory Council. They felt it important enough to want to send a separate memo to you regarding the watershed management plan. And now, Commissioners, if it be your preference, we will just commence on a review, a brief presentation by staff on each of the elements or sub-elements, allow you to, of course, ask questions and hold discussion, and any speakers from the public, further discussion by you, and then ask for a straw vote on each element as we go through, concluding at the end of the hearing with your single vote on the entire package of amendments. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, my name is Corby Schmidt, Senior Planner with the staff. Excuse me a moment. Just to introduce the capital improvement element, we've worked to reword, for clarity -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tell us what page you're on so everybody's up -- MR. SCHMIDT: No special page, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Just an overview at this point. Page 11 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: When referring to population figures, we distinguished between different kinds of calculation methods where that clarification wasn't there in the past. We've updated the level of service chart for road segments for the transportation portion of the capital improvement element. We've change the certain terminology to be internally consistent with other elements of the Growth Management Plan. We have made general language changes throughout to reflect your previous direction to push certain transportation projects out two years. We have also, in the capital improvements schedule of five-year improvements -- or five-year schedule of improvements, excuse me, to denote certain figures and note that there's delays in providing certain information while the water and sewer master plan is being completed. Other than noting those items, I have nothing else to mention for the capital improvement element. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to page -- page 2 of the capital improvement element, paragraph B, near the top of the page. I would like a clarification on this. It says that the Board of County Commissioners shall review all rezone petitions and other amendments affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development with consideration of their impact on the demand and the overall county transportation system. Now, in the past we have had a policy where issues like concurrency are not determined at rezone, but this -- which, by the way, I agree with -- I agree with this statement. It implies that we should take a close look at the overall impacts at rezone. And as a matter of fact, at our joint workshop with the school board recently where DCA officials were present, they reaffirmed that policy. Page 12 April 18, 2006 So I'd like some clarification on what this really means. MR. SCHMIDT: I can begin by answering a portion of that question, Commissioner. At least for entry B, it simply is eXplaining why or how density and intensity come into play, and density as certain is the amount of residential development in anyone of the proposals, and intensity, the amount of commercial or industrial. Those criteria are aside from that of concurrency, and that is an accurate statement. F or density or intensity, those are criteria that come into play for making the measurements regarding level of service, and that's how that entry goes on for calculating those levels of service standards and using those when making your decisions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I have a memory failure, because I can't recall any time when we've ever had a rezone petition here when we've had a traffic impact study under consideration. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. I think it would probably be appropriate for David Weeks to comment on policy 5.1 of the transportation element and how it interfaces with this portion of the capital improvements element. That should probably give you the clarity that you need. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if you'll flip over to the very next element, transportation, page 8. Viewing policy 5.1, and you'll see very similar language as in the CIE policy that we're just now discussing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 8 of -- MR. WEEKS: Page 8 of the transportation element. It's the very next element behind the CIE. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Policy 5.1? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, policy 5.1. And you'll see very similar language there in the beginning paragraph and then the specific Page 13 April 18, 2006 reference to, under letters A, B, and C, level of service standards. The distinction between concurrency, which we're not reviewing at the rezone stage, but rather looking at the level of service whether or not an individual project results in what is defined as a significant impact, and the significant impact is explained here in this policy 5.1. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have questions when we get there also. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But paragraph B on page 2 of the capital improvement element specifically says that a rezone petition should be considered from the standpoint of its impact on demand and the overall county transportation system. Now, I don't quite understand how you make that determination at that point, although I think it's a good thing to do, because once it's rezoned, it's very difficult under existing state growth management policies to do anything about it later on. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Actually, during the rezone process, we do require a TIS from applicants to look at consistency. Essentially, will the roadway that you are impacting operate at an acceptable level of service in the five-year period. Sometimes that means that it isn't right now -- it wouldn't meet concurrency right now, but there's a project that's three years out, and usually that's what we talk about is, if there's future projects that would help that project or future projects that wouldn't if it's inconsistent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you would use projects only within what time period? MR. SCOTT: Five-year time frame. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That creates a problem, you understand, don't you? MR. SCOTT: When you're looking out -- and this is discussions we've had with the Planning Commission too. Five years isn't the be Page 14 April 18, 2006 all and end all of everything, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That creates some serious inconsistencies, and it puts us in jeopardy with respect to the growth management act also, so I'm very, very much concerned about this. I like the language that's here, provided we have the appropriate interpretation of that language. And I, quite frankly, don't recall a time when we've had sufficient detail at a rezone to evaluate demand and the consideration of impact on variable D, which is demand, or the countywide transportation network. Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall that we've gone into that kind of detail with respect to rezones. But I won't belabor that anymore. I'm not recommending a change to this particular paragraph. I think it says what it should say, and I just wanted a clarification. I don't necessarily agree with the clarification, but, nevertheless, we can work that out later. Now, the population or demand, I'd like a clarification on what number we're really using. We're using the weighted average or we're using the peak? MR. SCOTT: Using -- for the purposes of, when we're looking at analysis -- first of all, the model is out -- further out into the future. I mean, we use that as a piece of looking at the five-year. So you're using -- if there's a future roadways in that area, then we are using the model, so we are looking beyond five years in some respect. Some areas, if it's a smaller development and we're just looking at no improvements in the area beyond that, we might be looking at just five years. Now, specifically on that, if you're looking at it, it's peak season. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're looking at peak season in all cases? MR. SCOTT: Yes, because that's where the traffic is essentially during peak season. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it's not a weighted Page 15 April 18, 2006 average? MR. SCOTT: No, it's peak season. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. Okay, thank you. That clarifies that issue for me. I have others, but I don't know -- do you want me to continue with them all? CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got concerns, we have to move forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's go to page 3, and this will also relate to the transportation element also. Paragraph C, we're saying that in order to determine an impact as being significant, it must have greater than 3 percent of the weighted population effect and that a generated volume of traffic equal to or greater than 3 percent of the adopted LOS is considered a significant impact. I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider changing the percentage here, because it only takes maybe three or four such developments to have 10 to 12 percent total impact. What would keep us from going to a 2 percent, as an example, to determine a significant impact? MR. SCOTT: Policy. I mean -- and if you're talking about a six-lane facilities and 3 percent, it could be a high development. It could be a fairly large development. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And everything's going to be six-lanes here. MR. SCOTT: At some point, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With Six-Lane, Feder here, it's all going to be six-Ianed. So that's what I'm suggesting is, we're building roads to handle a higher capacity of traffic. Three percent of the capacity of a six-lane highway is a pretty big impact. MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I'm wondering if we shouldn't try to address that issue. MR. SCOTT: And this is what we addressed when we pushed -- Page 16 April 18, 2006 you know, had the concurrency system go before is the 3, 3, 5 and the significant area, but obviously we can change those percentages, if that's where the board wants to go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a concern about that too, especially in a TCMA, if you look for a 3 percent change with the way the population is growing at the rate it is, a 3 percent means an awful lot. And so maybe we ought to get some clarification, not only in a single segment of a highway such as a six-lane, but also maybe look at little bit closer in a TCMA. MR. SCOTT: Well, TCMA obviously has the average over the links too, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I'm saying as a population grows, the 3 percent actually is magnified more because you've got a larger population base -- MR. SCOTT: Well, strictly the way we'd look at it from a transportation standpoint is, if it's over 3 percent of a link or less than 3 percent of a link. Now, what you do in a TCMA is, either go link by link -- if you're less than say, 3 percent, then you would say, I'm going to go link by link. If you're greater than 3 percent, you might be doing more links in there to try to average the links together as part of the TCMA. But, again, it's the same type of issue. If it's a lower threshold then it's harder to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just a side comment or question about that. Weare going to be considering, I guess, today a proposal that we permit guesthouses in the Estates areas that can be rented or leased. How does that potential population density increase affect our concurrency management and this particular procedure? Do we give consideration for that kind of additional policy that creates greater density and more traffic demand? MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, obviously the Estates for us has Page 1 7 April 18, 2006 been de minimis for the most part for residential, besides the commercial. So there's not much that we can do from a strictly transportation standpoint on that. Obviously from a transportation standpoint, if you're talking about more residential units, we have a concern about that, even with the lots we were talking about, what's left last night, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we need to clarify the de minimis issue. Certainly it's de minimis as single-family development because that's the way, I think, the law is -- our procedures are written. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in its aggregate, it certainly is not de minimis; otherwise, we wouldn't have taken the action we took last night. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's what concerns me. How do we get our arms around that sort of thing so that we can effectively plan all of our infrastructure before it becomes critical. If we are considering it as de minimis as individual units but we've got 1,100 of them under construction during the same period of time, it's no longer de minimis. MR. SCOTT: Well, even in the concurrency system, we've put that in as a vested development, just like Lely, just like Fiddler's Creek, and adding one-seventh per year as we started out. So as an aggregate, we are including it, but singularly, I don't stop anything either so -- and even with a guesthouse, you're still going to be less than 1 percent. It would still be considered de minimis unless there was some other policy direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless there are 40,000 guesthouses. MR. SCOTT: Well-- again, but I'm talking about as they come forward one at a time. Page 18 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The de minimis has been biting us bad, and it will be really -- I think Commissioner Coyle's bringing out a good point here. We've really got to get our hand around this thing, our arms around this, to try to figure out the best way to address this de minimis, because it is overwhelming us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Maybe -- and I don't have a solution for this, Don. But if you, as a suggestion perhaps if you could give some conversation to including the aggregation of all the de minimis impacts into a particular area, or in a particular area, and then consider them on an annual basis as to whether or not they are de minimis, and apply this percentage factor to that to decide what decisions should be made with respect to rezones or to roads or anything else, it might be helpful. MR. SCOTT: Right. Now, I understand there was some legislation, too, where they were talking about getting rid of de minimis and -- towards a proportionate share, but I don't know exactly how that worked out, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't either. But anyway, I just thought I'd bring that up for consideration, and we can talk about it in some detail later, I guess. Now, just a couple of other comments, and I'll be finished here. One is on page 6. This is just information for me. We're specifying certain requirements for the county and for the City of Naples. How does that work? How is it that we establish sewage flow design standards for the City of Naples, or do we? The other thing that surprises me is that the City of Naples is using -- is producing as much sewage as Commissioner Halas's district, isn't it? That's just amazing. I don't understand how anybody can do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a message here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, there is a message. Page 19 April 18, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, David Weeks. Just to point out, if you look carefully at the language, it refers to water provided by the City of Naples but for the unincorporated area of Collier County, so it's not within the city limits. It's where the city's providing within the unincorporated county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might want to clarify that just a little bit. You might say that the City of Naples -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Providing service. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- providing services to the unincorporated area of the county, or something like that, would be helpful. MR. WEEKS: Well, let me read it, and then if you still feel that way, then certainly staff could try to tweak the language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: It states, number 2, City of Naples equals 185 gallons per capita per day in the unincorporated service area. More clarity still needed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Once you understand what unincorporated service area is, I think it's okay, yeah. I think I understand that now. Thank you. Now let's go to page 8, policy -- at the bottom of the page, policy 4.4, I guess it is, or is that policy 4? MR. SCHMIDT: 4. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 4, okay. It seems to me this is saying that prior to the issuance of a final site development plan, we will have determined concurrency. Is that -- is that what this really means? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. All right. And page 10 at the bottom of the page, concurrency management Page 20 April 18, 2006 system shall be consistent with 9J-5, and that's the definition which says that the infrastructure must be available consistent -- must be available at the same time or concurrently with the impact of development, right? There has been no modification to the definition of9J-5 that has resulted from a new growth management bill. MR. SCOTT: Not yet anyway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. Now, if you include 9J-5 as a reference here and 9J-5 is changed, what does that do to us? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's probably what we're going to be measured against though still. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What, before the change or after the change? You see, that's what I'm concerned about. My question to you really is, should you not just state what the definition of concurrency is here rather than referring to 9J-5, which might be changed? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, how about if you put down 9J-5 as of this particular date? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not sure that will protect us enough. But if we just put down the definition that's contained in 9J-5, I think it probably will. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if rule 9J-5 is changed, Collier County will be required to comply with the new language. So I -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that means we change this -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- EAR? MR. WEEKS: We're linking to 9J-5, which is -- its basis is in Florida Statutes. I mean, it's an administrative code but it's based on the Florida Statutes. So if the statutes change that results in a change in this administrative code, Collier County would be required to follow along with that change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Here's the deal. Right now there's legislation that will permit Collier County to have a stricter Page 21 April 18, 2006 concurrency system than the state requires. If we should adopt a stricter concurrency system that says that it must be really concurrent infrastructure and the impacts of development must be concurrent, and then 9J-5 is changed that says, for transportation it really can lag three to five years behind, now we're in a bind, okay? So that's the inconsistency I'm trying to address. Do you understand where I'm coming from? MR. WEEKS: Certainly do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just add to that, you made a motion a few meetings back that said you wanted to switch to real-time concurrency, and is there any way that that should be incorporated into this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is exactly it. That is exactly it. That's what 9J-5 says. 9J-5, right now, says that concurrency is real time. It's the legislation that has changed it so that it's not real time, but they haven't changed 9J-5. They will do that, I presume, as quickly as they can. So what I'm suggesting is that we include the language of 9J-5 in our EAR-based amendments, and proceed under the assumption that we will get the exemption that we have asked for legislatively. It might be wrong, but -- it might be an incorrect assumption, but at least I think we ought to proceed in that direction. CHAIRMAN HALAS: David? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I believe the solution here then would be to strike through the reference to rule 9J-5 but maintain the reference to the Florida Statute provision, and then, of course, if that Florida Statute changes, we're referencing what will have changed, and then that would allow us, in this case, to maintain a more strict concurrency management system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's wrong with just stating what the definition of the concurrency system is in 9J-5 right now? I mean, it's the law. That's what it says. Page 22 April 18, 2006 MR. WEEKS: We could do that, Commissioner. Here's what the result would be. If state statutes change and as a result is -- and is applicable to Collier County, then we will simply have to do a subsequent amendment to this policy and any another affected areas to reflect that new definition, that new application. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you -- I'm sorry. County Attorney, can you give us some guidance? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm agreeing with what Mr. Weeks says. We can put it in there, and then DCA will review this against the statute and the rule. And I presume that if it changes, then when we come back we would have to make changes in light of what's in the statute and the rule at the time. But understanding that, I think we could put that definition in now and then see how -- what we hear from DCA when it comes back to us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, here's the point. DCA has been consistent, at least in one thing from the very beginning. They have always said you have the right to implement a more stringent concurrency system right now, okay? I want to call their hand. You told me I had the right. I'm putting it in the EAR, end of story. That's exactly where I'm going on this thing. And then if they want to say to us, we've been lying to you for the last eight months, okay, I'll accept that statement in writing, too. But they can't play it both ways. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, what I would add to that is, I think you want to remove the reference to statute as well as 9J-5 -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right, and just state -- MR. FEDER: -- put in your definition, because obviously we have to be consistent with statute. We don't have to reference it here Page 23 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. FEDER: -- and go just definition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I would think. I mean, really, that's all you're saying is it's going to be consistent with definition of concurrency, and concurrency is defined as what is says in 9J-5, and just lift that definition right out of 9J-5, and it becomes our definition, and it's consistent with DCA's guidance. We can do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is Commissioner Coyle complete? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not -- I have, I think, maybe three more questions. I'll try to go fast; is that okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine. I'll wait. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Push your button again for me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll push my button. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. His light might burn out by the time I'm finished. Let's go to page 11 under policy -- I don't know which is stricken out here. Is it 5.3? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We're saying that concurrency is met if anyone of these following things can -- is done. The first one I don't have a problem with at all. The second one says that if we've got a contract awarded and duly executed at the time of a final building permit, concurrency is considered satisfied. I don't get it. We might award the contract. It might take two years to build the road. If we award a final building permit, we can see things coming out of the ground before that road is ever really completed and available, and there won't be any traffic capacity on the road. And I'm just wondering if that is an appropriate term to use. Page 24 April 18, 2006 Final site development plan or final plat might be appropriate, but building permit? I'm not really sure I agree with that. MR. SCOTT: Well, I think they would take some time to build, too. Now, would they take as long as the road, I think, is the point you're trying to make. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it probably wouldn't take as long. And the other point is that, remember that the definition of concurrency is that when the impact of development occurs, there should be capacity. Now, impact occurs when you're building those structures because you have construction equipment on the roads, you have workers on the roads. Now, I don't want to get too strict in trying to interpret all of that, but from a practical standpoint, it does occur before the building is ready for occupancy. There is an impact on the roads. And I think we need to be sensitive to that. And I just think that determining concurrency under this particular criteria is too loose. And I'd like to see it at site development plan or final plat, and that would make sure that we have completed that road before the impact of concurrency -- impact of development occurs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what we talked about previously. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We all agreed on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And the only other question I have is on page 12 -- that is for this particular subject -- is F where we apparently have a -- paragraph F, where we apparently have a Developer Contribution Agreement, and it says, it will be considered concurrent if the necessary facilities and services are subject to a binding commitment by the builder to contribute fair share funding or to construct the needed facilities. It doesn't say when they will be available, okay? And I don't Page 25 April 18, 2006 think it's appropriate to consider concurrency standards met merely because we have a signed agreement with someone to do the job. We really need to have the job done before the impact of their development. MR. SCOTT: Well, the assumption is that we've -- or you have approved the DCA based on those items. You know, either it's a phasing or based on the roads open before you get their CO. That's the assumption side of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a way to make this a little clearer along those lines? I understand what you're saying. I'd just like to make sure we don't cause any confusion here. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, we could do that. I think basically what we'll do is take that assumption and put it into the text. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. That sounds good to me. And very quickly -- now, is this a good time to get into this schedule, five-year schedule of capital improvements? I'm merely looking at the page that lists contingencies. You're estimating the amounts of money necessary per year over the five-year period of time, and you have a 10 percent contingency. In view of escalating prices, do you think that that 10 percent contingency is really good enough for advanced planning purposes out over a five-year period of time? MR. SCOTT: We've had a lot of discussion about it. We've-- MR. FEDER: Commissioner, obviously we've had very escalating cost increases, as you're pointing out. We've tried to take that into account in what we'll be bringing to you in budget. Puts in quite a bit of additional dollars into the project and still maintains a 10 percent contingency. Can I tell you that we don't get surprised? No. But I think we're going on the side of being very conservative, which I think is what you're recommending. We could make a bigger contingency, but I'll tell you also when we come to you in budget, we're pulling projects Page 26 April 18, 2006 out of the program and no real new fifth year based on our current funding level because of cost increases that we're applying. So we are getting very, very conservative, and we'll go at your direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think if you're doing that, that's good. But I know it's almost impossible to forecast what the cost escalations will likely be out to five years. But remember, if you put it in the five-year plan and it moves into the three-year period, they can pay and go. MR. FEDER: Understood. And that's why anything in the fourth and fifth year is down in a contingency category reserves category. We're not showing any construction from what was our fourth or fifth. The first, second and third is now out in the fourth and fifth. There we have a little bit better feel because typically if it's in the first, second, or almost in third year, we're into the design phase and know a little bit more about the cost, then the issue becomes the -- what's happening to concrete, steel and that. And, again, I'd like to tell you that 18 months ago I could have told you how crazy it was going to be, but I don't think any of us knew. So I think your point is taken that we need to be conservative, even then in the estimates. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, be very conservative. And it might be appropriate to use different contingencies for different years. Maybe a 10 percent contingency for the first year, and maybe ratchet it up as you go out to the fifth year, because it could put us in a very dangerous situation. And if it turns out that the increased costs don't occur, then we can accelerate those projects, right? MR. FEDER: Understood. And that's why we have those in what I'm calling a reserves category, with that assumption that as the board directed, we're going to continue our production process, and we're going to try and deliver as quickly as we can on needed projects. Page 27 April 18, 2006 But, again, we're working the process to make sure that we're not overstating what we can deliver and making sure that we don't have people be able to utilize issues out in the fourth and fifth year, that one, who knows what the real cost would be, what's the proportionate issues, and we're working towards that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. FEDER: Possibility of increasing in outer years is something we'll try and take a look at, if that's the board's desire. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are there three nods for that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Looks like you've got three nods. But -- well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all I have on this particular element, and I'm sorry I took so long. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 14, number 5. Mr. Weeks, this CIE adoption of August -- no later than August, is that for the following year annual budget? I'm assuming that's what it is, since we start the budget season in June or -- yeah, June. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I'm on page 14. I'm sorry, what location, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number 5 at the bottom. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, beginning no later than August of each year the element will be updated and in conjunction with the county's budget process. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, let me address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. COHEN: At one point in time that was the normal protocol here, but now that our schedule has actually changed for the mandatory submittal of the Capital Improvements Element in March Page 28 April 18, 2006 of every year, that date probably should be pushed back further into the fall, either that or early winter, to address it, because it's actually -- I mean, we will not be doing the AUIR until later in the year. So it's probably a good idea that we probably push it back until November or December to be more consistent with the process that we'll be undertaking -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying change this from August to November? MR. COHEN: Well, what's happening is, is our AUIR process is going to be pushed back because of the submittal date, consistent with the March 1 st requirement now for our CI submittal with DCA. So in the past we've done it right after the -- the budget process itself. But now that the AUIR's going to be pushed back a little bit more -- at first we thought it was going to be December 1 st, which would have been fine. It would be more appropriate probably to push that August date back. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You've totally lost me. It says, begin no later than August of each year. Do you agree with that? MR. COHEN: Normally in the past we've updated the CIE, okay, after we've done the AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I asked you a direct question. Do you agree with that, yes or no? MR. COHEN: With the statement that we should update it in August? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MR. COHEN: Not at this point in time, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then when do you think we should change this language to reflect something that works better? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And the reason for that, when we started the initial review, DCA had not promulgated their schedule with Page 29 April 18, 2006 respect to when every county was going to have to submit their CIEs. We were under the understanding that all CIEs would have to be due by December the 1 st of every year. And when our schedule came on out, now we know it's March the 1 st. So it would be more appropriate to push this back a little bit further in the process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when we do this adoption, you want to change this to November. MR. COHEN: It would be more appropriate to push it back into November or December, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, do we still have the opportunity in the GMP to have mid-year updates? MR. COHEN: The CIE itself can be updated annually. There's an exemption for it by statute. And when we do the AUIR on a regular basis, we can -- we can visit the CIE on an annual basis as a, in essence, a special cycle of amendments, which are not a part of your regular cycle of GMP amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And presently in our Growth Management Plan we have language that not only talks about the adoption of the AUI -- or the capital improvement plan, but it also gives us the ability to amend our capital improvement plan. So you have two times that you can do it. Do we still have the two times that we can amend our capital improvement plan? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, what Randy's saying is that the amendment to the CIE is not subj ect to that twice a year amendment provision. So we have our -- we could have our two amendments per year. We have a single annual cycle, you keep, so to speak, in your hip pocket the ability to use the second cycle. That CIE is not either of those two. So it's separate from those. So in that sense we could have three amendments per year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's still in there? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Page 30 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying we can -- as we go along, we could change it as needed during the year process? MR. WEEKS: Well, after the AUIR is adopted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. COHEN: And we could also do changes as part of a regular cycle as well, too, if they were mandated as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any public speakers on this? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have three. The first one-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would this be a good time to take public speakers on this item? MR. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: The first one is Brenda Talbert. She'll be followed by Bruce Anderson. Mr. Chairman, three? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three. MS. TALBERT: Good morning. My name is Brenda Talbert. I'm the Executive Vice-President of the Collier Building Industry Association. The members of the Collier Building Association have worked together with this commission over the years on transportation concurrency issues. In fact, several years ago we came to an understanding on the terms for concurrency management system and even agreed to pay half of our impact fees up front to help the county aggressively address its transportation program. The proposed changes, including those made today to the AUIR and the CIE, which takes virtually all planned construction out of the first three years of the plan, has significantly altered our ability to rely on transportation improvements to move forward with our projects. These changes have also significantly altered the county's access to our up-front impact fees to move important proj ects forward. Page 31 April 18, 2006 Due to the limited time, I am unable to fully address our concerns; however, based on these and other factors, the Collier Building Industry Association wants to go on the record as opposed to these proposed changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bruce Anderson. He'll be followed by Rich Y ovanovich. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. And I wanted to make sure that I understood exactly what you did before I offered any comment. The perception in the back of the room as we listened to the back and forth is that no building permits would be available to be issued until a road project was completely constructed, and that that holds true even in the event of a Developer Contribution Agreement where they're funding, you know, more than just their impact fees, what they would have been. Is that correct or not? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want me to deal with that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bruce, state the first part of that question before -- I mean, again. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That no building permit would be able to be issued under any circumstances unless and until a road construction project had been completely constructed and accepted by the county, that you wouldn't be able to count that for meeting concurrency; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think what you're suggesting is that if you've got a buildout of four or five years, you won't be able to begin construction until the road is constructed; is that essentially what you're saying? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think what we're saying is Page 32 April 18, 2006 that road capacity for that part that is going to be constructed would have to be in existence before the building permit; in other words, it would be phased, similar to the phasing that we have done in the past. That would be my interpretation of how that would be applied. MR. ANDERSON : Well, in your rationale or desire to address that is the fact that even before anybody moves in, there is some impact. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: I would urge you to consider -- if you want to factor in the impacts of construction traffic, that we come up with a methodology to do that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. MR. ANDERSON: -- rather than, you know, use a blanket approach and treat it the same as if the residents are moving into a new development. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, and I wouldn't intend to do that. I would intend to base it on what level of traffic was going to be created during that construction phase, and that's the capacity that would be measured at that point in time. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. What about if there is going to be a developer contribution agreement? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The same thing is true. MR. ANDERSON: What incentive then does anyone have to enter into one? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any idea. MR. ANDERSON: I would respectfully suggest, none. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And I don't -- I don't know that that's really a good thing for anybody. You all want some outside funding, don't you, to help build roads? COMMISSIONER COYLE: When it's needed, we appreciate it, yes. But what we don't want is construction starting before road Page 33 April 18, 2006 capacity is available. That's gotten us into trouble already, and I don't want to see that happen. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I know you -- you're a businessman background, but I would -- I would simply suggest to you that for a developer to be able to fund road improvements, they're going to need to have some funds coming in. And under what you're proposing here, that's not going to happen, and everybody's going to suffer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it happened with Ave Maria, and it's happened with others, and it's happening right now with developer agreements that are being negotiated and have been approved. MR. ANDERSON: And they're not getting their building permits until the road improvements are done? COMMISSIONER COYLE: In some cases, that's true. MR. ANDERSON: Well, seeing is believing, and I believe I've seen some construction out there. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, on that point, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for clarity in what was discussed, that very policy that Mr. Anderson was speaking to. Policy 5.3, letter B on page 11, staffs understanding -- I'll wait till you get there. Page 11, policy 5.3B. Staffs understanding of your discussion was that we should remove the words "or building permit," and I wanted to make sure that that was correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was my intent. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And that's for B, not A. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's for B, not A. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But didn't you have completed added in there, too, and crossed out "under construction" and put " completed"? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not for that paragraph, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Page 34 April 18, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a concern. It just dawned on me, how we want to pay for roads predominantly is impact fees. What's being suggested here, we don't have the impact fees. So the only other source, what we're using right now, is gas taxes, about 16 to 18 million dollars a year, which won't build the necessary roads, creating a moratorium; therefore, we'd have to ask our existing residents, through property taxes, to pay for it. Am I wrong? How would we get the money if issuance of a permit is not granted, triggering the collection of the impact fee? Who would pay for it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, right now you've got a policy that collects 50 percent of the impact fees at the time of site plan approval. So people, in fact, are paying impact fees, and they'll continue paying impact fees for that purpose because that, at least, gets them vested, and it gives us one and a half to two years to get the roads in place. Now, it seems to me that we should be able to do that. And to the extent that we do it, we'll continue to get impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. At DO or -- I think it's -- isn't it at DO that we get the impact fees, or is it -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's at site development plan approval. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, 50 percent at -- MR. SCHMITT: Plan or plat approval, and then 50 percent at the building permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCOTT: There's combinations of everything out there. I mean, we have the WalMart deal that essentially they don't get their CO until the road's done, and I think that's kind of what we're hitting Page 35 April 18, 2006 on here. The opposite side of it, we've had some interest with some other development to have certain amounts of development built at a time, before the built -- road's built to make money for themselves to pay all the money that they're talking about above and beyond impact fees. So you have both sides of it, you know, COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But most of it -- most of the collection of impact fees is at plat? Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: I don't know if most. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: But you also have -- MR. SCHMITT: For clarification -- MR. SCOTT: We also -- don't forget about all the vested. MR. SCHMITT: We have 12 impact fees right now; 11 -- 11 of those are collected at building permit. Only one, transportation -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- 50 percent is collected at final plat or plat approval, or -- and then the other 50 percent is at building permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: So, in essence, the majority of the impact fees are collected at building permit, excluding road transportation -- or transportation impact fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's forget the side impacts of everything except for transportation, the collection of money. So 50 percent of plat, and then they have to -- if we change this, they have to wait till the road is constructed; am I right? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're going to take impact fees-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the impact fees are going to be used for improving the section of the road that is necessary to accommodate the initial impacts of that development, then we get -- Page 36 April 18, 2006 we are essentially getting about two years of time to do that. So that is money in hand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty percent of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but it's money in hand, and we're getting it two years in advance of a building permit generally. So we can begin the process of selecting a bidder and constructing a road. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And wait for -- the road is complete before we issue a building permit? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. No, the capacity to accommodate that particular phase of development would wait until the road is available. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, most our roads are at capacity, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So then would you propose that we just let the development go ahead and move -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. I'm trying to find all the impacts of this. And if the impacts are on the taxpayer, existing taxpayers, I think they ought to know about it, and I think that's where we're going to take it, because we need to -- we have to build the roads. It's a de facto moratorium. And then the only other source, since we're not collecting that other 50 percent, would be general fund monies. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, look at it this way. If representatives of the builders are telling you that if you implement this policy, you won't get any funding from them, either impact fees or development contribution agreements, then you're probably not going to get any development, which means you don't need the capacity on the roads. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 37 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So wouldn't you think -- I got -- I think we just need to think this out a little bit more. I know where you want to go, but what's the results at the end of the day? That's the only question I have. And I just don't feel comfortable because I know that people have property rights, because we said through the rezone process of -- you can approve your -- we're approving a development based upon our laws, okay? So those are out there. So we gave them that right, and now that they have that right, we can't just take it away from them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The legislation, the growth management legislation, is the reason this is changing. The development industry and the state legislature has changed the basis upon which we developed these understandings here in Collier County. The basis for those understandings has now been removed. We have to adapt to that problem. And if we don't adapt to it, we're going to get run over, and that's my concern. We cannot continue to operate under procedures that were worked out in the past in good faith with the development industry in Collier County after the development industry has assisted the state legislature in gutting the concurrency management system in Collier County. We've got to make some adjustments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't understand my concern? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do. I just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want the existing taxpayers having to be paying for -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only reason that will happen is if we make the decision to do that, and we do not have to make the decision to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do what? Page 38 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: To make -- to have the existing taxpayers pay for it. We would have to be the ones to make that decision. And if you don't want to make that decision, and I don't either, then it doesn't get made. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think that we need some legal assistance on this, where we're about to take it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I thought through our other discussions, prior to getting involved in today's discussion, it was my belief, and I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but as we talked about the CIE and the building of roads, we were concerned that if we put it on a five-year plan and all of a sudden something came up such as what we ran into on Davis Boulevard, and all of a sudden the state takes away the funding and we've already had it on our CIE report, the development can go ahead because it was on there even though we don't have the up-front funding that was promised to us. So we can't live on promises. We've got to have the money in hand before we can continue. And I think what we're saying here is that, in two years' time, when somebody comes in with a PUD or development order, that the road has to be in place, or in two years, and that's how we're going to set up our CIE; am I correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because we can't put the citizens in jeopardy in regards to being completely in a gridlock, and that we're looking with the 50 percent that is going to be given to us by the developers up front. We're going to get after the development of that particular segment of the road where that development's going to go into place. Now, that still gives them the ability to come forward and give us a proportionate share or however else, but we're going to have money in hand when that is approved, up-front money, to address that growth. I think that's what we're trying to say here. Page 39 April 18, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The rule, 9J-5, states, as Commissioner Coyle has alluded, that there are minimum criteria, and we can be more strict than 9J-5 allows, and I think that's what we're doing here and we're trying to make sure that we do have the money and the facilities in hand at the time that the impact occurs. I guess I'm not quite sure exactly what Commissioner Henning is looking for. It appears to me that we have a number of projects that would be coming in for final plat or final site plan and they would be paying their, you know, 50 percent of the impact fees at that time, and that that would give us the money to get started, and then later, as the road -- the money was funded -- there to fund the road and the road was being constructed, once the road was there, they would come in and -- for their building permits. And then I don't have the concurrency ordinance right here in front of me, but that's when they would be paying the rest. Isn't that right, Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: I think, addressing on -- the issue is, you'll get 50 percent paid up front if you can go forward, but if you've move the project outside of the three years and it's not a capacity you can approve on, you're not going to get that now. Will you get that in some areas that you have capacity? Yes. And what is the total impact of the money? I mean, out of the given year, I'm guessing we took in 50 million. We might have had 16 million in COA which was up-front money. It's lower this year. You have vested development that still goes forward. It's hard to tell how much is the 50 percent money, but we know in some of the years you're looking at that time now, if you move those proj ects out, then you won't get that same money. But there are also ways to address it through the agreements. The problem is, I guess, from the comments, are you going to get agreements where they say, all right, I won't build anything. I'm going to put up all this money and then I'll wait until you get done. Page 40 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give it a try. See how it works. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I think, was next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I need some help with it, and I'm not too sure. Joe Schmitt, would you also come up here? Let's talk about realities and where we are right now. First off, are we talking about proj ects that are all underway and we have understandings with the developers, such as Ave Maria, such as Heritage Bay, numerous other PUDs that have come in here for approval, would this be retroactive back to when they came in, or would this be something -- okay, it wouldn't. So we're talking about new things from the day that this gets approved and going forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let me see if I understand -- and Mr. Schmitt, you tell me what's workable, so -- you, too, Don. What we're talking about is that in order to be able to get on the list to be able to build, you'd have to pay 50 percent of your transportation fees at the time of plat. You'd have to pay them up front with no guarantee that the road's going to be built in any particular period of time? Is that the way you're hearing it? MR. SCHMITT: I'm kind of lost in your question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But let me start over. This is future dates. You have a developer come in here, they say, we've got this tremendous development, it does everything that we ever hoped it would do, and we're going to -- we're going to do your -- the 50 percent of the impact fees for the transportation up front at the time of plat. So they come up with that 50 percent. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When they pay that 50 percent, does that mean that even though they paid that 50 percent, they can't Page 41 April 18, 2006 proceed until that point in time that the pavement is down? In other words, they can't do -- pull their permit to pay -- MR. SCHMITT: In actuality, the way this language is going to be changed, that's the way I interpret it. We would not issue a building permit until the road is essentially going to be complete and be able to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- absorb the impact of that traffic. But just to clarify both questions with Commissioner Coyle as well. There -- the impact of this could, and I use the word could, impact existing approved zoning out there. We have vested developments. We would have to evaluate as to what level of vesting. There are DCAs, there's other type of things that vested those units. Ave Maria, you asked about. Yes, theirs is vested. Is the entire development vested? There are certain portions of it that certainly would be, but we would begin to implement this on a case-by-case basis as -- Ave Maria comes in in pieces. It's not all one plat or plan. It's incremental. The town is different than the university -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, I understand all that. MR. SCHMITT: -- is different than -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But my problem is --let me get to it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the idea is absolutely wonderful to have the road in place before you can build. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a wonderful idea, but in practicality, can we expect a revenue source coming in that will be able to cover that cost to be able to get there, I mean, if we don't have the rest of the money? Page 42 April 18, 2006 I mean, I know we can do certain things but -- I know we don't have gas tax, I know we've got that already committed for many years to come. I know we get about, I don't know, 38 million or so from ad valorem, but we have limited sources to be able to draw from. Is there a mechanism in there that we can get some sort of funding short-term, notes from the state or -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to have to turn to Don on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don, how would we cover this gap? That's what I want to know before I commit to it. MR. SCHMITT: I'll turn to Don on that. But to go back to your question about, we collect 50 percent at plat or plan approval. Let's-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not enough money really to build a road. MR. SCHMITT: Probably not. Let's take, for instance, Sabal Bay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, okay. MR. SCHMITT: Approved, it's zoned, some of that may be vested, some may not. But let's say they come in at plat or plan. It's a, I don't know, the clubhouse for the golf course, and they come in at final SDP, which is the plan. And upon plan approval, they pay 50 percent. We then will evaluate whether or not the impact of that clubhouse is going to -- what it's going to have on the road network, and then based on a determination through the modeling, the transportation will advise whether or not the building -- based on the policy, the building permit could or could not be issued. But this does put Norman in a position of, we've already collected 50 percent of the money. Weare then under some perceived obligation, I would say, government, to provide those roads based on the -- well, I'll call it agreement that we -- we accepted some money to allow the development to go forward. Now we're obligating government to make sure we fulfill, and that's been sort of the Page 43 April 18, 2006 argument of the industry. Government now needs to fill the requirement and build those road so they can proceed with the development. Norman? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I see the problem is the fact -- and I don't want the building industry out there smiling like crazy, but we're so locked in to impact fees on this, that if we don't have a steady flow of them, if we don't have that flowing from one end to the other, how do we cover this? How do we make something like this work? MR. FEDER: I think you've got some opportunity to balance. Let me throw out a couple things to make sure I fully understand the discussions. First of all, what I think I heard and what I see written in here is that we could address development once we've got it under contract, fully executed. If that is the case, it's not completed yet, but I can be under construction where if I need that capacity, then I can start collecting the 50 percent. That will reduce some of that impact that we're talking about and yet assure that we don't have the situation, which I think was this board's direction, that we have some delay or some problem and the construction doesn't start up and those impacts already coming upon us. It won't guarantee -- from the other part of the consideration I heard -- that you couldn't have some level impact from that development before the completion of the roadway. And so it's not doing that, but it is at least putting the construction out there moving before you're allowing the impacts to start going at final plat or plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just clarify that, if I could for you. You do have an agreement under those circumstances, because when you accept 50 percent of the impact fees, you grant them vested 50 percent -- Page 44 April 18, 2006 MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of that development. MR. FEDER: And the other, within three years, has to be paid. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So you have gotten an agreement and we have an obligation. MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're late in delivery, they can still go ahead. MR. FEDER: But under this scenario -- well, if we're late in delivery of the final construction, correct. But at least here issues that might intervene, whether they be permitting issues, other issues of the sort, as we're experiencing extremely high escalating costs, are something that we know and we're moving some of that risk to our ability to deliver. The other thing though that I will throw out to you for the board's consideration is developer contribution agreements from the discussion I heard. Under a developer contribution agreement, this board has the ability to customize and custom fit to the public good. First of all, we have not brought to you -- we've had plenty of offers of developer contribution agreement. As staff, we've not brought them to you unless we felt there was some overriding public benefit being provided, not just paying the impact fees for that development. That's the standard process. Just impact fees would have been the old days when we allowed you to pay your fees and go, and that's not the process anymore. But a developer contribution agreement where there's some overriding additional benefit above and beyond the impact fees being provided, and I think phasing gets in there and you get much more into the opportunities. So I would probably, from what I heard in the discussion, recommend that you leave open more the ability to customize a developer contribution agreement on a case by case, allowing for the Page 45 April 18, 2006 broader benefit which might be a little bit of a delay in the beginning, for a much better benefit than just purely your impact fee process. And I'll just throw that out for the board's consideration. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: I need to just -- forgive me. And I just want to walk through this, because I just heard what Commissioner Coyle said. In section -- at least paragraph B says final plat or plan. If we collect 50 percent, yes, I believe -- and, again, we're kind of in the mental gymnastics right now because it's the first we're dealing with actually striking building permit. But I believe we do make a commitment, and it does provide some sort of vesting. So in fact, if we accept the 50 percent and allow them to do plat or plan, which is basically the site work, then I believe we may be obligated eventually to issue that building permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At least 50 percent. MR. SCHMITT: For the rest of the 50 percent. So by striking the word building permit out, all we're preventing is the opportunity to allow somebody to go forward on an already existing site where there is nothing more than to issue the building permits to allow them to go forward. And I would believe that's pretty rare, because most anytime we require a site plan of some sort prior to issuing building permit. So striking the word building permit here, now that I think of it, may have very little impact, if none at all, because the only time I go right to building permit is if there's a site-ready development, but that's very __ again, very rare in the instances of a developing of a -- of a commercial site particularly, and going straight to building permit is only in platted subdivisions where there's an actual approved platted subdivision. So I don't know if there's going to -- now that we think about this, it will have the intent of actually -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It goes further than that, Joe. Page 46 April 18, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But under those circumstances, you're absolutely right, where we have made -- had an agreement with the developer to pay 50 percent. If they pay 50 percent and we take their money, we've got an obligation to do something -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because we cannot -- MR. SCHMITT: -- as government accepted that, and we are, at least in the CIE, committing to complete that road as scheduled to provide the necessary capacity to accommodate this -- the development. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are you done? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? We'll Finish the two questions by the commissioners, then we'll take a 10-minute break. We'll start with Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just going to throw in there during that conversation that even though we have a two-year expanse, there's so much permitting that's involved anyway, a lot of times it takes a long time to get through Army Corps and South Florida Water Management District so that, of course, can be moved on, right, while we're trying to build the road; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And I'm not sure what -- our discussions that it's nothing more than you're talking about de minimis at that point anyway for building permitted purposes. But obviously, yeah, there are other things that you get to the point of getting a building permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have construction trucks and everything coming in and out and offering more congestion than it's already -- than is already on that road. I mean, the permitting process would permit them to move forward anyway yet not impact Page 47 April 18, 2006 the road while we're trying to build it. MR. SCOTT: Right. And that has been raised by the Planning Commission, too, that we don't -- when we look at traffic, we look at the development that's done, not getting to that development, what would be construction traffic and everything else. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, so what we're saying probably doesn't hit the target that you want to. You still have to give them building permits. Is that -- is that your understanding with the 50 percent? COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as we have accepted money from a developer, we've got an obligation. We simply cannot back out on the obligation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: During the platting process? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this issue goes directly to proportionate share opportunities, not to our existing process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, the communities like Golden Gate Estates, as we know, it's been platted and vested, and we're not going to get proportionate share out of those, but they're going to have the impacts on our total network system, therefore triggering the constant need for capital improvements on our transportation. And I still feel -- I'm still very concerned that we're -- won't have the ability to have the monies from growth to pay for that infrastructure. So I'm just not at my comfort level with that. I'll leave that alone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think any of us are. I think Page 48 April 18, 2006 we are all concerned about funding, and I think the best thing we can do is to have some controls over the pace of the growth to the extent we can so that we can be more assured that we're going to have the funding to do the job. And I don't see that as a -- as anything that diminishes the ability to get impact fees. I think it might diminish the frequency with which impact fees come in, but if it does, that means we have more time to build the roads because the impact isn't occurring with the same intensity as approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's the frequency of the impact fees coming in. That concerns me, because right now we're about 20 to 25 million in collection each year for transportation impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: More than that, I think. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. But I know we're about 50 million from our existing taxpayers for roads between gas taxes and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ad valorem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- ad valorem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's about 29 million of ad valorem going to new construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-eight million in 2006, this existing budget, and then figure in 16 to 18 million dollars of gas tax, okay. I don't -- I think if the public really understood that, I think they'd be outraged. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They shouldn't because there's a backlog that we're all obligated to pay for. We haven't recovered from that backlog, and we have an obligation to provide ad valorem property taxes to do that. But certainly we'd all like to be in a position where we wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We will always have a backlog Page 49 April 18, 2006 as long as we have communities like Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then there's a solution. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is it? MR. SCOTT: Well -- and if the legislature determines that there's no de minimis anymore, then that's your opportunity that you would either go to a proportionate fair share per household or they wouldn't be able to go forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean proportionate fair share agreement? MR. SCOTT: Might be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we better start meeting every week and -- MR. SCOTT: My first comment to that is, I need a lot more people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: More government. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we've answered the questions of the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute break, then we'll start off -- I believe Mr. Y ovanovich wants to finish up his presentation or his speaking engagement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Speaking engagement. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a hot mike? David Weeks? MR. WEEKS: You have a hot mike, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're back in session. Before we continue, I have one question for the county attorney. The discussions leading up to the break, is this going to lead us into some type ofa moratorium? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think, based upon my discussions with staff, I don't think so. I mean, I have to tell you, when you first hear things at a meeting and you haven't had a chance to sit down with staff and go through scenarios, it's very hard to react at one of these Page 50 April 18, 2006 meetings and come up with a snap answer like that. So I think based on my discussion with staff though, the situation where you just have the building permits, it would issue very limited, and they're de minimis right now, so I don't think that there'll be a problem, but that's just based on what we know now. I mean, some strange quirk could happen and, you know, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to get some clarification before we continued on. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. MS. FILSON: We have three additional speakers. The next one is Rich Y ovanovich. He'll be followed by Reed Jarvi. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's still morning. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. Like Margie, I'm trying to react to what I heard. I think what I heard was that you -- once you pay for your -- half of your impact fees for an SDP, you're not going to prohibit us from being able to pull a building permit; is that what I heard? Is that the intent? COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think we may run into some issues if you throw the definition from 9J-5 in there that says, the road has to be there at the time of the impact because you may get tripped up when someone pulls a building permit. Under the old system, you know, we could waive concurrency when you pulled a plat and you would have the decision made at final building permit stage. So I want to make sure, whatever we do, we make sure that that's not going to happen by what we're talking about today. Second of all, I think roads are a little bit different than a water and a sewer plant. You have the ability to raise funds ahead, bond __ bond revenues, build a water and sewer plant in advance, and have it there when someone is ready to turn the tap for water or flush their toilet for sewer. Page 51 April 18, 2006 With roads you don't have a funding source to go out and build it ahead of time and then get repaid through payment of impact fees. And I think the legislature understood that when they allowed local governments to have a lag, that they didn't have to have the road there ahead of time. They knew that there were some -- there were funding issues with funding that -- those improvements. I've got some concerns about what you're talking about. If you don't have it under contract, I cannot come in and pay one half of my impact fees. I've got a PUD that's only good for three years, and you may never get the road funded within the first three years. The next thing you know, my PUD is expired and I've had no chance to get moving on it. An SDP's only good for two years. You may never complete the road -- you don't give us any guarantees when we pay our money. You just say, go forward, and then now it looks like -- that you still don't want to give us a guarantee as to when the road's going to be there. I think you've got issues. There's a couple of projects that I can think of right now under the new system that you're talking about. The hospital on 951 could not go forward under the proposal you're talking about because you don't have a contract yet for the improvements to 951. So under that system, the hospital wouldn't go forward. I'm not so sure the EOC can go forward because it's also on 951 and you don't have a contract to go forward on that, so I don't know if you're going to be able to build some of the -- some of the improvements we need for the community. So I'm concerned that we're trying to adopt a system that really -- really doesn't meet the needs of the community. And I will tell you that we've recently brought a few developer contribution agreements to the commission, and I think under what I'm hearing today, those development contribution agreements would not be allowed based Page 52 April 18, 2006 upon the revisions to the comprehensive plan. Essentially -- I think essentially what you're saying is, unless the builder is willing to build the road and have it there ahead of time, you do not want someone to bring to you a development contribution agreement for roadways. And I'll-- and I'll quickly -- we've been talking to Norm Feder about how do we address some issues on both Davis Boulevard and 951, and 951 and U.S. 41. And the development community is willing to give a tremendous amount of money for free, no impact fees credits, and front load the payment of impact fees with what we believe to be a reasonable phasing schedule to help us recover some of the cash flow, because you're talking about many millions of dollars that will be outlaid. Under what you're talking about today, I don't think we could bring that agreement to the distribution under the comprehensive plan amendments, and I don't know that that is what your goal is. I thought the goal was to get the improvements built and also recognize that the building industry is an important economic engine in Collier County. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Reed Jarvi. He'll be followed by Al Zichella. MR. JARVI: Good morning, Commissioners. Reed Jarvi, for the record, Professional Engineer in Collier and Lee Counties. Two -- three things that I'm going to talk briefly about. Changes this morning on page 3, letter C, was the 3 percent issue that Commissioner Coyle talked about earlier, about we could change it to 2 percent, whatever. I'll just comment that we went over this for a long time. I spent many, many months working on the concurrency management system with staff and tried to tweak it so it was reasonable and usable for everybody, and we settled on 3 percent as the significance factor. Part of that reason was the level of precision of the data that's available, and that, you know, the more precise -- the smaller the Page 53 April 18, 2006 number, the more precise it tends to be assumed, and it's not a precise data. So we -- I would suggest that you keep that at 3 percent. That is more strict than state standards, and I would suspect that it is adequate. Also on the subj ect that we've been talking about a lot, about the policy -- I guess it's 5.3, page 11, the letter B, I understand what the intent is, when the COs are issued at plats or plans, that you wouldn't restrict building permits, but I would suggest that if you -- if you do not leave in the language that allows a building permit, that there could be a miscomp -- or it could be misconstrued at some point in time in the future, and that it clarifies it more leaving the building permit in there. If the intent is to do concurrency at the building permit stage, then let's say it's at the building permit stage. But if the only issues really are Golden Gate Estates or something, I think this clarifies it by leaving it in. And the last thing is also, just to reiterate what Rich had just said, that there are several DCAs in process right now that, I think, have a great benefit to the community, and we need to be able to have that latitude to do that, and I would suggest that we not change things such that that latitude is not available. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: And your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Al Zichella. MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, Al Zichella. I'm here on behalf of CBIA. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address this issue today. I largely would like to echo Mr. Y ovanovich's comments and just had two quick comments to make. In our previous negotiations with the county -- and thank you for alluding to that, Commissioner Coyle -- we did sit at the table. We'd like to think that we were very responsible partners in that process. Our dealings with Norm Feeder and Don Scott were long, arduous, Page 54 April 18, 2006 diligent and honest. And during that time, it was from our side of the table that we recommended that the 50 percent be paid up front in lieu of -- actually it was 100 percent of the concurrency for three years was the original deal that we had made because we felt that -- we had asked outright, what do you need to build the roads? And we were told that, we needed the money sooner. We voluntarily did that. Now, many of you have said many times, and correctly so, that as a result of that negotiation and that deal, we now have that strictest concurrency management plan in the state, and we were on board with that. I would just suggest that possibly changing the way we measure the jobs in the CIP, that they now need the new requirement that they have a contract attached, was not contemplated at that time and possibly may not be in the best interest of that -- of that program continuing to work. Also, just one quick point, and then I'll leave. My understanding of9J-5 -- and I think I heard Marjorie say this before -- was that the impact -- the road, the infrastructure had to be in place at the time the impact occurred, not before the impact occurred. And I would ask you to contemplate that. I think that that is a pretty powerful argument against some of the things that we're talking about today. Again, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today, and hopefully you'll consider my comments. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to point out that these policies we have been talking about relating to concurrency requirements clearly state that the transportation levels of service standards of the Growth Management Plan will be achieved or maintained if anyone of the following standards of the concurrency management system is met, and then they're described A through F. Page 55 April 18, 2006 And most of the -- most of the speakers have been locking onto B as a reason for expressing a great deal of concern, but yet there are six other criteria that can be met that, in my opinion, meet all of the requirements that have been discussed, even the binding commitments with developers under F. So all of those -- those criteria have been considered by staff, and the only change we made to any of them is on B, removing building permit, and under F, specifying some time frame. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When will it be available. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, when will it be available. So I do not see any substantial concern here, and those changes will help us get closer to concurrency, in my opinion, and I don't see any cause for great alarm here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So do you want us to approve this by straw vote or -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, might it be helpful, I thought if staff would walk through. I've identified four changes that you've discussed. Just make sure that we're all clear, maybe five. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it would be appropriate to get some kind of fiscal analysis on any potential impacts of the changes being recommended by the Board of Commissioners. I mean, this is just a submittal, my understanding, and a final adoption. Because the impact -- the other impact fees are not collected until permit, how is that going to affect those facilities? Do you know what I mean, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do, and I think it's a good idea. The only problem is that it's going to be very, very difficult to place that in the proper context because we don't know the fiscal impact of prop. share because we don't have the prop. share ordinance developed yet. We don't know what that's going to do to us, and we don't know how much money that will or will not generate compared Page 56 April 18, 2006 to our impact fee process. As a matter of fact, that is -- that is the primary concern in these changes that I'm making here. If we could -- if we could be assured that we could keep our existing impact fee process going, I wouldn't be concerned about these things at all. What I'm concerned about is what happens when we don't have the ability to utilize our traditional impact fee capability? So -- but you're absolutely right. And I think we should set that as a goal as we move forward with the prop. share ordinance. We should have a fiscal impact of not only these changes, but the impact of prop. share and what our anticipated ordinance will result in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If that's your target, then I don't mind kicking this can down the road, but let's apply the reality. By making these changes, is the reality the impact fees will still flow like they have been? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't know. That's the problem, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need to ask the question. I don't think any of our staff here can answer that, and I hate to say this, but you're going to have to ask the industry whether, by increasing the standards, are they going to wait that long, or are they going to give us 50 percent of their impact fees and wait that long? So -- you see what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But if they don't give us impact fees, how long are they going to have to wait? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I totally agree with that, but there's already vested units out there that will still go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And is it going to be enough to make that capital improvement? COMMISSIONER COYLE: But vested units, although they have the right to go, have a right to go whenever it's available. Page 57 ~~-~_._-,~- "",-""".,.. April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you don't have the capacity, you don't get the building permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- is that true? I don't think that we can stop that. MR. SCOTT: Vested development can go forward, essentially, no matter what. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many -- how many of the vested units do you think we have? MR. SCOTT: I think a couple years ago when we were looking at it, it was around 40,000 vested units. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if those vested units were just concentrated in one part of the county, maybe it wouldn't be a problem. But I think they're all over the county in the urban area. So we're talking millions of dollars of capital improvements that we need to make on our transportation. So I just want to make sure that we're going to hit the target, that's all. I want to look at all of it. I want to look at the realities of, will we collect the money, okay? I want to know, what impacts are we going to have to other capital facilities, such as EMS, okay? And that's all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think we can do that. I shouldn't be speaking for staff. Maybe they can do that, but we have time to do that. This is a submittal. It is not an adoption. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there is no doubt that DCA will have some objections to what we do here. So I think that once we understand what those costs and impacts will be, we'll be -- we'll be prepared for adoption. But for submittal, I don't think we could hold up the decision to do this. If we -- if we fail to make some changes such as this in this document, then we give up the opportunity to influence how we're going to do it. So at least -- at least we're trying to adjust -- this Page 58 April 18, 2006 document says right up front that the purpose of this document is to respond to and implement the changes of state and federal policies. That's what it says the purpose of this is. We have state and local policies, as a matter of fact. We have state policies which have changed dramatically, and I will tell you that nobody knows how they will impact us. There has been no financial assessment of that by anybody, and we certainly should try to do that, and we certainly should try to determine how these changes we're talking about today will mitigate that impact on us, and we certainly need to be working toward that, but we can't hold up the submittal until that's completed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just -- I don't know if we're going to -- mitigate the impacts, and for us to guess at it would be wrong. But -- and our staff can give us an analysis on the collection. But you're going to have to ask the industry, is it going to be a reality? Are they going to wait an extra two to three years and anticipate their cost changes too? Are they going to -- willing to invest millions and millions of dollars to wait an extra two to three years? And in that time, what's the product that they're going to build? Where's their pricing going to be? Historically it's going to be up, but it might not. It might go down. So anyways I'm willing to kick it down -- kick it down the road, but I need to have all those answers before I can adopt. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good luck. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good luck. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're talking about the economics and health, safety and welfare of the community. I would think that all of us would want to know that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope you delivered that request to the state legislature. Page 59 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I know what I can do here, and if you want to make changes for local control, which I think you want to do, get all the answers, that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we've covered this enough. This is a transmittal. It's not going to be the final say on it. I have a lot of questions still, but I think what we're going to have to do is have this worked through the process. Even the people representing the building industry aren't too sure how to treat it at this point in time. Give them a little time to digest and then we'll really get into it. But I agree, Commissioner Coyle, if anything, take a strong stance in the direction of concurrency, and then we can -- if we need to later, we can modify it to make sure that it is actually going to work. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hopefully by June we'll have some kind of an indication where we're going to be going in this -- what direction we're going to be going in. Let's hope anyway. So staff, if you want to guide us in regards to what you want to accomplish here so we can move on to the next element? MR. WEEKS: Sure. Mr. Chairman, quickly to add on to what Commissioner Coyle was saying -- I did fail to mention this in the opening remarks. This is, indeed, a transportation hearing. You will have a second bite at the apple, the adoption hearing, to be held in the fall, of course. After DCA, Department of Community Affairs, receives this transmittal in whatever form it's going to be, they will review the amendments as proposed and they will issue any objections, recommendations and comments report. Joe Schmitt made reference to that. So we're going to find out what the issues are that the DCA sees, and also by that time, the legislative session will be over, so we'll Page 60 April 18, 2006 know what, if any, changes have occurred that would impact these amendments as well. And similarly -- and I'm speaking broadly now. Of course, not just the CIE, but for all of these elements. Also if there's any direction that the board should want to give staff as far as further review of these amendments in between the transmittal and adoption period, then of course we would gladly rece\ve that direction. Specifically to the CIE, Commissioners, I have six changes, and I wanted to ask if I've got it right. The first is on page 3, paragraph C, changing the 3 percent to 2 percent. The second change is over on page 10. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want us to -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- have an agreement on this? MR. WEEKS: Sure. If I could have a consensus. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three nods, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Next is over to page 10, objective five at the bottom of the page. We will delete the reference to rule 9J-5 and Florida Statutes Chapter 163 and instead insert the actual definition of concurrency from rule 9J-5. Was that the consensus of the commission? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, yes. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Over on page 11, policy 5.3B, we will delete the phrase "or building permit. " COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Where are we? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right down here, 5.3B. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Building permit, take that out. MR. WEEKS: And also a minor change. In between the word Page 61 April 18, 2006 plan and final, we would then need to delete the comma and insert "or," just to be grammatically correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have agreement on -- by the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three nods, okay. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Page 12, paragraph F, staff will add some reference to a specific time period. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When will it be available? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have agreement on that one? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The next one I don't know of the page number, but this is on the CIP schedule. There was a discussion of increasing the contingency percentage. Right now it's at 10 percent for all five years. I don't know if there was a consensus or an actual proposed number to change that percent. It was discussed to increase it as we go out in that five-year period. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We may need some guidance on this one, I think. Norm, could you lead us in this? MR. FEDER: Commissioners, what I might recommend for your consideration is the first two years, years one and two, we'll use 10 percent as a contingency. Third year, 15, fourth year, 20, and fifth year, 25 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's as good as anything else. MR. FEDER: And then, of course, also try to make sure that our estimates are maintained up to date. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have an agreement with the board? Okay. MR. WEEKS: Finally, Commissioners, on page 14, section five, Page 62 April 18, 2006 or paragraph five, we're going to change the month of August, delete that, and insert December. CHAIRMAN HALAS: December? MR. WEEKS: December. That will give us -- it says no later than. It's certainly possibly that it could be sooner, but we'll want to give the greatest amount of flexibility. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The reason I questioned that, there was some discussion about November. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. MR. WEEKS: And that's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have we got an agreement on that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. WEEKS: That's it, thank you. I think we're ready for the transportation element. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Again, Corby Schmidt. With the Transportation Element, there are some staff proposed changes since the version that you have in front of you that I'd like to distribute at this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: It's an accurate page number. MR. WEEKS: If we could have the visualizer turned on, or do it ourselves? Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll come to this change in order, by generally speaking as an overall introduction. We've worked closely between the comprehensive planning staff at the transportation department to make some changes to the language when it refers -- when it's referring to the Collier County Pathways Plan. Also we've made some general changes since you last made a decision regarding affordable and workforce housing, and there is an explanation that's been included since the last time you saw this Page 63 April 18, 2006 document with a clear explanation of the use of impact assessment techniques. Now, for 11.3 -- I'll go there myself. On that page 17, the entire entry before this was staff generated, and the language there was constructed with the idea that the Everglades Air Park was to become more or had become the property of Everglades City. And the discussion by the Planning Commission was that when that operation was no longer taking place and it was no longer used as an airpark, that the ownership would return to the county. Well, what we found by a study since the time that was -- this language was first proposed, with working with the Airport Authority and the MPO, that the Everglades Air Park -- although the MPO has been working with them to actually acquire the property, it is highly unlikely that property has been county property, is at this time, and is likely to remain county property. And any reference or inference to deed reversions or reverter clauses would not be necessary. What would, in fact, otherwise more likely take place is that the maintenance and operation responsibilities would be handed over to Everglades City, and at one point in time, when the air park no longer operated at those responsibilities, be returned to the county. And so the language you see here in red today reflects that likelihood. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This gives me some concern. I mean, the reason that Everglades City was looking for the air park was to be able to have a control, a really measurable control. If you're asking them to -- just to assume the responsibility of maintaining it, I don't think they're going to go for it. I'm sure this hasn't gone through them, or I would have heard something back by now. They're in the vacuum on this particular thing. I like the way we were originally heading where we had it where Page 64 April 18, 2006 they would be responsible for the air park as an air park. And if they did at some point in the future give up the designation as an airport, then it would have a reverter clause that would come back to the county. And they love that, because that would hold future city councils in line to be able to keep that as an air park in perpetuity. I'm not too sure that this is actually going to fly, and I don't see the advantages of the changes. I really don't. MR. SCOTT: And I think the wording was a little different. The MPO originally put this in based on the fact that federal money was being spent out there and the thought that, trying to keep it as an air park no matter who's running it. The Planning Commission had concern in the language that was added sometime in the last six years, and I don't know exactly when. I think it was like two to three years ago. The Planning Commission had a concern that they might try to develop it as something different than, like, condos or something like that, different than an airport, and obviously from an MPO standpoint in federal government, if they have to put money out there, there's a concern to that. I think if -- you know, staff was okay leaving the language the way it was, but that was where the Planning Commission was coming from. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think the Planning Commission's off the mark on this particular one, that if we go this way, we're going to have all sorts of problem. We're going to lose interest in Everglades as far as the direction we originally started with. I think we need a hold on the present course and we need to have that reverter clause in there to prevent that from turning back into something else. And if it did, then it would come back to us. MR. SCOTT: Well, and legal staff, we had -- when we talked to legal about the issue specifically, they said, you know, anything that dealt with that would be something they would be dealing with in their documents, that it didn't necessarily have to be in this anyway, but -- Page 65 April 18, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. If the board feels more comfortable with it in here, I'm not going to have any heartburn over it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see us revert back to where we were on it. And also, too, please explain to me what the difference between shall and will is. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Shall is generally a mandatory term, and will is more ambiguous, depending upon the intent. So it could be mean shall or it could mean you don't necessarily have to, depending on the intent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the Planning Commission was asking for that particular thing to be watered down. Was that their idea? Go from shall to will? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. I don't think it was their intent to water it down. They had a concern -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Their specific concern was -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- about that. MR. SCOTT: -- it was going to be developed into the condos, taken away as an airport, and then -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But then the shall and the will is staffs part? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I prefer the word shall. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, can you clarify something for the record? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. MR. COHEN: I know the Planning Commission's concern. Obviously if the transfer does occur and it's a transfer of ownership and it ceases operation, they also wanted the reverter clause put in there in case it did cease operation. And that language, that last sentence there talks about maintenance and operation. I think it was their intent that there still be a reverter clause type of language in there Page 66 April 18, 2006 that would say, if they cease to operate it, that it would revert back to the county. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my problem came with the interpretation of what this is just a moment ago where it said it would remain that the county's -- in the county's domain, and Everglades City would do nothing more than assume the maintenance of it. That isn't quite exactly what their looking with (sic). I'm sure that when we turned some parks over in Marco Island to the Marco Island City government, that the county didn't retain ownership of them. They turned them over, lock, stock and barrel, for their responsibility to run, maintain and whatever in perpetuity. I would assume that that would be the same for this airport. I don't see -- I don't see why they would be excited about it in this particular venture, where all of a sudden now, yeah, we agree with you, you can do it, but, however, it's still ours. You just get to go ahead and put your money in it and maintain it. You know, that's a wonderful deal, if you can get everybody to do it, but it's not a wonderful deal for the people in Everglades City. I mean, if they're going to maintain it, they should have the actual physical ownership. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Point of clarification. So in other words, you're going back to 11.3 as it appears in what was provided in the notebook rather than the recent handout. Because as I read 11.3 in the notebook, that contemplates a transfer to the -- of the ownership to the Everglades Air Park, and it does have the reverter provision in where you questioned the use of the word will as opposed to shall. Is that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where ownership does get turned over to the new -- to Everglades City Councilor their own authority that they designate or whatever. That's what I understand that to be; is that correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, that's what I understand what's in the notebook. Page 67 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This gives me heartburn, this new sheet. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: However, in the notebook it says, safe and orderly transfer of Everglades Air Park, and I guess that's presumed to mean transfer of ownership. That's in about the fifth sentence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry I'm taking a lot of time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, that's okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. I can come back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to make a comment about the same thing. This gets increasingly complex because -- let's go with the actual transfer of ownership to Everglades City. The existing language, it says, in the event the air park ceases operation, the air park property will revert back to Collier County. Well, who's to say that it should ever have to cease operation to be turned into some other commercial venture? For example, let's suppose you give the air park to the City of Everglades, and they now decide to turn it into an airport community and you build homes there and the people can have a -- live in their home and have a hanger right there and use the airport. It now becomes more of a development that generates substantial amounts of income and less of a public service airport. So you -- the reverter clause of ownership is simply not strong enough and it doesn't cover all possible opportunities for someone to exploit that airport for a commercial venture. And I don't think that's what we have in mind. So -- and I also understand Commissioner Coletta's concern. If you saddle them with just the cost of operation and maintenance, is that going to get them excited? Well, I'm not sure. But if you're not planning on turning it into something else anyway, then operation and Page 68 April 18, 2006 maintenance is the only thing you're doing. That's the only thing you'll ever do is operation and maintenance. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney may be able to help you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there is another point here. We're talking about, in the new language, that says that if it ceases operation -- maintenance and operation responsibilities, it will revert back to the county. Suppose they don't cease operation but their operation is below the level of quality that is deemed to be acceptable for the viability of the airport and/or for safety purposes? Shouldn't that be a reason to have it revert back to Collier County control? These things become very subj ective. And so some additional work needs to be done here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Comment on that. Commissioner Coyle's right, right exactly what they were trying to say in Everglades City. They want to assure that what they have will remain in perpetuity, that there won't be some entity that will come in and disrupt it to the point that it doesn't work, so you're correct. I don't know what that wording is. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's get some wording here by the county attorney. Maybe this will help clear the things up. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The point I wanted to make was that this isn't the document that's going to control the reverter. The document that's going to control that is the document that transfers ownership. And you could put some more particularity in there. Because I understand that when we have these hearings, you cannot think of every possibility that's going to happen. I mean, it's just not possible. I think we've seen that already. But in any event, I would recommend where you have, on the fifth line down, talks about fifth and orderly transfer of ownership __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Which one are you referring to? Page 69 April 18, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm referring to the one that's in the notebook, not the one that was handed out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Because I think that the board was talking about transfer of ownership and not a transfer of maintenance and operations. So to clarify that -- and then in the event the air park ceases operation, you might want to say, ceases operation solely as an air park, so that kind of gets you to your first point, Commissioner Coyle, because if you put solely as an air park in there, I think that covers a lot of things, then you can say the air park property shall revert back to Collier County. Since it's hard to think of every other possibility that might come here, and this doesn't really govern how we make our transfers, in my opinion, then I think when we come to the actual transfer, we could put more things in the document that does that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this language won't convert any legal obligation? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't believe it does, because under the law, development is supposed to be consistent with the compo plan, and otherwise it sets out programs and goals and things the county wants to achieve. And I don't believe that, you know, some additional fleshing out that we would want to do in a deed would -- that this would necessarily control that. I think it could be problematic if we looked at it that way. Now, that's not to say somebody might not make that argument, because whenever you put something out there, it gives somebody some ability to make the argument, well, your compo plan says. And so I guess, looking at it that way, you might want to put as much in there, but, you know, with the idea being that additional conditions, a reverter would be set out in a transfer document or the deed. And maybe we need to state that in here, and the other Page 70 April 18, 2006 conditions would be set forth in the deed of transfer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That might be good. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. WEEKS: I would suggest a text change to the version in your notebook. At the end of the sixth line, that sentence presently reads -- ends at "facilities from Everglades City." Ifwe insert the phrase, "for use as an airport only." And I think that addresses the concern raised about residential or any other non-airport type of a use being added. Then I don't think we need to add anything further, because now we've limited it to just that single use. So when that single use has ceased, then it would revert back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That won't -- I'm sorry. It's not my turn. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That won't do it because -- you're familiar with these private air parks where people build homes and they buy portions of it and it becomes -- it can be -- it becomes fairly -- or it can be open to other people, but you use the airport property for selling off individual lots and homes and that sort of stuff. You've got to have something in there -- and the lawyers know how to do this better than I do. But you have to have something in there that addresses that possibility and emphasizes the need to maintain it as a -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Open airport. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- public service airport or something of that nature. But I think Marjorie's idea of just putting a comment at the end of the language that's in the book, which Commissioner Coletta seems to prefer, and just put a comment at the end that the Page 71 April 18, 2006 details of this -- of this transfer and the reverter will be -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The conditions of the reverter -- of any possible reverter will be set forth more specifically in the deed transferring the ownership, something like that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does. Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That way that takes that argument away the somebody might try to make. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am curious to why we got this document at the eleventh hour rather than receiving it with our book. You know, I don't want to make a big issue of it, but it certainly would have helped when we were reviewing it if this was given to us at that time. It might have -- it might have given us a chance to be a little more prepared. Do we have other documents like this out there, to be handed out as we're discussing the item? MR. SCOTT: This particular issue, two different -- staff -- two sets of different staff, I should say, were working on the issue, and that's why you have two sets of it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But we don't have a number of other documents we're going to have to deal with during the day? MR. COHEN: No, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any public speakers on this? MS. FILSON: No, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussions on this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a couple questions, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. Page 8, policy 5.1, just looking for consistency on percentages, under policy 5.1, A, B, and C. We were -- we had talked about two percent. Page 72 April 18, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Two percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the same thing -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A, Band C, all three will reflect that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think C might be different. What does -- what's staff recommendation with respect to C? Why is C 5 percent? MR. SCOTT: You get the -- 5 percent is what we usually look at like a DR! level of -- once you get below that level, then you don't look at those links anymore. At some point you have to cut it off; otherwise, you're looking at the whole county and maybe a trip out there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's the reason we wouldn't have C as 3 or 2? MR. SCOTT: You could have 3. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about 2? Can you have 2? MR. SCOTT: Let's see. Third out. You probably -- if you had 2 and 2, you probably wouldn't get out to the point where you'd have a third link at 2 also. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really? MR. SCOTT: It would probably be higher than that. But I guess if it's above that, you'd still be looking at it. So you're either out three links or you're not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not significant if we do them all at 2? MR. SCOTT: You could do them all at 2 if you want. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And on page 12, paragraph C at the Page 73 April 18, 2006 top of the page, could you -- could you explain that to me just a little bit? Page 12, paragraph C. Could you explain that briefly for me? MR. SCOTT: This is specifically language for the TCMA that came from DCA that we would look -- we look at proportionate share specifically for TCMA requirements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it -- we cannot apply concurrency rules to that; is that what you're saying here? MR. SCOTT: Well, I mean, it is part of the -- in the TCMA, that is your concurrency rule at the moment as a TCMA that was adopted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. MR. FEDER: If I could -- and I apologize. On paragraph C, the issue of 2 percent versus 5 percent, what we're trying to do there -- and what we had established previously, 5 percent is pretty much the DR! threshold -- was once you've gone out a number of links, unless you have a very significant impact, we were trying to make sure that the traffic impact statements had some basis of relationship to the project. To go down to 2 percent you're creating a traffic impact statement. It almost becomes modeling of the whole countywide network, and so we're trying to focus on something practical. We brought it out three links rather than just making it the initial link so that we're capturing a lot more, because remember we started off with a DR! threshold of 5 percent, even on the first link. We said no, we want a lower threshold. We even brought that out to a second link. But I think keeping that C at 5 percent is appropriate in the sense that you're doing a traffic impact statement. We need to have some area of reasonable cutoff, and you will have established definitely the impacts that are being created by the third tier, because then traffic starts to divert in many different directions by the time you're at the third tier or the third link out from the proj ect. Page 74 April 18, 2006 So I'd request that you consider maybe retaining that at 5, although I understand your emphasize in going down from 3 to 2 will provide you that emphasize. But I think you need an end to where you're doing your traffic impact statement so it's not countywide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about C as 3 percent rather than 5? MR. FEDER: We can make it whatever you want, sir, but I'm saying that 5 is the DR!, and you're trying to get that traffic impact statement cut at a third where you've distributed in many different directions by the time you get there, rather than having the traffic impact statement, because we're remembering a lot more of those studies and those analyses. We'd rather get the refined good work within that level of detail than necessarily continue to push it out. But we'll do as the board wants. But I wanted to make sure you understood that originally it was 5 percent period. We lowered that to 3, now to 2, and that's fine. But keeping the 5 percent means that we keep the traffic impact analysis within a reasonable level of detail and ability to produce that, and we pretty much have captured the impacts by that point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do have countywide modeling capability? MR. FEDER: We have countywide modeling. Modeling is probably a little less detailed than we're asking for in these traffic impacts, because they get very specific. But yet, we could go to modeling, but then we lose some of the specificity that we're asking for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you required in other sections of this -- not only the capital improvement element, but also the transportation element to take a look at the countywide impact for rezones? MR. SCOTT: Well, in -- usually for modeling purposes, larger projects you model. Smaller projects it might be a -- whatever, a gas Page 75 ~.,-_. .....".'" ,~,._" April 18, 2006 station -- or if you don't model it -- is usually your cutoff type of level for modeling a certain type of project coming in. You know, the issue is how far out you're going to get on some of the -- how many links down the road are you going to get that you're analyzing and is it significant on those, and should it be that far away from the project or not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I keep going back to, the first item that we talked about was the countywide impact on transportation network for rezones. And it appears to me that if we're required to do that, we should -- we should have a guideline of some kind. And a 5 percent impact on a countywide model, which I believe is what C is really talking about, is a real big variation, isn't it? MR. SCOTT: Five percent of the service volume essentially, whatever link you're looking at. Do you have that many trips on that thing that you're more than 5 percent? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: On a third link, it would be significant, particularly if you look at even larger developments. Usually by the time -- depending on how many links are around, of course, you might be even lower than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would -- I would still recommend maybe 3 percent there rather than 5. I don't know how the other commissioners feel about that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other comments from the commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll give you my opinion in a second. One of the -- one of the reasons I'm happy with doing this, if I'm correct in my assumption, when we -- five years ago -- and I hate to revert back to that, but we were looking at Mirasol, and I was concerned about how much of an impact it was going to make on Immokalee Road, especially because of the other surrounding Page 76 April 18, 2006 properties, Terrafina and Olde Cypress and Parklands. And so we had four communities all with around 1,000 units per community all coming down into that one area. But I was told at the time you could only take one at a time. You couldn't judge it by other surrounding communities. If we have it at 3 percent, will we have a better handle on how much of an impact they, as well as other communities, will have in a surrounding area so that we won't do to other roads as we've done to Immokalee? MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously you're looking at it more -- you're saying it's more significant on whatever link that it happens to be hitting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, exactly. MR. SCOTT: And one of the issues is more of, say you're two links down the road, your first two links are operational, they're fine, but the third link is failing. If you were under the 5 percent, then you might be able to go forward because it's not significant on that link, meanwhile, there's an argument, is 3 percent significant on it that you might -- that -- it's the area and how you apply the concurrency later on to say, okay, these links down the road that you are impacting at that level, does that let you go forward or not go forward essentially. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does -- if we change it to 3 percent or 2 percent, is that stricter? Is that more protection for the road? MR. SCOTT: It's stricter, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other further comment? Please continue. MR. SCOTT: I guess we were at 3 percent or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.) MR. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three percent. Page 77 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: For C. MR. SCOTT: Yep, right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Third one. I don't know if you were -- you were noting something. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- I have some more, but they're relatively minor, and I don't think we need to spend a lot of time talking about them right now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were talking about residential developments within the south U.S. 41 TCEA can choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements, but that road isn't even going to be widened for 10 years at least. Why are we giving them an exception and no one else? MR. SCOTT: No. This was specifically in the area between Rattlesnake and Airport. That's the exception area, area driven-- drawn around it, but was specifically in that link there on U.S. 41 between Rattlesnake and Airport based on the fact that, if you look at the network, some of the other issues, some of the redevelopment wouldn't be able to go forward, so that was why the exception area was produced for that area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the county government complex is in that exception area, right? MR. SCOTT: It affects that exception area. I don't believe it's in the actual drawn land around it, but it does affect that exception area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one other thing. In the interest of consistency, page 9, policy 5.4, I guess it is, paragraphs A and B. Those are 5 percent. Is there any reason that we should have that high Page 78 April 18, 2006 a percentage? Page 9. MR. SCOTT: I believe that was matching up with the state standards for our FIHS facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have the authority to have tighter standards? MR. SCOTT: I guess from one standpoint, it's a -- TCA is where we're talking about down there. It doesn't have much effect when we're talk about the interstate, which is our only FIHS facility. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last thing on that south U.S. 41 TCEA, you don't mention what the area is in the written pages. Can you insert that? MR. SCOTT: I think we actually had some maps in the original -- and I think we still do in the Growth Management Plan that shows the exact areas of the TCMAs and the TCA. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't need to mention verbally where it is? MR. SCOTT: I think it's referenced on there. It just says, map TR4, when this south -- that is the map that shows that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's enough for clarification? MR. SCOTT: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So can we go forward now and get this wrapped up and make sure we make the necessary -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. I only have two changes then that you've made, starting on page 8. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two, 2, and 3, right. MR. WEEKS: That's correct; 2, 2 and 3 percent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I've got agreement with the fellow commissioners? Okay. MR. WEEKS: And then page 17, policy 11.3. You wanted to use the version that's in your notebooks, not the version staff presented Page 79 April 18, 2006 today, and you wanted to add a sentence at the end of that policy as Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student had advised, something to the effect of conditions of any possible reverter will be contained in the deed for transfer. She phrased it slightly different, but that was the concept. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have agreement by my commissioners? Yes. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Next would be the sanitary sewer subelement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. VanLENGEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Kris VanLengen, Comprehensive Planning. My comments will be very brief. Happily these five subelements upcoming will probably have less weighty issues than what you've already considered this morning. With respect to all of them, there were many recommendations in the EAR report dealing with fairly minor issues. All of them were renumbered, introduction sections were added, there was rewording for greater clarity, updates to reference documents and updates to programs either in completion or completed. With respect to sanitary sewer, I just have a couple of comments. The significant additions to the sanitary sewer subelement include objective criteria as far as the connection of individual septic to existing facilities as well as determining priority areas for regional projects, and those were at policies 1.5 and 1.6. These EAR changes also update the level of service standards, including three new sanitary sewer districts, as noted in the AUIR. And finally, there are sludge treatment standards that now apply to private utilities that previously only applied to the Collier County water/sewer district. Those are really the significant changes, as I see them, to sanitary Page 80 April 18, 2006 sewer subelement as a result of the EAR report. And public utilities staff is here to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I have a couple of concerns in regards to the discharge of fats into our sanitary sewer system. And how can we address that and how can we control that? MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Commissioners. Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Engineering. The sanitary sewer district, or the sanitary sewer, the division within public utilities, is, indeed, very concerned about this and has put forth some additional restrictions on -- to try to control fats. I don't believe that those are particularly addressed here. I may be wrong. But I haven't seen them there, but, indeed, it's something that we are concerned with trying to address. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is, because of the recent problems that we've had up in the north area, North Collier Reclamation Plant in regards to addressing that issue, it has caused some concerns with the residents around that area, and I believe that's because of the fats that are in the -- being desposit -- being deposited in the sewer system; is that correct? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, that is correct. And, indeed, we are -- we are concerned about it, and, indeed, we are addressing those issues as we speak. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm not sure if this is the document that we want to use as the vehicle. But my concern is, how can we address this in the future so that we can cut down on those? Obviously this is not the vehicle to use. But what my concern is, is what -- what leverage do we have to try to address this particular issue? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, it is a matter that is currently being studied as a consequence of the issues that you mentioned at the north plant. I'm afraid I'm not prepared to talk about it in detail. We certainly will be prepared to do that in the future. Page 81 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one brief question. Is there anything here that encourages or mandates reuse water for irrigation? MR. GRAMA TGES: There certainly is, both within the potable water and within the sanitary sewer area. There are a number of issues in here that we have included to try to address precisely that . . Issue, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. VanLENGEN: Just for the record, I think you'll find those at policies 4.1 through 4.6. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have the page number? MR. VanLENGEN: They would be on pages 8 through 9. And they're also repeated verbatim in the potable water subelement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Is there anything within this part of the item dealing with the sanitary sewers as far as required in the rural area, such as Golden Gate Estates? MS. FILSON: No, sir. That's not addressed here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any public speakers on this. MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So why don't we go through the -- any of the changes. There's no -- have -- hasn't been any proposed changes, so we'll pass this on. Do I have nods? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it, yep. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's take a lunch break. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we'll take a lunch break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's early. Page 82 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll come back at one o'clock. You've got 10 minutes extra. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can go home. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're back in session with the afternoon session of the EAR report. And where's staff -- where we leading off at? I believe -- MR. VanLENGEN: Kris VanLengen, Comprehensive Planning. I believe we left off at potable water subelement. And the only element I would note there are on elements 1 -- excuse me -- policies 1.4 to 1.7, and those would be found on page 2. Those are -- those are new. They were called for by the EAR report, and basically they're very general coordination types of provisions that were required by 2002/2004 Florida legislation, the same legislation that required the water supply facilities master work plan that's now underway. And that's really all I have on potable water subelement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Didn't I see where the planning commissioner recommended an advisory board for utilities because of this matter? MR. VanLENGEN: In fact, we were going to bring that up as part of the solid waste subelements, since that's where they did it, but we'd be happy to handle that issue now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I have some concerns on that, too. I don't really feel that we need to have an advisory board on that. I feel that we give enough direction to utilities in regards to addressing the issues that need to -- that are pending before us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we've got Bob Krasowski. What more could you ask for? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's wrong with public input? I mean, I thought that we really base our local government on public Page 83 April 18, 2006 input. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I -- that's true, but we've got public input. I think Bob Krasowski's our public input. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got community development advisory boards, we've got library advisory boards, we've got parks and rec. advisory boards. We don't have one for public utilities. What's wrong with that? I mean, it's -- actually it should be more important, potable water, and making sure that we have enough landfill space. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we pretty much addressed that on our AUIR reports. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm talking about the public, Commissioner. I'm not talking about what the staff generates. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's always good to get a fresh point of view, too. I think it's a great idea, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see anything wrong with it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm kind of curious to where we go. Why don't we have one for roads? Why don't we have another advisory committee for -- I'm not too sure what's missing out there. I don't -- I really don't see there's an overriding need. I haven't had anyone from the public come up to me and say they felt like they were unrepresented by what we were doing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, if there was a real public interest in it, I would say yeah, go for it. But I mean -- and in some cases where we've got like the new water treatment plants, sewer plant going out there in Orangetree, they put together a special group for that because of the immensity of the project. And it's focused on that one particular item, and I think that's an excellent -- and I think Page 84 April 18, 2006 we should repeat that in the future. But it's generally for the advisory board to be able to cover the whole issue. I don't know. I don't see the real need myself. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't either. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody else got any discussion on this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Always good to have people's input, . . . IS my opInIon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've got 55 boards too many already, but nevertheless. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we going to have a transportation advisory board too? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that's -- that's not a bad idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We do have the -- we do have the MPO advisory boards, like the PAC and the CAC and -- so. MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. Thank you for the opportunity to hear -- to express to you that we already do and see if this meets your intent. Looking at this carefully as to what public advisory panels we report to and coordinate with in conjunction with you as your board of director for the utility here in Collier County, I count somewhere around 19 or so that we deal with infrequently and frequency, to include the Development Services Advisory Committee. They have a subcommittee that deals exclusively with utility standards and utility matters, for example. The productivity committee has done the same thing with regard to utility matters and utility situations in terms of our rates and our fees and our finances. I could go down here and talk to you how we've worked with the Page 85 April 18, 2006 Planning Commission, with the -- with the utility code subcommittee, with the Conservation Collier and many others. So with regard to public participation, we have a significant level of participation already in place with regard to that. The ad hoc committees or the committees which are formed in time to deal with special needs, such as the North Utility Facilities Community Advisory Panel is a good example of that, as well as all the work that we do with the numerous homeowners' associations as well as neighborhood associations throughout the community. So with regard to public input, I think that that pretty much covers the spectrum of the way we involve ourselves. Finally with regard to actual decisions. No decision, of course, is not (sic) done in strict accordance with your requirements. We have no autonomy that does not come directly from relegated board direction or approval, and also we work very closely, as you know, with the Clerk of Courts to ensure that they have a good vision into what we're doing currently and planned. So with regard to public participation, I think I've outlined many of the things we do. There are many more that I could speak to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that pretty much covers it, as far as I'm concerned. I think we've got enough watchdogs in place to make sure that we're doing the right thing here for the citizens of Collier County. MR. DeLONY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure if we have support there enough. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. You've got mine. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got Commissioner Coletta's. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't know. Do we? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. Page 86 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. I didn't see you nod. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I should have been more vocal. Yes, you've got my support, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's much better. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I fell off a little bit there. I'm recovering from lunch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other issues that we need to bring forth on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So are there any discussion in this matter? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're on potable water, right? You didn't switch for me, did you? Are you on potable water? Is that the one -- MR. VanLENGEN: We just concluded potable water, and we're onto drainage, if that's your direction. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you want -- okay. MR. DeLONY: Could we do solid waste, please, Kris? Would that be -- MR. VanLENGEN: With your permission, could we move ahead to solid waste? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other administrators are here. MR. DeLONY: Oh, I'm sorry. You don't want to be with us, today? MR. DeLONY: Sir, absolutely, I want to be here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DeLONY: Be more than happy to be here. I was just thinking of the interest of time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the rest of the day? For the Page 87 April 18, 2006 rest of the day? MR. DeLONY: Sir, if that's what you wish, that's my job. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it just seems like you don't want to be with us here today. MR. DeLONY: Well, sir, to be frank with you, we spent a lot of time together last night. But, frankly, yes, sir, we'll being more than happy to be here and comment on anything you have any questions for me to do. I was just here, and they're back there, and I don't have to put my coat on to come back up here, so I was trying to be efficient. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't take your coat off. MR. DeLONY: I will. When I'm in the back of the room, I always do, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's continue on. Where we at now? MR. DeLONY: Solid waste. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, you had a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. Let's go to page 3, please. Is there something I'm missing here? In policy 2.4, I guess it is, subparagraph 1, increase the permissible elevation of the Naples Landfill? Which landfill are we really talking about? MR. DeLONY: Our landfill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Collier County landfill? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's properly termed the Naples Landfill. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, it is. That's what we call it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Want to rename it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like-- MR. DeLONY: I'll take some direction if we could, and we'll come back and we'll -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the Coletta Memorial Page 88 April 18, 2006 Landfill. MR. DeLONY: We could make it that, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: Some people often refer to it as Mr. DeLony's landfill, so I'll-- Mr. Coletta, you're more than happy to take the credit or the blame. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think it's strange. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But nevertheless, Collier County landfill would be great. But let's go to paragraph 4. If I -- if -- are you with me? MR. DeLONY: Not yet, but I'm working on it. Okay, got it, 2.4. Yes, sir, go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I were to ask somebody to solve our problem with respect to dependence on oil and told them not to consider nuclear technologies, they'd probably think that's really stupid guidance. I think telling you that you should explore em.erging conversion technologies but you can't use anything that involves burning is really stupid guidance. How do we know what technology will evolve out there? Why are we restricting you from taking a look at it? We're not going to let it be implemented unless it is proven. And I know we've already proven that because we've investigated that one time and we didn't accept it. But why would we keep you from looking at all emerging technologies? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I feel the same way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. DeLONY: It was staff recommendation that we do not restrict ourselves at this stage of the game with regard to not Page 89 April 18, 2006 considering. Obviously anything we're going to do, it's coming right back here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. Exactly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. MR. DeLONY: It's going to be fully vetted by the public. We have a board workshop at your direction. It's going to come up, I believe, in the October time frame, that was the direction I received from you all some months ago, I guess at AUIR time, that you wanted us to come in, it's time for us to revisit our long-range solid waste integrated strategy. And so to take that off the table, I think, as you suggest, sir, we may miss an opportunity for a compliant and permittable and best-value decision for us or a future board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we take that restriction out then? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I want it taken out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's -- that's it for me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Am I jumping ahead of you or did you -- okay. Is there anything in here that's discussing about the limits of the Naples Landfill? MR. DeLONY: The only -- the only language that we've got in here, it speaks to -- and it's in the same policy paragraph that Mr. Coyle referred to on page 3, policy 1.2.4. It speaks to, that we would like to increase the permissible elevation of the Naples Landfill -- soon to be renamed landfill, if that's the direction I get -- so as to gain additional airspace capacity. And, you know, hereto before, we've not really received direction. We've done some feasibility studies, as you're well aware, back in 2000, 2001, that says we can go -- it is feasible to go higher to increase airspace and, therefore, landfill life. But as far as directed board guidance, I've received no guidance either way. Page 90 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know we've got a workshop coming up in October. At that point in time I'm sure staff will have many presentations. The only thing I want to enter at this point in time is that I'd like us to give serious consideration to expanding the Naples Landfill when necessary at its present location and finding ways to mitigate the land that we inadvertently placed into sending lands, to be able to deal with that at that time also. I know there's talks going on about possibly opening another landfill in Collier County. And I -- that will go nowheres. I'm not too sure this board is ready to give directions on it now, but -- MR. DeLONY: Sir, if I could -- if you could go to bullet number 3, or actually number 3 of that same policy -- this is 1.2.4 -- secure and utilize capacity at a landfill or landfills outside of Collier County. That's probably the only paragraph in here, to answer your specific question, that speaks to increasing landfill capacity in this document. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that's outside Collier County? MR. DeLONY: But the word there is outside. There's nothing inside. You've got the one that says -- you've now given me some clear direction, and we'll make sure, David and Kris and I and Phil, that we're going to get the language here for your final approval of the second reading that says, it's okay to go higher if it makes sense to do it, at board direction or board approval. But to work within the confines of the current footprint of the landfill, I have no -- nothing in here that says that at the existing location we have that we would increase that footprint, rather, by this direction, I only have the permission to go higher. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we -- can we give you direction at this time -- MR. DeLONY: Sir, you can do anything you'd like. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to increase the footprint? Page 91 April 18, 2006 MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. This is the time to do that, I believe. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll be honest with you. I think that we're -- we're pursuing landfills outside of Collier County or pursuing landfills, new landfills inside of Collier County, is a venture that we're going to find to be extremely expensive, time consuming, and probably not all that successful. As far as expanding the present landfill -- and I want to compliment you and the management of the landfill in doing a wonderful job over the past four or five years and containing the odor. The complaints have been next to nothing. It's no longer the issue that it was when we first became commissioners. And I can see of no better place to keep the landfill than where it is and be able to increase the footprint. Because as far as I'm concerned, the only way we'll be able to deal for the near future with our problem of solid waste is through burying it, but also have enough room to be able to some day pick up on the technology when it becomes feasible. It's the only cost-effective way I can see to go. I don't know if my fellow commissioners agree with that or not. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let me just add in this that, first of all, what we talking about as far as increase in elevation? MR. DeLONY: Don't know yet, sir. I'd have to come back and talk to you about that. I think having the direction for me to explore that and put that on the table of options that essentially the menu that we would develop after -- or during our workshop of where we're going to go for the next 50 years, I think that's certainly one thing we want to have some -- the arms around. The study that we had earlier -- I think Commissioner Coletta can tell you from that, as well as Commissioner Henning, I believe that we were looking at, to put another 30 or 40 feet on the existing elevation, but that's just me talking. I mean, to approach this you'd have to look at it very carefully in terms of its permittability, as well as the cost associated with that before you could make that kind of leap that this Page 92 April 18, 2006 is the best course of action. As you go higher, there's costs associated and risk associated with side slopes. And also, you know, there may be a situation where, you know, height of that landfill becomes unacceptable for people from a visual standpoint. So I really can't answer that in specifics. But that was the general ballpark of the earlier study in terms of, is it feasible? And that was about as far as we took that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other concern I have is, since we don't want to have a landfill in Collier County but we're willing to look at landfills in somebody else's back yard, I've got a problem with that. So, you know, if we're not -- if we don't want to accept our own garbage, why should we put it in somebody else's back yard? That -- I have a problem. So I think the containment needs to remain within Collier County here, is my feelings. And at that, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- there's a lot of history on the height of the landfill. I don't know if we need to hire a $2 million consultant again. But it was at -- if I remember right, I heard 180 feet as opposed to 108 feet, rough numbers there, and it added something like 30 or 50 years. Does that sound about right? MR. DeLONY: Again, I'm going to tell you that it was a feasibility study. It was a back of the envelope thing. I would not want to sit up here and represent it one way or the other, but it was found to be feasible. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it was a number of years. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, oh, absolutely. When you put that kind of height and you can sustain that kind of height operationally -- thank you, Mr. Mudd. I'll turn you to the former public utilities administrator, some people say the best one that we currently have, and he'll bail me out on Page 93 April 18, 2006 this. But I'm trying not to tie you to a number today because I want to really look at this hard in light of where we are with managing our waste stream, which we didn't have when we did the study in 2000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's a general discussion, and I'm asking the questions for certain reasons. MR. MUDD: The feasibility study basically, the authorized height of the Naples Landfill is 105 feet, and the study talked about going to 165 feet. And, Commissioner, if you -- if you decide that you want to put retaining walls around the landfill, then that talks to the slope issue that Mr. DeLony alluded to earlier. You get yourself, anyway, around 30 extra years at that landfill if you go up to that height and you put the retaining walls around the side. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if that's the case and we know the growth is heading out east, wouldn't it be more feasible to, you know, reduce the truck traffic on the roads and try to find a landfill site to the east where the growth is? MR. DeLONY: And that's the reason we're having a workshop in October, to discuss these kinds of issues in a menu format so you can help guide staff on where you want to go. I concur that -- with you on this, sir, if we can put the landfill in the centermost part of this county, we can do it cheaper, faster, better and at less impact than if we're trucking, like most communities are, 30 and 40 miles one way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I'm glad you agree with me on one thing. So we don't want to box you in and limit the opportunities for that workshop, but I can tell you that there is a lot of history on burning garbage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everywhere. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, here in Collier County. Page 94 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I mean -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Over 30 years, and each time that the board spent a lot of money on bringing that up, and each time that then commission turned it down. It wasn't just too long ago that we threw that out the window. MR. DeLONY: Within the last five years, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, every 10 years it seems like, revisit that issue of incineration, and I don't want to spend any more money on it personally, because the community comes out, and then all of a sudden the board kills it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we ought to leave that opportunity open as Commissioner Coletta -- or Coy Ie said, that just because a lot of people have a negative aspect about nuclear energy doesn't mean that it should be ruled out, discounted as -- not to looking at it in the future. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, and I guess it's like something like incorporation of Marco Island, just bring it up enough and it will happen. But I'm not going to spend any money on studying that issue. I think it's been kicked around enough myself. And the cheapest thing, as everybody knows, is landfill, like Commissioner Coletta said. MR. DeLONY: The bottom line of it, I hope that given this second reading when we come back with some language here, you can give us the battle space, or at least the area to work, come back here in October with a menu, go from there. I think it is timely. If you remember our discussions at the annual utilization and inventory report, you know, we're looking at -- we're looking at a point in time where there's going to have to be a decision made, and we all know decisions delayed usually are more expensive than do decisions made as soon as possible. And I'd like to have that opportunity to have that dialogue and get into receiving direction with you in October. And if we're able to Page 95 April 18, 2006 consider going higher, if we're able to consider an increased footprint, and if we're able to look at conversion technologies, inclusive, not exclusive, but inclusive of burning technology, I think you've given me a full menu plate of at least putting that on the table with some back of the envelope probabilities. If not, then this would prevent that from happening. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not true, because you didn't -- you didn't say -- you heard the majority of the commissioners want to keep it in Collier County, but you said, expansion of the existing one and not looking for new sites. MR. DeLONY: Oh, I didn't get that direction. I did not -- that was not the direction that I had received. Is there a direction to also consider an alternative to our current landfill site within Collier County? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard, you said that we wanted to discuss all those items in October. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I just heard you say, given the menu -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is -- not one of them is looking all through Collier County. MR. DeLONY: And absolutely. You know, in 2000 -- this board in 2001, it was confirmed very clearly, no new landfills in Collier County, and that's up there with everything else that's been -- driven us now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the present one is a new landfill. MR. DeLONY: In a sense of the word, it does, yes. In one sense it could be considered additional -- another site, but it's adjoining to it. I understand what you're saying. Here's what guidance I've heard, and then -- and if you want me Page 96 April 18, 2006 to put that in there, that's fine. I just -- the only thing I don't have is whether in the menu of items that we're going to have back in October and what we're going to want in the EAR, speaks to some other landfill in Collier County than the existing landfill in terms of where we would go with a landfill in Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that's good to, you know, give those menus of what's -- you know, what is best. You do another one you, you centralize it or you expand the existing one, I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm jumping ahead of everybody. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. You can let him jump ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I do have a passionate urge to respond to this. Let me point out a couple of facts to you. You weren't successful the last time you tried to move the landfill. It was quite a traumatic experience they went through. At that time there was probably about half the population or less of -- out there in the eastern part of the county than there is now. Not only do you have to meet with a bunch of other people that are going to be in opposition to it and very unified on it, you also have an environmental concern out there that far surpasses anything that existed before. And on this very issue, I already have been meeting with the different environmental factions who are totally unsupportive of moving the landfill and will be expressing this to you in October, and they're willing to talk to us about having parts of the landfill we have now that were placed into sending and converted over to something that would be conducive to running the landfill. Page 97 April 18, 2006 If you want to go out there and put a landfill in eastern Collier County, you're also going to have to deal with Ave Maria now. It's not going to work. You're going to spend millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to no avail at all. And I can tell you already there's been inquiry sent out to the Collier Corporation to see about certain orange groves they have for a landfill, and there has been no replies coming back, and I wonder why that is? So, I mean, we can pursue this puff of smoke as long as we want, when the real answer is right here in own back yard and it's still in District 5, and that's the present landfill, finding some way to expand it at that particular juncture. If we are going to come back for consideration of it in October -- which isn't the end of the world. I'm more than happy to have it placed in front of us as far as the table goes, it will certainly bring out the interest of everybody and his brother in District 5 and the environmental community. At least let's limit the scope of what we're telling staff to do so we don't spend hundreds of hours of staff time and hundreds of thousands of dollars of money and just research that's going to be a waste of time. My only suggestion. And I thank you very much for letting me go. I feel a little calmer now. Obviously this isn't a passionate subject at all for me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We do own 300 acres there, right? MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And we've been researching and looking into waste energy, right? MR. DeLONY: We have been pursuing that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looking-- MR. DeLONY: -- that key to the kingdom for many years, and Page 98 April 18, 2006 as is every other community in America. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I know I went out to look at the Fort Myers landfill and bum site. And, you know what, there were so many little birds and little animals and everything around, and I'd heard all of these other things. But it was -- and fish. It was a very productive thing, and not a bit of odor. But anyway, so I'm glad that we're pursuing on our own 300 acres. I think that's good, waste to energy, as I mentioned. Recently we did have some pretty bad odors over there. You have taken care of those, right? MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, we did. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I maybe try to solve the apparent disagreement in what we're trying to do here? I think we're talking about priorities. I don't think anybody has any serious concerns with the things on this list of four here. But we're talking about priorities. And could I suggest that just as guidance to the staff we say that number two is the top priority, number one is the second, number four is the third, and number three is the last? Would that do the trick for you? Because if you took number two, you're trying to reduce the waste stream coming into it, okay. That's something that's going to be ongoing, and you're already doing this. MR. DeLONY: About 50 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So you just keep improving on that and keep -- and then start recycling more and more, and then proceed with getting permission to increase the elevation of the Naples Landfill, and at the same time you're running an evaluation of any emerging technologies. And since all these other things will have bought you many Page 99 April 18, 2006 years, probably 20 years or 40 years, then number three can be something you can evaluate a little bit later on. Is that an acceptable approach? MR. DeLONY: If it's the intent of the board to restrict number three to only landfill capacities outside the county. If it's to be -- if you put a period after landfills and take the words "outside of Collier County," then it leaves the option on the table that's been suggested by Commissioner Henning. And I'm not just telling you, that would be number three. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's way out there. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Many, many years away. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because you will have bought lots of time with these other things. MR. DeLONY: If that's our approach and deployment. You know, if our approach and deployment is to optimize existing resources before we claim new resources, absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. DeLONY: The new resource is going to be inside or outside of the county based on board direction. I mean, that's the bottom line. Because your existing resources, or the existing footprint, and at this direction, that is -- that adjacent footprint, your elevation. And then after -- after you've considered that, you've looked at technology converging probably at the same location, and then you're looking at haul it out or haul it east. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is, are you basing this on the population we have as of today, or are you basing this on the population as it increases to what we feel is going to be over a million people at buildout? MR. DeLONY: Sir, the AUIR, the Annual Utilization of Page 100 April 18, 2006 Inventory Report, is based on the population proj ections approved by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. DeLONY: So it's a running tally as we're looking as the comprehensive planning dictates, or as they prepare those population models and projections. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I think there's a little discrepancy there. I think there's something around 850- to 900,000, but yet there's been talk that we'll have well over a million. So are you basing -- on the A UIR report, is that based on over a million population? MR. DeLONY: You want to take that, David? David, go ahead. You want to take that, Randy? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Don't be bashful. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody wants to take it. MR. DeLONY: I'll answer it. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners-- MR. DeLONY: Yeah. The bottom line of it, I look out to 2025 as best I can with what these folks can help me with, and it looks -- it looks at what we know today in terms of buildout population to that point in time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And 2025 -- what are the numbers of 2025? MR. DeLONY: I don't have them -- do you have our AUIR with you this morning? I don't have it. I didn't -- I'm sorry, sir. I'm not prepared to answer that. MR. WEEKS: But you're correct, Commissioner. The 2025 population figure is not going to be built out, so it's not reflecting that worst-case scenario, so to speak. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But what we're trying to do here is push everything down the road. And what we're trying to do is make sure we make the right decisions at this point in time so that Page 101 April 18, 2006 people who will follow in our footsteps here aren't going to be basically -- their hands are not going to be tied because we can't address the issues of refuge. MR. DeLONY: Sir, you know, in all planning, you have to have a -- you have to eventually have a planning window. And we can come back in October and talk to that planning window. This may be one aspect of county government that you want to look at more than a 10-year or a 20-year scenario. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-five. MR. DeLONY: I would say if David or Randy or someone from comprehensive planning, or anyone at all, can give us a crystal ball that says, okay, here's the deal, Mr. DeLony, in 2050 we're going to have X people here, I can take that X and multiply it by a generation rate and tell you exactly what the demand's going to be. It's just a math test. And then I can look at disposal capacities inside of the four priorities you've given me and describe to you a best-fit scenario. You know, if that's the direction we want to go. I mean, that's not that hard to do, except we all have to agree. You know, kind of like what we're going to have at lunch, you know, 20 years from now, we're going to pay for it in some respects. I mean, it's not hard -- it's not simple. And you know, you say potato and another says potato with regard to buildout. So if we can be synchronized on what we consider to be the instate during that planning period, certainly we make those plans. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I'm sure that we're going to run into problems where we're going to try to get rid of our garbage to someone else, and it's going to be extremely expensive. And so we need to contain it within the confines of this county here, one way or another. MR. DeLONY: The level of service and the cost of the level of service in Collier County for solid waste -- and I've briefed you on this Page 102 April 18, 2006 before -- is the best value in Florida. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. DeLONY: Why? Not because I'm a great administrator. Because we have excellent disposal capacity, and it's inexpensive compared to other alternatives. Lee County, for example, it's expensive to run that waste energy complex as opposed to a haul and bury facility. That's the point. I mean, that's why we're able to provide the great service we provide at the level of price -- or the pricing we provide. So here's the -- if I may, the only thing I'd ask, if you want me to consider or not consider, is we develop for October in light of this EAR a landfill or landfills inside the county. I just need to -- you need to let me know that. If not, I'll go with this guidance with the corrections to number four as directed by, I think, the majority of the board on the waste energy aspect of it. That's all I guess that we really need. And then I think that will give me what I need to begin to have a playing field of decision cards for us to play in October. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala allowed me to speak out of turn the last time, so I'll follow her this time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I was just going to say, I think it really is important that we think about 2075. One of the things we're -- we're really lucky to have is 300 acres at our landfill, and that's because somebody had the foresight to buy up all of that land. I don't think it would do us any harm at all to identify an area that is, you know, 50 years down the road so that when they're trying to run our government at that time and they need some space, whether it be for a landfill or whether it be for affordable housing or whatever, we've got some land secured far out but still within the county that we can -- that we have of our own that nobody can take from us for future Page 103 April 18, 2006 use. I think that's good planning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with Commissioner Fiala. You've got to plan way off in the future. And we're always going to need space for landfill or for recycling. We don't know what new technology's going to require. We're required to have what, is it a 20-year window of -- MR. DeLONY: Let's see. You're challenging me here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ten years. MR. DeLONY: Ten years worth of unlined space-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MR. DeLONY: -- and two years of lined space is our concurrency model as we speak today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's playing it close when you consider how long it takes to permit a landfill. MR. DeLONY: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And in fact, I don't know if you could do it in a 10-year period. MR. DeLONY: Not a new one, I don't think, no. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would be difficult. So let me see if I understand. Before we send you out with directions that are conflicting to the point that we're unsure what we're doing, is it the will of this commission to have you come back in October also looking for a landfill within Collier County or not? I mean, I kind of hope that we don't pursue that particular avenue and I guarantee you the meeting's going to be four times as long, and the end result is going to be that we're going to stay within our current footprint. If we start that particular venture, it's -- we're going to be going up a slippery slope that's going to get us there. I personally would like to see it that way. I don't know if I have two other commissioners that agree with me on that or not. And if Page 104 April 18, 2006 they don't agree with me, I hope they would at least limit the scope of your directions as far as the availability to go to some general terms and coming to us for further direction in October with some cost factors and permitting factors and what the availabilities are for land and willing sellers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would like to have them identify some land and really buy it. But, you know, in 2075, we don't even know if they're going to have any problems with solid waste. They might have so many new technologies we're not even aware of them. So then they should be able to convert that land to something that the county needs. So I'm saying, I think they should buy the land just in case, but we might not even need it at that time, just prepare, and then be able to use it for something else that the county could use as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You'd buy it with funds from the solid waste budget, I would assume, so it means that that's the direction you'd be going. So I assume -- the only assumption you could make is that it would be a future landfill, and once the option's opened up, I'm sure that that's probably the avenue we'd be pursuing in the future years. So I doubt seriously there's going to be support out there from the people that live in that particular area, everything east of 951, and -- or the environmental community, you know. Buying land and holding it for other reasons might be a justifiable cause, because we're never going to find anything cheaper. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We might never need another landfill. You know, you never can tell with technology. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. But the thing is, is the landfill's objectionable out in that -- in Collier County. Another landfill, whether it's 10 years from now, 20 years from now or 50 years from now, it's something I don't want to burden the people that live there. Page 105 April 18, 2006 We already have a footprint that's available that we could contain ourselves for many, many generations to come, probably until new technology comes to the point where they zap the stuff into outer space or another dimension. But until then, you know, if there's an available place out there, that's going to be the contention for a long time to come. So there won't be any support to buy with the idea of, you only take it if we need it. You know, I mean, we can go ahead and put it on the agenda, but it's going to be a contentious item to be able to deal with, and I don't see this commission now or in the future ever having any success in relocating one. But once again, too, we're getting into details that I'm really not that experienced on. I got the edges of it. If you want to hear a full presentation, October's the place for it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we're going to run into some real serious problems and spend a lot of money in regards to looking for additional landfills. I don't know whether -- I need to hear from the other commissioners. Burning technology, I think, should be left on the table. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you do number one, how many years is that going to get you? MR. DeLONY: Current utilization rates, Mr. Mudd spoke to it earlier, as much as 20 years, could be. I don't have the specifics, as I spoke to Commissioner Henning earlier. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that gets you out how far? What -- MR. DeLONY: With the existing footprint plus that, let's say 30, 35 minimum. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty more years? MR. DeLONY: Thirty, 35 years, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask. Existing footprint, the Page 106 April 18, 2006 one we're in now or -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So 300 acres? MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am. The existing footprint, we've got about 15, 20 years, you know, somewhere in that neighborhood left. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're talking about -- MR. DeLONY: Then you add on top of that the elevation, 15 more years, 20 more con -- I mean, 15 conservative. We're talking 30 more years at the current footprint going up. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we don't have to decide this year whether or not we buy more property for another landfill? MR. DeLONY: The only challenge, if I may, this year or any year, is twofold. First of all, we're filling up to the east. You better get your bid in early. Secondly, the generation of capital to do this would take probably in the form of something coming from the enterprise. For example, we have either a tipping fee or -- in our residential assessment, a surcharge that would generate capital dollars for displaced airspace, kind of like a capacity fee, because -- capacity consumption fee, and you'd want to make that small and let it build up over time. The sooner you make the decision on what you're going to do, or at least have a capitalization fund, you know, that cuts smaller with regard to pursuing and obtaining those funds from the public, or from the users. So that is the only advantage, sir, you know, to not waiting, in my mind, is that if you're going to go with an alternative landfill site, other than the one we have now, you know, you have -- time does matter. Time does matter in terms of those two constraints. That would be my input to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You mentioned existing Page 107 April 18, 2006 footprint -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a number of times, and you say it will hold you maybe for 30 years. But how about the rest of the 300 acres? MR. DeLONY: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much will all 300 acres last us? MR. DeLONY: I don't have that number. You know, one of the directions of board up till now has been, (shakes head). COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So how many acres do we have in the existing footprint? MR. DeLONY: About a hundred and -- about 200 acres, little over 200 acres, I guess. Jim, have we got about 250? MR. MUDD: Two hundred fifty, 300. MR. DeLONY: Yeah, it's about 300; 250 to 300. Some of that's wetland, some of it's part of the storm management. So you've got an equivalent amount of land north that you have south right now in terms of the landfill. So it's not an insignificant amount of opportunity if we choose to move north with another set of facts associated with solid waste disposal. I mean, the site's there in that regard. Now, how much of that we could actually develop because it's wet -- and we'd have to go through that study. And hereto before, staffs been told not to do that. We've got the caveat that within -- Commissioner Coletta can tell you better than I, that we -- really, right now, we can only lay claim to about 150 acres of that for something other than's set aside for conservation under the current land use. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure -- Jim, are we talking about that half section, that 300 or so acre section only? I've heard you refer to the property to the north. MR. DeLONY: That's correct. Page 108 April 18, 2006 MR. WEEKS: That's beyond that 300 acres? MR. DeLONY: No. MR. WEEKS: That's within? Thank you. MR. DeLONY: No. You have the existing landfill's about 300 acres, and there's 300 acres north of it as well. MR. WEEKS: Okay. It's in the next section? MR. DeLONY: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: I just want to point out, there's presently -- I mean, it would take a comprehensive plan amendment. There's presently language in the future land use element where that land is designated as sending. It's north of the present landfill. And there's also a prohibition on expanding the landfill itself into that location. A waste to energy type facility, I believe, would be allowed. I think it was specifically called for as being an allowed use, but the expansion of the landfill itself -- so if we end up going in that direction, whether it's today or in the future, we would also need to make an amendment to the future land use element. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If I may add? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Rules made by man can be changed by man. There's nothing that's so written that can't be changed. And this is why I've been meeting with the environmental interests out there for the past six months on this very issue. If their choice is to allow us to be able to go in there or relocate in another place in Collier County, there's no choice to be made. They do not want this landfill going to another part of Collier County. There's no place in the rest of Collier County that's suitable for a landfill. It just won't work. So I mean, when it comes down to it, we need to pursue this very actively with the idea that the present rules are rewritten to be able to agree with reality. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, understood. I just wanted to Page 109 April 18, 2006 make sure the whole commission was aware that there is that present prohibition. You're certainly correct, you have the authority to make the change to that designation and/or to specifically just allow for the landfill use. As Mr. DeLony's mentioned, there are environmental constraints there. We would certainly need to do the appropriate analysis to make sure that it is an appropriate change to allow that use because all of these comprehensive plan amendments do go to big brother, they go to the Department of Community Affairs, and we do have to ultimately have their "no objection" to these changes. MR. DeLONY: Thanks, David. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it seems like there's some meetings that we all wasn't privy to or wasn't joined in. And I hope this is not a done deal. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Far from it, Commissioner Henning. Thank you for thinking that I would have that much control over the surroundings. I appreciate the compliment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, anyways, I want to move on. We talk trash too much. Let's get into something like parks. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think Mr. DeLony and I both are still waiting for that final word. Do we have consensus to allow the future landfill to be outside of the county only or would we modify this language to allow it to be inside? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Inside, where it is? MR. WEEKS: No, inside the county. New landfill inside the county at another location. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we give you the flexibility to do both, and then we base it on the cost and convenience, or cost and service, the final decision? Page 110 April 18, 2006 MR. DeLONY: Then if that's the case, then the edit to number three would be, put a period after the word landfills, securing utilized capacity at a landfill or landfills, and then I would be able to have the menu selection for you to do that with -- consistent with the language in the EAR when we come back in October. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My one last note, and then I promise not to say any more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to put it in your back yard. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have, sir. It is my back yard. Thank you very much. And that's why you want to name it after me. A memorial means I'm dead, so stop it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That can be arranged. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mount Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The only thing I hope that this commission stays realistic as far as directions they gave you, don't become so over encompassing to the point where we're losing hundreds of hours of staff time. That's the only thing I'm concerned about. Generalization, where you come back to us with the numbers that have been generated before and be able to maybe move them up to date within reasonable bounds, that's fine. But I just -- I just dread the fact that we're so short on staff now that we'll have a dedicated effort going forward and hundreds of hours of staff time. I mean, when you come back with the information you've got, if this commission is so interested, they can direct you to take it to the next step. That's the only caveat I'd add to this. You agree? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, I agree to that. MR. DeLONY: Mr. Chairman, if I might. Let me restate then so we can, as suggested, move from trash to parks. Page 111 April 18, 2006 Obviously we want to look at number two in terms of its recycling and diversion. Secondly, let's look at elevation in terms of the existing footprint. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. DeLONY: Thirdly, let's look hard at technology. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Definitely. MR. DeLONY: Okay? And then fourth, look at expanding into the current landfill site which would be, in a sense, a new landfill or other landfills, and we'll leave it at that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. DeLONY: Is that -- is that good? I mean, does that -- does that interpret what I've been told to do today? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You also struck that language there? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, outside of Collier County, and would be -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, the burning technology. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, and the burning techno -- yeah, the conversion of -- conversion technology would include conversion technology. Obviously burning would be part of that. So, David, did you get the notes on that? Kris, are you good? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got -- we got enough nods here? Okay. I believe we -- MR. DeLONY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. VanLENGEN: Kris VanLengen, Comprehensive Planning. If I could talk trash just for one more second. It's incumbent on me to mention on page 2, policy 1.2, my error, that it refers to a mandatory collection ordinance, number 90-30. That should have been updated to 2005-54, and we'll do so at your direction. Page 112 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. VanLENGEN: And secondly, there was a recommendation by the Environmental Advisory Council to explore the regulation of packaging of retail goods, which staff felt was well outside the scope of the EAR. Whether you determine to recommend to staff to study the matter and get back to you on that, I'd leave to you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's what -- it's outside the scope of what we can suggest really. That has to be done by the private sector. Do I have nods on that? Okay. Yeah, I think that should be stricken because we haven't got any control over that. MR. VanLENGEN: Okay. I believe we can move on then to the drainage subelement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The thrust of the changes to the drainage subelement were to remove some of the -- initially the EAR report suggested updating some of the basin studies that were, at one point, under way and some were to be scheduled. And what staff recommended and is incorporated with the Planning Commission's consent is that these references are basically placed now in the CCME so that hopefully your discussion as part of those -- those efforts, those basin studies in terms of priority and timing, will take place in connection with your review of the CCME. That would be in policy 1.5, page 3. Also, on page 8, policy 6.3, two additional bases were added, and also along with them, their associated off-site discharge rates. And we do have staff from stormwater/transportation to answer questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions from commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Page 113 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I see where the Planning Commission recommended that these plans be implemented by 2012, and staffwas saying 2018. What's the difference in dollars and cents and availability to be able to do so? MR. CALVERT: For the record, Gene Calvert, Stormwater Management Department. Yes, Commissioner. Of course, that is under the CCMA -- or CC -- yeah, coastal management plan. We have looked at some of the impact and whether it can be done. It's not a matter of dollars because it's -- it still needs to be done if we adopt this plan. It's incidentally. The storm management fully supports the idea to go ahead with these watershed management plans. The issue of 20 18 versus 2010 versus 2012 is a matter of scheduling. Can it all be done? We have probably on the order of 11 to 13 basins, drainage basins, within the county. For a priority basis, we probably have six to eight of them that really need to be done in fairly short order. The cost could range anywhere from $800,000 to $1 million per basin. So we could be talking anywhere from 6 million to $20 million to do this work. We've looked at it fairly hard for the last few weeks and came up with a pretty good road plan or a road map, if you will. We believe that we can implement this thing, and to get done by 2010, it will take a little bit of an effort. It will take two issues, staff and money. Certainly to do this, to obtain this goal by 2010, we will be looking at a -- at a -- maybe a three-year program, totaling about $6 million. Now, that's not to say that it will only be $6 million. We think we can get it done by $6 million. But it depends a lot on what gets put into these plans. And so that's where we need to have a lot of public input, go through the process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does this -- basically these watershed programs, this is to meet the compliant standards for a total daily discharges? MR. CALVERT: Well, it's a little bit more than that, if you will. Page 114 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CALVERT: It's really a land development plan. I'll let Mr. Schmitt -- MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask the indulgence of the board, I think with -- the watershed management plans we ought to cover at the CCME, because -- not slighting Gene any, but it involves more than stormwater. It is a very comprehensive issue encompassing everything from water quality to environmental habitat to water quality issues. So it is much more than stormwater. And I think we -- it is referenced in the CCME, and I think that's where we probably need to address this item. Even though it is referenced in the stormwater piece, it really is part of the CCME. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CALVERT: I would totally agree to that. It really does tie the two of them together. They are -- work hand in hand, and it is a much broader activity than just the stormwater management. It will involve the comprehensive planning, the community development, et cetera, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: The total watersheds that we're talking about? MR. CALVERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. VanLENGEN: And if I could add one more comment on the record. At the request of the Planning Commission, language was changed under policy 3.4, which is on page 6, changing the words "shall be given" to simply give -- "to give major emphasis." Excuse me. We originally had" give major emphasis." They changed it to be "given. " Staff seems to feel that the original meaning has been lost. The intention there was to prioritize the maintenance or improvements of existing facilities as opposed to building new facilities and they would prefer to revert to the earlier language simply to "give priority." Page 115 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a comment concerning that. You're absolutely right that their phrasing is an inappropriate phrasing for the intent of that sentence, and I think you need to go back to your "give. " MR. VanLENGEN: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? Because that would be appropriate phrasing for your intent. MR. VanLENGEN: And if you preferred further clarification, we can simply say that county improvements to maintenance of existing drainage facilities shall be a priority over new construction of projects and incorporate that language if that's your direction. That seemed to be their intention, and I don't see any reason why they don't want to just put that there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Read that one more time. MR. VanLENGEN: County improvements to -- excuse me. Maintenance of existing drainage facilities shall be a priority over new construction projects with the exception of Southern Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's -- that says the same thing but in a different way, and I think it is clearer. MR. VanLENGEN: If you're satisfied with the way it's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think the way you just phrased it is clearer. MR. VanLENGEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none. MR. VanLENGEN: Okay. That concludes drainage. The last subelement of public facilities would be groundwater aquifer recharge subelements. I don't really have too many comments here. Page 116 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you have enough direction from us to -- enough nods here to continue? Okay? MR. VanLENGEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MR. VanLENGEN: The groundwater aquifer recharge element, policy 3.5, the EAR report called for an update and forming a water resource planning group. And the Planning Commission agreed with staff that that may be a redundant effort giving -- given the fact that there are many other planning groups in effect that cover that point. So creating a new group may not be what's required, and the Planning Commission felt that that would be good to eliminate that, so in 3.5 you see that that's been eliminated. It simply says, continue to conduct water resources planning. And that's probably the only significant change here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We give him guidance? Okay. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next element then would be the housing element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the groundwater aquifer recharge subelement? Did you skip that one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just did that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We just did that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's a long day. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the staff member assigned to this is no longer with us. I'll briefly cover this. Cormac, no, no. I will gladly let Cormac, please. MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, Page 11 7 April 18, 2006 your Housing and Grants Manager, for the record. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't get the notice, did you? MR. GIBLIN: Which notice was that? Oh, the "previously with you?" MR. WEEKS: Different staffmember. MR. GIBLIN: That was a comprehensive staff member, I hope. The changes to the housing element you have in front of you today are -- I would classify them as basically wordsmithing in character except for maybe one or two that really have some importance to them. And if you'd like, I can just guide you to those, or if you have any questions and want to just go from here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I've got a couple. And this is -- do you know how many affordable housing units we've got scheduled to come on line with all the development that we've secured in regards to affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN : Yes, sir. In the past five years, the Board of County Commissioners has approved over 5,000 affordable housing units to be built. CHAIRMAN HALAS: To be built? MR. GIBLIN: To be built. About 1,000 or so have been built so far. So there's roughly about 4,000 that are somewhere within that development cycle timeline, meaning after approval by the board, but still working their way through site plan approvals, Army Corps permitting, you know, everything it takes to get -- until you get to rooftops. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And then the -- the other question I have, when it says, Collier County shall pursue interlocal agreements with the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island and Everglades City to require each of the cities to provide their proportionate share of affordable housing -- affordable/workforce housing units. At this time how many affordable housing units are scheduled in Page 118 April 18, 2006 Marco and in the City of Naples? MR. GIBLIN: I can't answer that, sir. I can tell you right now we have interlocal agreements with both of them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Which they essentially make cash contributions to Collier County. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And what are those cash contributions? MR. GIBLIN: The City of Marco Island provides 10 percent of their building permit fees annually to the county, which is to be a minimum of at least $50,000. CHAIRMAN HALAS: $50,000? MR. GIBLIN: But historically for the past few years it's hovered around $80,000 or so. One year it was over $100,000 in one year. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's Marco Island? MR. GIBLIN: That's Marco Island. The City of Naples has a similar interlocal agreement. The City of Naples is a state entitlement community for the SHIP program, just as Collier County is an entitlement community for the state SHIP program. The City of Naples actually gets its own SHIP allocation directly from Tallahassee. Through that interlocal agreement, they turn around and give us that entire allocation. It's about $130,000 a year. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So they don't use any of that money? MR. GIBLIN: Exactly. It actually comes wired straight to us from Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I see, okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Going back to the interlocal agreement, proportionate share, is that 50,000 and 130,000 considered a proportionate share? What's proportionate mean? Page 119 April 18, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: Well, this was language that was added at a commission meeting a few weeks ago. You know, we were a little bit uncertain in terms of exactly, should we put a dollar amount in there, should we put a number of unit amounts in there? And so I think it was determined at that meeting that the words proportionate share based on, you know, most current data studies and methods, you know, it would be a calculation or a study that would have to be undertaken to determine what that -- what that proportionate share is. MR. STUDENT-STIRLING: And then you would have to, you know, negotiate the agreement or the amendment to the agreement with the appropriate jurisdiction, whether that -- you know, the City of Naples and City of Marco. So to put -- try to put a number in here before such an agreement or an amendment to the agreement were negotiated and finalized, would seem -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we do have a speaker. I guess that speaker is from Marco Island? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Well, I don't know ifhe's from Marco, but I think he works on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Vince Cautero. With the permission of the chair, could we hear from Mr. Cautero? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. CAUTERO: I'm happy to be here. Is this the appropriate time? Mr. Chairman, if this is the appropriate time, I'd like to address those comments. Bear with me, I haven't used this. This wasn't here when I was here last time. I just have -- Vince Cautero, for the record, Community Development Director for the City of Marco Island. I have two tables that I'd like to share with you and possibly leading to your consideration of some alternative language for the obj ective, which I think may get us to the same point that the Planning Commission has Page 120 April 18, 2006 recommended, and I've sent this language to Mr. Cohen and Mr. Schmitt, and I certainly can put it up on the visualizer in a moment. But I just wanted to talk to you a little bit about the agreement and some of the efforts that are underway in the City of Marco Island in this area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: To provide affordable housing? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: The table that you see in front of you on the screen is one that we created as we prepared our EAR-based amendments, and we call it density analysis table. On the far left side are the land use categories in our comprehensive plan and how some additional residential dwelling units can be constructed on Marco Island and what the capacity would be. These numbers come from our comprehensive plan, the maximum numbers in the far right-hand column. They're not zoning categories again. They're broad land use categories. Based on our GIS system within the city and our building permitting data, we are able to determine how many units have been constructed in each one of these categories and how many are remaining. The city council has a goal to reduce density in the city by 4 percent by the year 2013. It's in our EAR, and we must adopt a policy in our comprehensive plan to accomplish that. So what I'm showing you on this table is the maximum amount of units that can be constructed. And the number that everybody focuses on when I put this up during public hearings on Marco is 23,828. That's the maximum number. I screwed up there, Cormac. There we go. This table is a repeat of the one you just saw, but it is the one that we're using right now as we work with our planning board on the potential reduction of residential units. And I'm getting to a point here Page 121 April 18, 2006 on how we might be able to recommend some alternative language to you in the obj ective. What our planning board is doing right now is going through various land use categories, and they're trying to meet the city council's goal of reducing some density. During their discussions they are asking -- they have asked staff to devise policies on how we might be able to entice developers to build affordable housing, essential services housing units on Marco Island. Your comprehensive plan language now uses the terms affordable/workforce, so I'll be consistent and use the same terms. In doing so we have a provision in our comprehensive plan that calls for a density bank. Our planning board has come up with an idea to try to utilize that density bank from the units that we're reducing. The goal of our EAR is 947 units. That's the 4 percent. The planning board has targeted over 1,300 units at total. And what you see on this chart is a -- an example of where some of the units are coming from, in our commercial areas, in our town center area where we have commercial and light industrial land uses, marina land uses, conservation lands, where we have one unit per five acres. Our planning board is getting ready to make a recommendation to the council to down zone, if you will, or change the density from 1 per 5 to 1 per 20. We may end up with over 1,300 units that may come out of our comprehensive plan. In doing so, the planning board had an idea of creating a bank where we might be able to use those for individuals or corporations that maybe wish to develop affordable or workforce units. So what I've come up with is an idea that extrapolates on that. And perhaps we can talk to the county as we enter into discussions with the interlocal agreement, which will expire October 1 of this year, of possibly transferring some of the density to Collier County. Having said that, if the visualizer can be turned on. Do I do it Page 122 April 18, 2006 here, this? Okay. I'd like to then put this in context and share some alternative language with you which repeats what the Planning Commission has said to you, that Collier County shall enter -- pursuant to local agreements with the three cities, committing each city to their proportionate share and using a best available data. But I've taken the liberty of sharing with your staff and your consideration, that this shall be accomplished by using various techniques, two of them have been recommended by your planning board already. The construction of residential units within the respective jurisdictions, that's what your objective in a sense -- in essence, says, that the planning board has recommended to you; financial contributions, which is already being accomplished; density transfers and/or the use of linkage fees. Again, this is just an objective. If the commission is so inclined to recommend that this language be transmitted to DCA and it is ultimately accepted, details could be worked out later. But what we're -- what I'm proposing is that as we go through our exercise, we're going to recognize units that are going to come off the books on Marco Island. Our city council is committed to that. If we do so, perhaps we have the opportunity to transfer some of those density units to Collier County at a place where you choose, and details could be worked out later. Sort of a transfer of development rights program. The concepts and the details could be worked out later. We'd like you to consider that. That might be one way for us to accomplish it in addition to what's already on the books where everybody talks about their fair share, including financial contributions. Now, I'll just close with one statement. As Cormac said, the agreement calls for 10 percent from our building permit fees for new Page 123 April 18, 2006 construction; 10 percent or $50,000, whichever is greater. We have a little bit of a dilemma with that, which is something that's going to come up during our negotiations if the county is still inclined to discuss that issue with us, and if the city council is inclined to that, and that is, the building department is now an enterprise fund on Marco Island, so the more money we take, the more money we wouldn't have -- less money we'd have for building operations. Previously, when the agreement was signed, up until this current fiscal year, it came from ad valorem taxes. The dilemma there is that we're operating under a spending cap. Either way, we're experiencing some difficulties with it. We may experience those difficulties in the future. We're going to talk about it. What we'd like to do is just put more options on the table to discuss. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Help me with this just a little bit. Now, transferring your density, obviously there's a dollar amount that will go with that or else it has no bearings at all. I mean, for us just to take your density and apply it someplace else in Collier County wouldn't make any sense, you know, because that's a burden upon us when we accept something. Would this be something like a TDR type deal? MR. CAUTERO: It could be. Some of the units that we're talking about, the lion's share of the units that we're talking about are in conservation lands that are owned by the State of Florida. I'm not saying there wouldn't be a monetary value assigned to those units even though they're one unit per five right now net. It's not one per five gross, in the Marco Island comprehensive plan, similar to Naples where they use net density where there is -- wetlands are involved. We do the same thing in our conservation lands. There probably would be -- my thinking now is that there probably would be a monetary value there. But in talking to some Page 124 April 18, 2006 people in the community, especially -- I had a conversation with a chairman of our planning board about this -- we're not sure if there would be a monetary value. Also, in the graphic I put up dealing with the town center area, which is the area around Elkham Circle, those densities -- that density, or those potential units that we're talking about coming off the books aren't assigned to specific parcels of land. They're within a geographic region. We don't know who would develop them. In essence, it's a first come, first serve. So I think the answer to your question, Commissioner, is yes, we're talking about monetary value, but we don't know how we would do that yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would be the advantage for us to accept your density in other parts of Collier County? I'm lost. MR. CAUTERO: You'd get -- you'd have the ability to develop more units if you so choose. And the Department of Community Affairs has already accepted these units on Marco. We would just move them. It should be a win-win. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We never had a problem with density. We've also had a problem with it being too high, not too low. So I would assume that if we accepted them, there would be some sort of factor in there that would be a dollar factor. But somehow I'm sure that if we sat down and we start figuring it out -- economic forces on Marco eventually are going to drive you like the City of Naples to start coming up with some innovative ways and -- out of desperation, to be able to cover what's happening. But in the meantime, I mean, let's be honest, $50,000 a year for affordable housing is Marco's share? That doesn't really cut it. You know, we've got to be -- I've got to be honest with you, Vince, somehow we have to have a joint meeting or something so we can lay all the cards on the table and tell them what the real problem is Page 125 April 18, 2006 out there in the world and how it has to work to be able to -- for us, the county, to underwrite the cost of affordable housing one way or another, with services, to be able to supply Marco. And we're doing it with our CAT system buses, to be able to bring people all the way from Marco. Now, somehow there's got to be a cooperative payback somehow to recover some of the cost of this. And we really do need to sit down with the city council of Marco to be ability to talk these things out so it makes economic sense for everyone. MR. CAUTERO: Oh, we look forward to those discussions. And I was not part of that agreement when it was written on either side, the county or Marco Island. And Cormac can tell you where the money goes and where it's allotted to. We look forward to having those discussions with you. We just want to be up front too and tell you what our constraints are and whether or not we can reach some agreement on whether or not an interlocal agreement that's extended is in both parties' interests. This is just one tool that allows us to look outside of the box, if you will, a phrase that's used probably used way too often. Your Planning Commission recommended to you proportionate share and financial contribution or equivalent, and my belief is, after talking to some of the officials on Marco and posing it to your staff, I think that we just want to open up the opportunity a little bit more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. Obviously with the cost of transportation, that's increasing at an exponential rate, I would think it would behoove the people of Marco to try to think outside the box, as you spoke, in regards to addressing affordable housing needs within the City of Marco so that people didn't have to be transported long distances. And I think that -- because obviously you have a great workforce that you need to supplement, and I would think instead of trying to have the county take care of this -- of all of this matter, that I would Page 126 April 18, 2006 think that the City of Marco would have to step up to the plate and address some of these issues and put forth some affordable housing there. MR. CAUTERO: Those discussions are underway. Andjust like the chamber on Marco -- the chamber in Naples, the chamber in Marco has a committee that's dealing with it. The problem is, we don't have the land for it. We are discussing it. And these discussions have not just started. They've been underway for several months right now, and we -- we are talking about them at the planning board level almost every meeting and trying to make some recommendations to the city council. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think that really that's where the people need to be is where they -- where they work at, and if we can provide the housing where they work at, I think that would be probably economical for not only them, but for the people that have to travel. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think everyone has pretty much covered my issue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As you know, we already have a lot of problems with congested roads. And so to accept your density isn't going to help our road system anyway, but thank you for the nice offer. I was wondering, as you've been discussing the affordable housing on Marco, have you ever thought -- this is something we've just thrown on the table a couple times -- building a second and/or a third layer on already built shopping centers that are just one story, so then you can add your own workforce right there on the island, you don't need any extra land or anything. MR. CAUTERO: Well, yes. That's where the affordable housing, workforce units are or essential service housing would be Page 127 April 18, 2006 built. They would not be built in the areas where single-family housing exists and is platted. The only places we can do this and accomplish this on Marco Island is in areas zoned commercial where we allow mixed. The definition of mixed use on Marco is pretty basic, it's first floor must be commercial, second floor must be a mix, and third floor must be residential or -- third floor or higher must be residential. Those are the areas that we're talking about. As we redevelop, I think that's the only opportunity where this can happen, and that's what we're gearing ourselves up for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how does that work then if you're gearing yourselves up -- and I think it's a great idea, by the way, second floor having some kind of office space or something to kind of buffer from the -- from the retail section down below, and then the residential up above that. But how does that fit in with your 4 percent reduction? MR. CAUTERO: Well, that's -- I'm glad you mentioned that. The numbers that we're looking at for the reduction are over 1,350. Now, the number that the city council asked us to target, 9 -- it's 4 percent, which comes to about 947 units. The rest of the units would be in a bank, and then we'd be able to allocate those throughout the city in various areas where mixed use is allowed. And then we would have to put some policies in our comprehensive plan and change our land development code to allow people certain incentives to develop, similar to what your staff has looked at for the last three or four years. That's how we would accomplish it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not for Vince, no. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, thank you very much, Vince. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. Page 128 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if we could go to a couple of things. Some of the wording in here leaves me a little bit concerned, and you might be able to answer why it was changed. Go to policy 1.2 on page 2, second line, where it has, creating and supporting. And then right below that, will is crossed off, and it wrote may. Why the position change where we're taking a less stronger position? Whose recommendation was that? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. The -- the entire sentence reads, Collier County and the City of Naples will work together to accomplish the community-wide goal of -- used to read, "creating the sufficient supply. " Now it reads, "supporting the sufficient supply of market rate and below market rate housing." We took that -- we made that word change because we don't view it as Collier County's role to actually create -- I mean, you're talking about Collier County government's role to go out and actually build the housing. We feel our role is to support, create an environment where the private sector will come in and create the housing or build the housing. So that's the change there, you know, the meanings behind those words. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And going down a little bit farther -- and I can agree with that, by the way. Policy 1.3, first line where it says, "county will explore," and then below that, directly below it, it says, "that will require." Shouldn't "shall" be considered -- put in there rather than "will?" It sounds a little more forceful. In other words, we really mean what we're saying? That's what we just had explained, the difference to us a few minutes ago between will and shall. MR. GIBLIN : Yeah, I remember the discussion. Housing staff doesn't have any concern as to which one. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it just gives us a little more Page 129 April 18, 2006 emphasis to it in the fact that we're serious about what we're saying. That's my own opinion. And then down here a little bit farther, four lines down, it goes to the development of affordable/workforce housing. And I've been through this document over and over and over again. That word workforce housing shows up, and this gives me concern. Can you give me an explanation of exactly where we were and what workforce housing means? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Well, we hope that we've caught all the spots in here where it used to read either affordable or workforce and now we've consolidated them into the board's new term of affordable/workforce housing, which is an all-inclusive term adopted in the LDC about a month or two ago meaning housing from people to zero up to 150 percent of median income. Essentially it encompasses all of our housing programs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But proportionally what does that -- is that -- but it leaves it open-ended the way the Planning Commission is suggesting. In other words, you can build whatever; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: Everywhere in this document where it says affordable/workforce, it does -- it is intended to apply to all -- the entire spectrum. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me go back with the question. How much -- and when it says, affordable/work house housing ( sic), how much is going to be allowed for under 80 percent and how much of it is designated for over 80 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Those types of specifics are not included in the housing element. They are included in other elements in the compo plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But tell me, the way this is written now and the way we have some of the other changes, how can we ever assure ourselves that anything under 150 percent will be Page 130 April 18, 2006 built? MR. GIBLIN: I think by implementing -- a lot of it will depend on your review of the compo plan amendments coming forward later today and implementing LDC amendments, but -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- the specifics on what percentage is available to low income, very low income, gap income, those specific breakdowns occur in upcoming amendments that you're going to hear later today or next week. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then just a little bit farther. And going down to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we have them, with the changes, could you read that whole statement so that we got clarification of that :whole paragraph? MR. GIBLIN: You talking about policy 1.3? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. With the changes that have been requested. I think we need to have someone just read the whole paragraph with the changes in so we have an understanding of what we've changed here. MR. WEEKS: It's policy 1.3, and the first sentence would read: The City of Naples and Collier County shall explore the development of a fair share affordable/workforce housing ordinance that shall require commercial and residential developments to address the lack of affordable/workforce housing. Two places the word will is changed to shall. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we going to put in there affordable housing comprises from zero to 150 percent? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't request that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's already spoken for. Page 131 April 18, 2006 We'll deal with that and the other -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's why I want to make sure that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I appreciate it. But I do have something I'd like to add on policy 1.4 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we finish up 1.3, and then we'll go to 1.4, okay. So go ahead and we'll finish up the -- MR. WEEKS: That was it for that policy, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. Now Commissioner, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Policy 1.4. And if someone has other comments to make about these policies I'm touching on, please just hum or whatever and I'll stop and open it up for you, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hum? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, on this particular one here where it says, in addition -- this is policy 1.4, the last sentence. In addition, affordable/workforce housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are available. I'd like that -- to open it up to just say, or will become available at the time of construction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you on 1.4? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1.4. Just in addition to the last sentence, or will become available at the time of construction. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I believe-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I don't need to speak. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm still writing down Commissioner Coletta's sentence there. Yeah. When Commissioner Coletta was asking about affordable/workforce, I think that was changed when -- I think it was Sam Durso brought it up, and he said his people are all part of the Page 132 April 18, 2006 workforce, and he kind of was upset that his housing was considered affordable and it wasn't considered workforce through his committee, and he specifically pushed -- he said, my people are the workforce of the county and that should be included. I think that's how they -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with the terminology. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's just with the definition of it is what bothers me -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you know, when it gets down to it. In this case I don't have a problem with what's taking place. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second thing I want to ask -- or say also was with the City of Naples as we're working with them, that also -- they could also build on top of shopping centers; is that right? Are you working with them to try and have them accommodate some of their own affordable housing as well? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. They're have an interlocal agreement as well. It will be coming due shortly, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I didn't mean an interlocal agreement. I mean, you know, building some of their own. MR. GIBLIN: Oh, yeah, yeah. The city is looking at alternatives of their own as well, and we're working with them, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Alternatives of their own, like buying land someplace and building it on there rather than putting it in the City of Naples? Right, okay. I just wanted to establish what you were really saYIng. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Policy 2.1, page 3. The second line there, supply of housing for all segments. "All" was crossed out. Why was it removed? Page 133 April 18, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: I think-- MR. COHEN: Commissioner Coletta, that was at a recommendation of the Planning Commission, and that's why it was removed. It wasn't staffs recommendation to remove the word "all." COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the reasoning? I can't quite figure out why. MR. GIBLIN: I think the reasoning was that this particular policy talks about housing developed by nonprofit -- nonprofit entities. And so the amended sentence now would read, increase in supply of housing for segments of the community, including very low, low, and moderate income residents and those with special needs and farm workers. I think the Planning Commission kind of picked up on a little -- you know, that nonprofit entities will only -- should or would only be focused on those particular income categories and not all segments of the community. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just jump in for a second, and ask why? Why couldn't Habitat for Humanity, if they wanted to, build some percentage of their houses for so-called gap housing? MR. GIBLIN : Yeah. They certainly could. And, again, as Randy indicated, this was at the Planning Commission's request. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I don't know why we want to limit them in this case. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Makes more sense. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you think maybe it was because of the fact that they were concerned that they would be building housing from the 80 to 150 percent bracket and not addressing the people down lower? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But I think we deal with that in the ordinance itself. When we set these things up we're going to have to specify -- or when it comes to us for approval, we're going Page 134 April 18, 2006 to have to specify, you can't have all of this for -- at $200,000, as an example. You're going to have to have some lower income -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- housing. So we can deal with that when it comes to us for approval. But the reason I raised this question is that we don't have impact fee deferrals or have not had them for workforce or gap housing. This would provide that opportunity, wouldn't it, if we said all categories for nonprofits to apply for those kinds of deferrals? MR. GIBLIN: It would. And Commissioner, we are pre -- we are working on expanding that countywide impact fee deferral program to include a gap housing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. GIBLIN: And it will be coming through in our upcoming budget deliberations. Mr. Cohen reminded me that the word "all" was stricken here because the Planning Commission was concerned that, would this require the county to ensure that luxury homes are also being built, and that they didn't feel that that was a -- should necessarily be a focus in our compo plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: By nonprofit organizations? Not likely. But nevertheless, my concern is that impact fee deferrals and things of that nature be available for the so-called gap housing also. MR. GIBLIN: Again, Commissioner, we are moving forward in that direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's my primary concern. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, David? MR. WEEKS: -- I wonder if we -- on the same policy, 2.1, if on the second line in -- begins with the phrase "supply of housing," if we inserted the words "affordable/workforce," and that will lock us into that 150 percent or below the median household income. That would Page 135 April 18, 2006 also address the Planning Commission's concern that persons well outside of that range, this policy would be -- would not be encouraging development of those types of units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you read that? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Read that back for clarification. MR. WEEKS: I'll just read the whole sentence then. Policy 2.1, through nonprofit housing development corporations, the county shall seek to increase the supply of affordable/workforce housing for all segments of the community, including very low, low and moderate income residents. No change thereafter. MR. GIBLIN: That accomplishes -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will work for me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That will work. Everybody else agree to that? Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all the questions we have for today. MR. GIBLIN: Great. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we take a 10-minute break. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, before we do that, could I cover one or two more things very quickly? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Going back to policy 1.4, Commissioner Coletta had suggested some language, a phrase be added at the end of that policy. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And I'm wondering if this might be acceptable instead. It would be on the last line -- let me read the last sentence as I would propose it. In addition, affordable/workforce housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are presently available or will be Page 136 April 18, 2006 available in the future. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that is a problem, in the future. In other words, you build a house and then wait for everything to come to you, that's why at the time of construction. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. WEEKS: Disregard that then. And the other item is something that was -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you going to put that down there, time of construction? MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes, sir. Commissioner Coletta's -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: You said you were going to strike that, so -- MR. WEEKS: Thank you. Strike my proposal, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The last thing is something that's in your executive summary on page 6, and this was a Planning Commission recommendation that is outside the scope of the EAR that we wanted to bring to your attention. This issue was brought up during the discussion of the housing element at the Planning Commission hearing, but it's not -- probably not the appropriate location for it. I just wanted to maintain that consistency. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is where? MR. WEEKS: On page 6 of your executive summary, near the bottom of the page under the heading, CCPC recommendations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't have that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we do. MR. WEEKS: Item? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go to tab, executive summary on page 6. Page 137 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, back there. MR. WEEKS: Again, page 6 of the executive summary near the bottom under CCPC recommendation, item number 2, and that was a recommendation that the county explore the appropriateness and financial feasibility of requiring all new structures to incorporate energy conservation measures. It initially started out as affordable/workforce housing, I believe, and then it expanded into a, why not make it applicable to all types of structures. And County Attorney offered some input there, and I think we'll MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think the housing element would be the place for this. I think there's some provisions in future land use element about, you know, different types of ordinances that we do, and look -- maybe look to incorporating that into the building code or something. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The building code is the place for that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's where I believe it would go. MR. WEEKS: We certainly think that a suggestion such as this needs to go through some type of public hearing workshop process to be vetted, what impact would this have financially on affordable/workforce housing, on housing in general, on construction in general. I would think that the building industry would want to weigh in, those that provide affordable/workforce housing, just a lot of stakeholders out there we believe would want to have a chance to participate. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I don't believe it was -- idea was to go beyond even housing, but for commercial and industrial as well. MR. WEEKS: That's correct, all structures. MR. SCHMITT: I'll put this to bed. Again, for the record, Joe Page 138 April 18, 2006 Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator. This was brought up by a member of the public to be added. It's already inclusive in the building code. There's already incentives in the building code that promote energy efficiency. There's efficiency reports that are submitted as part of the building review process. And if we want to get into promoting green buildings, which would be another avenue -- but, again, that is -- there are state incentives and there are other incentives that incentivize that type of development. So I agree with David. This just does not belong in this element. But it was brought up. The Planning Commission accepted it as comment from the public. And I think we ought to just consider that and say thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we just strike that? MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I could. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then we're back on -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm back on, yeah. I'm sorry, we're jumping all over the place here. But on housing elements, page 8. Policy 4.6, I know that's been struck out because of the fact that June 1,2001, has come and gone. We recently had an affordable workshop in Immokalee just this past week. And would this be applicability to take this thing and pull it back out, take off the strikes, and just change the date on it? Would this be the appropriate time to bring this back? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the workshop we held in Immokalee last week was really the -- we used the data and the door-to-door surveys that this policy, you know, helped us create to put all that together for the workshop. Page 139 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The direction to staff from the workshop, would this be the appropriate place for it or is it -- I know -- would it be someplace else that would be coming to staff? MR. COHEN: Well, Commissioner, the Immokalee housing initiative that refers to this particular inventory was completed, I believe, in 2003 or early 2004, and that's why the policy was stricken. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know -- I know the reason why it was stricken. But what I said is, it's a new day and where we have a renewed sense to go forward, and our initiatives in Immokalee to clean up the substandard housing, and I was wondering if this would be a suitable policy to resurrect and move forward on agaIn. MR. COHEN: It may be an appropriate place to replace that particular policy with language that actually implements what transpired as a result of that inventory, if that's the Commissioner's desire. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see that. And I -- just someone's going to have to help me with the language if we're ever going to get through it. Would you take guidance from the meeting, or how would you word this? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do a second reading? MR. WEEKS: I was going to suggest that, perhaps -- you know, you're about to take a break. Perhaps staff could try to craft something together and present it to you after the break. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do a break? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you complete? MR. GIBLIN: If there are no further questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? Ifnot, we're going to take a 10-minute break. Page 140 April 18, 2006 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we got the mikes on already. We'll continue on. The -- what we're going to do here, as we said earlier this morning, we're going to break sometime after three o'clock, and my feeling is -- and I'll get the consensus of the board here -- that we address the next issue, and that is the recreation open space element, and then I think we'll call it a day. And if I can get the consensus of the board -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we take care of the people in the audience that's been here all day on issues before we break? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, most of the people that are here in the audience today are here to address the CCME and the future land use element, which are extremely lengthy endeavors, but that's up to the board as a whole. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think-- MS. FILSON: Those are the only ones I have speakers for. I have six speakers for each of those. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What's the consensus of the board? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I personally am exhausted, but I'll tell you, if they've been here all day for it, if we could at least hear them -- MR. ANDERSON: We'll come back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and they continue from that point. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's that? MR. ANDERSON: We'll come back at that point. We'll be back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll go till midnight tonight. It Page 141 April 18, 2006 doesn't make any difference to me. I thrive off this stuff, just like Commissioner Coletta does, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to go home and watch him on television. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we -- why don't we take the next one and then call it a day? Does that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dam. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And maybe we can -- and we'll proceed -- yes? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just let me mention, right before the break staff was going to draft some language for policy 4.6 in the housing element. We've discovered that there's language that addresses the very point that Commissioner Coletta brought up over in the Immokalee Area Master Plan, so I believe he's in concurrence that we'll just leave it as is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I got to see it. I'm sorry I didn't catch that sooner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's also something in 8.3, isn't there? That discusses that? At page 12. Yeah, 8.3 at the bottom here. Page 12. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That does. That complements it also. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good catch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So has staff got proper direction on that particular element with the EAR? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, we have. Thank you. We're ready for the next. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, could I just add something real quickly thing? Page 142 April 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we can ever do this, but I'd love to have somebody investigate -- not discuss it anymore today -- but one of the things we've discovered while we were doing our tour of Immokalee, which I felt was extremely appalling, and that is the amount of rent they charge these people for these hovels that they have to live in. And I wondered if there's any way we could kind of have some kind of a, like a rent control or something? But that's just for future look-see. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Please continue. MR. SCHMIDT: All set? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. Commissioners, I'm back. This is the recreation and open space element. A quick introduction. There have been some general language changes throughout to give a more accurate representation of the parks and recreation department's role in the system of neighborhood parks. We've also clarified under what circumstances Collier County would encourage people in bike access to community and regional parks. Just with that quick overview, back to you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion on this? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we have so many communities out there that offer their own recreational amenities, and taking the burden off of government. I think it would be appropriate to recognize some of those recreational elements and put that in part of our A UIR process. Do you know what I mean ? You've got -- like Ave Maria, they're going to have their own recreational unit out there. So many other bigger communities, they have -- Page 143 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tennis courts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, pools and tennis courts and golf courses and fitness centers and stuff like that. But I think Marj orie has something to say about that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, thank you. I remember quite a number of years ago now the county wanted to broaden what it looked at for purposes of our parks and rec. inventory, and things could have changed over time. If I remember -- if I remember correctly, it had to be some sort of public facility to be included in our inventory and not private, but it's certainly something we could look at agaIn. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, CDDs, those are public. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they should be recognized. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Understood. And it's something that we can explore and see if it's feasible, I think. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question on that. I think it's a great idea. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your light's not on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say for instance -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your light's not on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me? Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Would we -- would we then -- if we put that into our inventory, and say for instance, in a designated area we had 23 pools and 40 tennis courts, would -- would that -- then that help us to decide when we're building a park in that area what we don't need so much of? Page 144 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I answer that? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Save you some trouble. That is already in this. Policy 1.5.1 says, Collier County shall maintain a current inventory of recreational facility commitments made by developers through the development review process. Policy 1.4.1 says through the land development review process, Collier County will continue to encourage developers to provide recreational sites and facilities within residential and mixed-use PUDs. And then 2.1.2 says that the county shall amend the Land Development Code and require the developer of residential PUD or PUD to provide suitable recreational type things. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love your reading, but do we count them in our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. That is -- that is the bottom line. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we -- we keep track of them, we require them. Do we take them into consideration when we develop the level of service standard? MS. TOWNSEND: The answer is both yes and no. Amanda Townsend, Parks and Recreation, for the record. The answer is that yes, we inventory them. And as Commissioner Fiala suggested, we look at what types of facilities are being provided through the private sector to help us determine what sorts of facilities need to -- need to then be provided by the public sector; however, they are not used in an AUIR in a Growth Management Plan compliance calculation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then Commissioner Henning is absolutely right, we need to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would you doubt that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. Page 145 April 18, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What I'm -- excuse me. What I'm saying, I don't know if the law will allow you to do that. We need to again look at that, because there's some -- my recollection is that we -- and I understand your position about the CDDs and them being, you know, some kind of public entity, and that's certainly something we can look at. But as I recall -- because this issue came up a number of years ago -- it was our own facilities that we were to count for purposes of our -- public facilities, in other words. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But why would we do that if -- well, let's take a look at a lot of these gated communities, that many of them do not even have children, okay, not many children, at least, and they have recreational facilities for their own residents, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses and things like that. Why would we then take on the obligation to create additional recreational facility for those people? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There may be another way-- again, because I'm try -- I can't find it right now in the law. But because it's a legal requirement that they be public facilities, but there may be another way to skin the cat, if you will. And what we might be able to do is look at what private facilities there are and then adjust our level of service accordingly, and that would be another way to skin the cat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Otherwise we're spending more money than we need to spend for recreational facilities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we might run into a problem. I don't live in a gated community, but I know a lot of these gated communities, the amenities that they have, like clubhouses and swimming pools, that's above what they pay for and they have to have a card or whatever else. It's -- I believe they have like a card so when they go in to use, let's say, for instance, fitness center, they're charged so much for using Page 146 April 18, 2006 that fitness center. You may have a card where they charge in regards to paying for using the swimming pool, and most of the stuff that I believe that we have within the county is there for the citizens and the charges are way less than -- some cases there's no charge whatsoever to use those facilities. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Coyle's point is, those recreational facilities are provided to a certain sector of our residents. So why would you still want to provide or double provide for those residents? I think that was his whole point. And you might be able to get around that, either through the level of service or you might get it -- what the county attorney said is, the community development districts. Those are for public benefit and they can't stop the public from utilizing it. So there's more than one way to skin the cat. And I think Commissioner Coyle's point was, you know, instead of providing too much, just provide adequate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, can I use your swimming pool tonight? MR. SCHMITT: I was going to correct the county attorney. But the CDDs -- preponderance of our CDDs in our community -- and I know this came up Tuesday at the board meeting -- are for infrastructure only. I know of no CDDs that are funded for recreational facilities through the CDD. Normally they're through the foundation or some element. Most of them are for the infrastructure, meaning roads, sewer and water, as a bonding. If they, in fact -- the CDD funds the pool or rec. center, whatever, normally that then is transferred and sold to the foundation, and then the foundation does have authority to charge an entrance fee or some other fee, so -- but we were going to -- we'll come back and clarify some of that in -- during the board meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know why they -- this -- Page 147 April 18, 2006 the one we had, Colonial, wherever it was, had a clubhouse. It is part of theirs -- their charge. MR. SCHMITT: And if they do -- they may charge, but then they turn around, the foundation would have to buy that, or if they leave it in the CDD, then the CDD has every right to charge some kind of a fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know how people feel in gated communities. I know I don't live in one, and some people do. They don't want us in there, even though the state statute says it's for a public benefit. MR. SCHMITT: CDD -- the CDD has no authority to stop anybody at the gate legally. I mean, they can take your number, they can take your license or whatever, but you -- it's a public road. It was paid for with the bonded -- municipal bonds. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, as far as using the facilities within there, that may be a different issue; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? MR. SCHMITT: And they legally can charge an entry fee or monthly fee or whatever, to use those facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe, you didn't answer the question. The question was, can Commissioner Halas use your swimming pool? MR. SCHMITT: Sure. Come on over. COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, there's no problem. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I know you've raised some questions pertaining to how private amenities are actually calculated and how they're looked at and viewed by parks and recreation. I think Amanda Townsend can shed a little more light on that issue. MS. TOWNSEND: To clarify, we inventory privately available recreation facilities and we use that inventory to help us determine what types of facilities we need to provide. Page 148 April 18, 2006 For example, because there are many privately available swimming pools, that may not be a facility that needs to be provided at the same level of service publicly. However, I don't know of any privately available soccer fields or softball fields, for example, so that would be somewhere where the parks and recreation department would look at state and national standards of facility per capita and use the high end of the scale, if you will; whereas, something like a tennis court where there are many available privately, we may use the low end of the scale. However, that applies only to determining types of facilities. When you come over to the AUIR process, the level of service standard that is established there is a facilities value per capita, and we give each type of facility a value and multiply those out times the number that are available publicly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does that clarify the point? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to -- like to clarify that this is an issue that we can deal with in the AUIR no matter what we do with it here. But the principle, I think, is important. I don't know of anyone in a planned unit development that has a private club and a private swimming pool and a private tennis court who goes to a public facility to do those things. So if we know that is the case, why would we include that population in our calculation for developing private or public facilities? MS. TOWNSEND: Of course we would include that population because that population would have demands on other types of facilities that weren't available to them within their community. For example -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm talking about swimming pools. MS. TOWNSEND: Bicycling trails. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking about swimming pools and tennis courts, okay? Page 149 April 18, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: But, of course. And that would be why we would reduce our adherence to a state or national standard for that specific facility. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But do you? MS. TOWNSEND: Do we? Oh, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. But that is facility-specific, and that helps us only to determine the types of facilities we need to build. And then on the other side, the AUIR looks only at facility's value per capita. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it also looks at levels of service standards and what you need to build. And so I presume that when we get to the point of looking at the AUIR and determining what should be budgeted for future years, what our needs are based on our demand, that we will be able to look at the way you have calculated those, right? And you can show us then how you have adjusted either high end of the scale or low end of the scale, right? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. I believe that that happens with the AUIR process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I, once in a while, have an opportunity to take my son to the parks. And I agree, the ball fields are busy. There's other elements that we provide that I just don't see I have a use. And -- but the taxpayers get to maintain that use. I would hope that we can hit the target a little bit better than what we are. And I think that you could do that through the level of servIce. MS. TOWNSEND: I concur -- I concur wholeheartedly. Recreation experiences trends, and so a certain activity that is very popular for a few decades may wane in popularity, and a system may find itself needing to re-examine and, perhaps, retrofit a facility that Page 150 April 18, 2006 has fallen out of favor with the public. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what are we doing about that? MS. TOWNSEND: We look at SCORP, the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning guide, we look at standards that are available to us through the National Recreation and Park Service, we keep up with trends in recreation, what's new. And as funds are available, we build new or retrofit old facilities in accordance with trend in recreation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So how are we applying it? I mean, what have we seen? What has changed? I mean, we're building no new parks, but what has changed in our existing parks? MS. TOWNSEND: An example within your own district would be the retrofit of the shuffleboard court at Golden Gate Community Park to a Bocce court. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was because of community outcry . MS. TOWNSEND: Uh-huh, in response to trends in recreation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it was only because of my inquiry about that that it happened, but I'll let that go. So what are you doing to respond to the recreational facilities that are not being utilized today and changing those over? What are the examples? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure that I can -- that a single facility that is unutilized comes to mind. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not, are you -- have you gotten guidance enough? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. You've proposed no changes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're adjourned. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, before we leave, I think we Page 151 April 18, 2006 need to settle in on a date to meet because the understanding was the 26th there will be two commissioners absent. My understanding, Commissioner Coletta, you will be out for that day and, Commissioner Fiala, you're only available for two hours that morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll be on an airplane in the morning. I leave at 6:35. MR. SCHMITT: All right. So you're gone for the day. And I believe, Commissioner Coletta, you may be out as well, so we have three commissioners to discuss what I would call some pretty meaty subjects, meaning the CCME and some -- and the FLUE, which are going to be fairly significant. Do you want to look at another day? And I would have to turn to Sue as to advice on your schedule. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's do it now. MS. FILSON: We came -- we came up with the afternoon of May the 12th from one to five, which is a Friday. CHAIRMAN HALAS: May the 12th. MS. FILSON: And all commissioners are free that day. You have MPO in the morning. In the afternoon you're free. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When do we have -- when do we have-- the 15th is -- MS. FILSON: The 12th, May the 12th is a Friday. And that is not a Friday before a BCC meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MS. FILSON: Because we told them not to look at those Fridays. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MS. FILSON: And then the next date we have for all day would be nine to five -- would be Monday, the 16th of May, to finish up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sixteenth is a Tuesday. MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, you're right. Tuesday the 16th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got an EAR-based amendment meeting already on that -- on the 16th. Page 152 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're quick. MS. FILSON: Are you sure you're looking at May 16th? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They put it on already. MS. FILSON: Oh, they must have already put it on the calendars then. They're quick out there. MR. SCHMITT: They're quick on the take. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's already on here. MS. FILSON: Okay. So the afternoon from one to five on the 12th of May, and then Tuesday the 16th from nine to five. MR. SCHMITT: I think we can finish this in one day, I believe. Randy, what do you think, if we do it on the 16th? MR. COHEN: It should be able to be finished in one day, but it boils down to, obviously, the complexity of the issues in the CCME and the future land use element as well as the amount of speakers and MS. FILSON: I had 12 speakers, six for each of those two Issues. MR. COHEN: And they spoke on numerous issues with respect to both the CCME and the future land use element, and that took quite a bit of time. I just wanted you to be aware of that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's the 16th? You're talking all day on the 16th; is that correct? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And you think it's going to take all day? MR. COHEN: I believe so. MR. SCHMITT: I believe it will. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Glad we broke when we did. MS. FILSON: So we're not going to do the 12th, only the 16th; is that what you're saying, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Do you want -- do you think -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what it's got on the calendar. MR. SCHMITT: I think we will stick with the 16th. I think if Page 153 April 18, 2006 we schedule all day -- and if it looks like we have to continue, we'll find another day. I think I'd rather do that than try and do that on the 12th, because the 12th -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. SCHMITT: I just believe we may just get this, and then you're all gone again, and it is a Friday afternoon. We'd just schedule an all-day one on the 16th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's do it. MS. FILSON: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And then we'll figure out where we are from there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. It's already on the calendar. MR. COHEN: I believe, if the county attorney could correct me, I believe we need to have a motion to continue. MR. SCHMITT: We will need a motion to continue. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Motion to continue. MR. SCHMITT: So you'll have to re-open the hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We re-open the hearing of the EAR report. MR. SCHMITT: And you have to pass a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need a motion on the floor in regards to continuing this meeting -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- starting May the 16th. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Made, motion made. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we have a second on it, okay. Motion's on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, that this meeting will continue May 16th. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 154 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where's that -- MR. COHEN: Commissioner, just for the record, what time did you want that meeting to start on -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nine o'clock in the morning. MR. COHEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nine o'clock in the morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I tell you about a letter we just received from DCA -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They say, of course, any county can have a more stringent concurrency management system than that prescribed by Senate Bill 360, however-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- however, the provisions of proportionate fair share requires that local governments allow developers to satisfy transportation concurrency requirements by contributing or paying proportionate fair share mitigation, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly what we talked about this mornIng. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course it was. So what they're saying is, oh, sure, you can have a tougher concurrency management system, but it doesn't mean anything -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But nobody has to pay attention to it. Page 155 April 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you can't follow it, you see. So nevertheless, we finally got the interpretation from their general council, and it's exactly what we all suspected from the very beginning, so, nevertheless. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's going to be interesting to see what June holds for us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now we're adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:16 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ..:?>~/ FRANK HALAS, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E..B~.. .... ...,.CLERK ~ ~, JW... Ofb-rd "'c I '!$' .... . - 0 \ c;,,_. '. r'. ' . . .'",". .. , These min~ro;ed by the Board on ,. or as Corrected s / q I ~ as presented ... . I' TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 156