Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/05/2007 S (AUIR) November 5, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida November 5, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Frank Halas Also Present: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Assistant County Attorney Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Page 1 tI' --::--,. ',-, , ---..;;:;:::;~=;. AGENDA Monday, November 5, 2007 9:00 a.m. James Coletta, Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Vice-Chairman, District 3 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 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. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 03-53, 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. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CA TEGORY A AND CATEGORY B. A. AUIR OVERVIEW - MIKE BOSI B. IMPACT FEES RELATED TO TIlE AUIR- AMY PATTERSON C. COUNTY ROADS - NORM FEDER AND NICK CASALANGUIDA D. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES - GENE CALVERT E. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - JIM DELONY/PHIL GRAMATGES F. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS- JIM DELONY/GEORGE YILMAZ/ PHIL GRAMATGES G. SOLID WASTE - JIM DELONY/DAN RODRIGUEZ/ PHIL GRAMA TGES H. PARKS AND FACILITIES - MARLA RAMSEY/AMANDA TOWNSEND I. COUNTY JAIL - CHIEF GREG SMITH J. LA W ENFORCEMENT - CHIEF GREG SMITH K. LIBRARY - MARILYN MATTHES/MARLA RAMSEY/ AMANDA TOWNSEND L. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - JEFF PAGE M. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - SKIP CAMP /HANK JONES N. DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS ISLE OF CAPRI- CHIEF RODREIGEZ OCHOPEE - CHIEF McLAUGHLIN 3. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPTION OF 2007 AUlR 4. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. November 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. I'd like to welcome everybody to the annual update inventory report and public facilities. The date is November 5th. And would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Henning, would you lead us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm turning it over to Mike Bosi this morning. And he's going to start with the AUIR overview. MR. BOSI: Thank you, County Manager, Chairman. Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning, AUIR project coordinator. I have a short AUIR overview presentation that I've prepared. MR. MUDD: You're prepared now. That should be coming up. Sue, can you turn it on, please? MS. FILSON: What am I turning on? MR. MUDD: The screen behind you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we begin, there's one thing I'm going to -- there's been a request at least from one person that they might be able to address us before we begin rather than at the end of our process. So I'm going to at this point in time open the floor to public speakers. Do we have any -- I'm pretty sure you got one person. Ms. Filson? PUBLIC SPEAKER- STEVE HART MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not awake yet today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. MS. FILSON: I do have one speaker, Mr. Chairman, Steve Hart. Page 2 November 5,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Hart, welcome. We have a three-minute time limit. MR. HART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to adhere to that. And thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Just very briefly, you were all given a letter on Friday from the board of directors of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, I hope you've had a chance to see that by now, respectfully requesting that you consider delaying the scheduled increase in impact fees now set for January, that you consider delaying it for six months. The board of directors asked me to come and ask you that. The thinking of these community and business leaders is that delaying the increase in impact fees will be a boost to the local economy, that as we all know is suffering a little bit now, and that it would send a clear message from our elected leaders that you believe in the confidence of this market and believe in the workers and the people and the many businesses that are hurting a little bit and that this will help. So we respectfully ask you to consider that. Thank you. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's start with Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've considered it and categorically reject it, but -- I'm just kidding you. I would ask that the chamber consider one other issue, and that is that impact fee levels are determined by the people who do the work for us, by the people who supply the rock and the asphalt and the concrete and the steel and the labor and who build the infrastructure for us. They are the ones who really determine how much it cost to build those things. Ifwe get more competitive bids from people, we can easily afford to reduce impact fees. The problem is that we haven't been doing that. Perhaps more recently the prices are coming down, and maybe we can take a look at what we can do with that. Page 3 November 5, 2007 The one thing that I'd like to make sure that everyone understands is that we always subsidize at least the road impact fee fund with general fund dollars with cuts by the legislature and general fund revenues. We probably will not be able to subsidize it as much as we have in the past, so that puts us in a bind. We have contractors who are charging us pretty high prices for the things we get, and people who sell us the land for building an extra lane of roads or water retention pond. They're charging us very high prices for those things, those services, and the only way we can pay them is to have the impact fees equal those charges, and that's really all we've ever been doing. And then we always have a shortfall because those prices always seem to increase. And we make that up with ad valorem property tax money. And now we're not going to be able to do much of that. So I would ask that the chamber try to understand that it's a lot like pushing down on a water bed. You push down one place, it's going to pop up somewhere else. You take away ad valorem property taxes, it's very difficult then to lower impact fees. So there probably could be a more coordinated effort among us all to try to get more competitive fees to do this work so we can lower the impact fees. But otherwise, it's going to be very difficult. MR. HART: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. And your points are very well taken, indeed. And I think as all of you are aware, the chamber has been working along with some of our fellow organizations, CBIA, EDC, NABOR, looking to pool collective talents and collective expertise to find a way to help you all as the decision-makers, the policy makers, look at the broader view of county revenue and how we go about running this county. And we've been in some discussion about that and we'll continue to be doing that. But we're here to help. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, once again, the way you can help is to talk also with legislators who don't -- Page 4 November 5, 2007 MR. HART: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- seem to -- they do not seem to understand those issues at all. MR. HART: Absolutely, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hart, I believe Commissioner Coletta articulated his feelings when we indexed the impact fees. And I agree with him. And he said is (sic) we're going to end up collecting less impact fees by the increase by indexing. Although indexing is a good idea with the economy down and many, many people have been laid off from that industry, we shouldn't hamper that. In fact, he also said that -- feels that we ought to freeze those impact fees except for transportation impact fees. And I think that's really the goal of the majority here, if not all of the Board of Commissioners and the community. So I am going to put on the agenda for next week to do exactly what you said, with the caveat of what Commissioner Coletta articulated a few months ago. MR. HART: Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. I always like to be quoted. And please add my name to that also. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I wanted to ask, if we acquiesced and then some of these bills were passed in the legislature in January __ or rather by the voters in January, toward the end of January, would that then prevent us from increasing impact fees if we needed to? MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd for the record, just in case you don't remember. I haven't seen you in a while. Page 5 November 5, 2007 The -- right now there is no bill that -- you know, there's some shells, but there's nothing substantial for impact fee bills coming up in __ during this legislative session. I believe there will be. My issue -- my fear in this dialogue, when you -- you've already postponed it until 1 January where it was going to come on in 1 September. If you postpone it for six months, it will get you at the end of the legislative session. And normally the legislation goes something like this: Impact fees that are already on the books are grandfathered in. Those that aren't at the time of the passage of this bill therefore will be lowered to that level where they can't increase. So the six-month piece, I wish it didn't coincide with the end of the legislative session is the only thing I can say to you, Mr. Hart, on that particular one. You know, that one bothers me just a little bit because of what they normally throw as far as caveats in the bills as they pass them. But that's the only piece that I would tell you. Now, there's nothing on the January 29th ballot at all that deals with impact fees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what I was concerned about. So they have been talking about capping the fees and so forth, and if we -- if we freeze our impact fees -- and I think we're all very concerned about impact fees going too much higher, we've all said that in one form or another. However, we also need to function as a community and we need to have the dollars to build the infrastructure in order to do that. And ifthere's something that comes into place that then does not allow us if we need those impact fees to increase them because we hold off for six months, that's my concern. And you've expressed it as well, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I guess I'm going to take a different stand here. I'm not in favor of putting a freeze on impact fees. I Page 6 November 5, 2007 fees. I believe that the legislators up there in Tallahassee have done enough damage to all the counties here in the State of Florida. And ifthe proposed amendment, if it gets approved and gets on the ballot with the double homestead exemption, that just takes away from some additional ad valorem taxes that we need to build infrastructure here in the county. And if that passes, and I know that there's -- that the state is going to go after impact fees. That's pretty much been an ongoing issue with the Florida Association of Counties. We realize that that's going to take place, and we've got a commitment here to build the infrastructure. And as Commissioner Coyle said, that at the present time I think about $24 million is set aside each year to address growth of our roads. And I don't foresee the price of doing business going down. In fact, if anything, it's going to remain the same and most of our impact fees are behind the times. So it's not that we have the impact fees ahead of time, it's always we're in a catchup mode. So I'm sorry, but I feel that I've got an obligation here to make sure that we build the infrastructure and that it's here for the people here in Collier County. Thank you. MR. HART: I understand, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would just like to wrap that up by suggesting that if there is anything that can be done to make impact fees more accurately reflect the needs of the community, the starting point is today at this meeting with the AUIR hearing. Because we have to decide what levels of infrastructure are necessary. And then our capital improvement plan sort of comes with that. I f we can find ways of streamlining and making our capital improvement plan more adaptable to the needs of the people of Collier County, then perhaps we can save some money from impact fees. But that work starts today. Page 7 November 5,2007 And so I would urge all the commissioners to be very sensitive to the standards that are established in the AUIR, because they're going to determine what our capital improvement element is going to be and that's going to determine how much we need -- how much funding we need. So ifthere's a way we can meet our needs at less cost, we ought to try to find a way to do it. Ifthere isn't, we shouldn't be willing to sacrifice the quality of life in Collier County in order to get some politicians elected to higher office. MR. HART: I understand. Thank you all for your comments. And thank you, Mr. Manager, for your comments. And I would only perhaps caution about making decisions now based on what the legislature mayor may not do. It's a little hard to predict these days. I think one thing is certain, however. In the private sector, the businesses, the people the chamber represents, one thing is for certain that in these times is that by and large they have had to undergo some significant belt tightening. We all have to do that. These are uncertain times. I just -- I paid gasoline this morning, I paid over $3.00 a gallon of gasoline at Costco. I don't believe that ever happened. I don't recall that ever happening. These are very uncertain times. And I think belt tightening all the way around is just simply something prudent that we're all going to have to do. And I would encourage you to think about the actions here and how they resonate and ripple out through the rest of the community. And you are the leaders that we look to for encouragement, and I know you will provide us that. Thank you very much for this opportunity. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker? PUBLIC SPEAKER - TAMMY NEMECEK Page 8 November 5, 2007 MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two additional speakers. Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Janet Vasey. MS. NEMECEK: Good morning. I walk in the door and Steve is standing up here, so I appreciate the opportunity to put my name in and address this issue. Because I did see the letter from the chamber that came out requesting for the six-month -- not to increase the impact fees for six months. And you have seen me up here a number of times talking about what economic development is all about and the companies that we deal with. And it becomes a competitive issue. And so any reduction of cost in my viewpoint is a great item for us, because it does help us attract businesses or allow businesses to stay here and grow. That being said, I think Commissioner Coyle's comments are well put in the fact that it does start today with this AUIR. And shame I think on me and maybe the business community for over the years not getting more involved in the AUIR process and helping to work with the county commission, with the county manager and the county staff in order to have a more direct understanding and input into this process. It's complicated. I was reading it, and God bless the folks that go out there and do this work and put the numbers on the paper and analyze the information. Because it is complicated. But I would tell you that going through the process this year and probably getting started late in the process, a recommendation that I think we would have that does affect the impact fees and the cost of doing business is that the process be extended next year with this AUIR component, allowing for more time for public analysis of the document. I know we got it only two weeks before the planning commission meeting. And for us to be able to have some time to analyze it or have an opportunity to work more directly with staff along the way, Page 9 November 5, 2007 along the way, something along that way that I think can help us all. But what we see in regards to the cost here in the county of being able to provide the services and maintain not only quality of life but what we call a quality of place. And that's important to the companies that we're trying to attract or trying to grow here is what is this quality of place that we call Collier County, and can it be maintained over the long term? And that's the ultimate goal for what we're trying to do here today. And whether or not it's funded through impact fees or sales taxes or gas taxes or ad valorem taxes, there's only so many options for county government to be able to fund the infrastructure that we all want here. The question is what is that level of service that we want in the community, and are we sure that we are prioritizing those levels of service for the various components of this AUIR process? And again it comes down to not only impact fees but property taxes at the end of the day. So I think more public input on this process, you know, can benefit us all. And again, all the things have been advertised as they have, are they supposed to be. But I think more dialogue, sitting around the table having more dialogue with the community can help with that. We can have some, you know, suggestions and that kind of stuff, but I don't think we've spent enough time analyzing this document in its entirety to just be able to say, oh, let's do it this way or let's do it this way. I think we can spend the next year in making sure what we do next year is meeting the needs of the community. But again, it comes down to desires. And as I started from the beginning, any cost reduction is going to benefit your economic diversification efforts. I mean, that's an easy, simple solution. But you do have to maintain sustainability of the community as a result. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? Page 10 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just a very quick comment, try to put all this into perspective. F or 10 years prior to year 2001, impact fees were not updated at all. They were not increased for an entire decade. In fact, there are examples where impact fees that were due were not even collected. This commission has spent the last six years trying to get us to the point where we can afford to build the infrastructure that everybody needs. We were severely -- or the commissions were severely criticized in the late Nineties for not building infrastructure when there were no impact fees to speak of coming in, and now when we try to get the impact fees to build the infrastructure, there's complaints that the impact fees are too high. There is a happy medium somewhere, but it cannot be achieved if you've got the legislature pipelining all of these projects that violate our concurrency procedures. We have to build as fast as we can possibly build the infrastructure. Ifwe have to build the infrastructure fast, it costs more money. We can't do that if we lower impact fees. There are tradeoffs here. And Steve is absolutely right, it's going to take an even larger group of people other than just the business people in Collier County to resolve this issue. People have to understand that all of this stuff is interconnected, and infrastructure is not going to get developed until -- unless we have enough money to do it. MS. NEMECEK: I don't disagree at all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you cut back on ad valorem property taxes, you reduce the funds that are available to build some of the infrastructure. You reduce the impact fees, you reduce the funds available to build the infrastructure. So we stretch it out and we build infrastructure more slowly. That slows down the pace of development, people are going to complain about that too. We need to get to the point where we have sustainable development, rather than these huge bursts that result in inflationary Page 11 November 5, 2007 pressures that cause the problems we're faced with right now. The problems we have right now were not caused by impact fees, they were caused by a runaway growth period, fueled by greed and speculation and easy money. And that's what caused us the problem. We need to have a sustainable level of growth. And I'll just leave it at that. MS. NEMECEK: I always come back to economic development as, you know, one of those things that you look at for the sustainability. I mean, you're talking about businesses that are here year round that are supporting the community around. But in order to get them here, I reiterate the fact that it does come back to cost at the end of the day from a business standpoint. And like I said earlier, I think there's a lot more analysis, a lot more input, a lot more public/private collaboration that can happen with this AUIR process, and I see that the business community is willing to sit down at the table and help going forward. So that's what we're offering. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good. That's good. PUBLIC SPEAKER - JANET VASEY MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey. MS. VASEY: Good morning, Commissioners, Janet Vasey for the record. I just wanted to bring a couple of things to your attention as you start the AUIR review that bear on this problem of impact fees. I know you've seen the copy of the productivity committee's report, and there are some financial issues in there that you need to consider as you think about impact fees. One of the biggest ones is the $25.5 million ofloans that these facilities are getting from the general fund. And in several instances we question whether they ever will be able to repay those loans. So you Page 12 November 5, 2007 you have that kind of a funding issue. Plus if you look out to the second five-year period, financing is going to be a very serious issue, because a lot of your impact fees now are already committed to 15 and 20-year loans. So your next building program won't have any impact fees to draw on except those that have been increased over that period. Because the current levels have already been committed. So just as you go forward, think about those kinds of things in relation to the impact fees. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Vasey's been a tremendous advocate for good government, and she's served on our budget committees for over the years. I'd like to be able to keep her available as a resource during our deliberations the next two days. Would you be able to stay? MS. VASEY: Yes, I would like to. And I'm here to answer any of your questions on the productivity remarks or anything else. I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At any time point in time that we're in deliberations and you'd like to have Ms. Vasey come up and explain the fact from the productivity standpoint and her own background experiences, whatever, please feel free to address it to me and I'll invite her up to answer the questions. Thank you for being here and for all that you've given to Collier County. MS. VASEY: Well, thank you. And the productivity committee has worked very hard on this whole issue with your staff, so all of this is our work. Thank you. I tern #2A AUIR OVERVIEW Page 13 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mike, we're back to you. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman. Within the Land Development Code Section 6.02.00 requires the county to provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by Section 163.3177 Florida Statute, and are available when needed for development. Basically this is a section within the Land Development Code that mandates concurrency for public facilities within the county. And the AUIR is the blueprint for concurrency and is the preparatory document for the annual update to the CIE element. As I was looking at the various counties throughout Florida, this county is the only county that has an annual update and inventory report that has a public vetting process to talk about the projects that are going to go into the CIE before the public hearings for the CIE actually occur. So this county is unique in the sense that the AUIR project is a simple local decision to say we need more planning and we need more discussion about the projects that are going to form the basis for concurrency as we move forward in the future. The AUIR identifies capital needs for both new facilities to serve projected population growth, as well as for replacement of public facilities that will no longer be adequate in the five-year AUIR time period. The one distinction I will add about that is anything that is a replacement project because of a worn down facility, impact fees cannot be utilized for those expenditures. Impact fees are strictly related to expenditures related to new population growth. And the AUIR is an annual one-year snapshot in time with the projected needs and required improvements from all infrastruction (sic) service providing departments and divisions based upon projected population increases against the BCC adopted level of service standards. Page 14 November 5, 2007 And it should be noted that this snapshot changes on a daily, weekly and monthly basis as the changes in population or changes in demand portion of the equation evolve. And that sentence is really relevant and is very true. Because the picture that this county is experiencing six months ago changes where we're at right now, and in six months from now there's a little variation. And that's why we do this on an annual basis, to look at the demand factors, look at all the factors that make up capital improvement projects and growth within the county and make sure we're on track to meet those demands as we see them and as we see them evolving. As mentioned, the AUIR will provide the basis for the update of the GMP annual update of the CIE. It also serves as a general planning tool for the FY '09 budget and beyond. And this year the 2007 AUIR will incorporate the new population methodology reviewed by the planning commission and approved by the BCC during the GMP EAR-based amendment process. As you can see, we had -- prior to the change in policy we were utilizing BEBR high numbers for our projections. We have now agreed to utilize the BEBR medium. And you can see within this slide the effect that that change has had from the population for 2010. It's a reduction of 22,000. But as you go out to the later years, you're talking close to a 200,000 difference within projections for 2030. So that change has had a tangible effect upon the programs that you're seeing within this year's AUIR, and because of that, the population slowdown or the decrease in the projections and the changes to medium, you're seeing a lot of projects that were maybe in years one, two or three in last year's AUIR being pushed back to years four, five or even outside of that five-year window because the population is not Page 15 November 5, 2007 population is not projected to be there, therefore the demand won't be materialized, therefore the facilities will not be needed till a later time. Just as a remainder, Category A, which is the categories that form the basis for concurrency within the county are roads, solid waste, drainage canals and structures, parks and recreation, potable water, and sewer collection treatment. The Category B facilities are jails, law enforcement, libraries, emergency medical services, government buildings and the two dependent fire districts, Ochopee and Isles of Capris. Within the AUIR workbook, you'll have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I interrupt you for one second, Mike? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala's got a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Back to the last slide. The Category A facilities seem to be mostly facilities that are public services in one form or another, but yet the libraries aren't up there, they're down in B. How come that is like that? MR. BOSI: That is the -- I mean, that direction comes from the State of Florida as to which categories are determined to be Category A facilities. The legislator in the administration for -- and I can just speculate, had decided that the amount of libraries that a locality provides is strictly a local decision, and therefore they didn't see the merits of placing libraries as a component that they want to annually monitor to make sure that they are being provided to the public. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For goodness sake. Thank you. MR. BOSI: But that's the direction that the state has provided as to what the -- the distinction between the two categories. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we ever change that category, or do we have to follow the state direction? MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if this body would like to surrender more Page 16 November 5, 2007 more control to the state in terms of reallocating libraries to A. But the decisions that you make on B is 100 percent the decisions that come from the dais. MR. COHEN: For the record, Commissioners, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. If you recall, all of your Category B facilities that used to be in the comprehensive plan in the CIE, you made a decision to take all of them out of there because you didn't want them scrutinized by DCA and by the state. The Category A facilities are part of concurrency management and regulated by the state. And because you wanted local control in those state involvement whatsoever, they were removed as part of the EAR process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you. You've answered it beautifully. MR. BOSI: As I was saying, within the workbook there are two Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the executive summary. Exhibit A is the recommendations upon each of the components of the AUIR from the planning commission. And Exhibit B are the recommendations from the productivity committee. And I would say, I know Janet has indicated that she will be available throughout the day for individual questions upon the recommendations. Specially from the productivity committee, there are recommendations about capital financing as a whole, more on a general basis. And I think it would behoove the commission to at least exchange in the dialogue with Ms. Vasey concerning those annual recommendations as well. As I mentioned a number of times, the AUIR is basically future capital projects that are determined by a pretty straightforward and linear equation. It's new population times the level of service standards that are adopted, and that equals your capital expansion. And really, this is the only equation that is the justification required for the capital improvement projects that you see within your AUIR. As Page 17 November 5, 2007 AUIR. As an example, for libraries, between 2005 and 2006 in the 2006 AUIR, we had projected that 21,161 people were going to be added. Well, the adopted level of service standard that the board has for libraries is .33 square feet per person. You multiply the population that we're projecting times our standard, and it basically comes out to 6,983 square feet is required for that five-year period. That is the only justification. That is the requirement that's being placed upon the library system from the Board of County Commissioners saying that we will provide .33 square feet of library space per person. And if you look at what your total of your population numbers are for anyone year or for any five-year period, whatever that equation computes out to, that is what we are being required to build -- to provide for the new growth. At the June 26th, 2007 BCC hearing, the Board of County Commissioners indicated that this body was looking for an evaluation of the standards that are contained within the AUIR from the two advisory boards, the planning commission and the productivity committee. The question being asked is basically how appropriate are current levels of service. Is .33 square feet of library buildings per capita an appropriate standard, based upon the present usage of the library system? And within the AUIR that went to both the advisory boards and also to the Board of County Commissioners, you'll notice that there's an additional portion within this compared to last year's AUIR, and that's some of the operational demands that are being placed upon the various components. During the three-day workshop, the advisory boards forwarded a recommendation to revise one level of service. And that basically related to EMS. It was a recommendation from both bodies that there is a revision to the current level of service to one -- right now the current standard is one station per 15,000. The recommendation is for one station to 16,400. We'll get into the specifics of that during the EMS Page 1 8 November 5, 2007 EMS section of this presentation. There were no other components that were recommended for a revision to a level of service standard. There was one area for parks. The planning commission was split for a recommendation to revise the level of service for community parks and regional parks, but there was no majority, so that recommendation was not forwarded. And we will get into that as well during the parks and recreation component of the presentati on. Getting to the earlier discussion before my presentation, it really mimicked a lot of the concerns and a lot of the dialogue that went on between staff and the advisory boards related to ad valorem taxes and impact fees. And the level of service standards that we have identified in our AUIR, they're not always what the level of service standards that we have identified in our impact fee study. The level of service that -- the level of service standard that you have in the impact fee study is at the time of the study what the consultants found that we were providing against the population at that time. For example, EMS and government buildings are both examples of where the level of service standard established within the impact fee study is lower than what's identified within the AUIR. And what happens when you have those specific cases is you have a -- or results in supplemental funding from another source other than impact fees to pay for the entire cost of your capital expansion. Once again, going back to EMS, which will be a point that will be made, EMS right now, because of leasing and owned discrepancy and how those two commodities are treated by impact fees, we collect -- our impact fees are collected at one station per 34,560. But we have a standard right now in our AUIR that says one station per 15,000 we will provide. So we're collecting less than half of what it takes to build a new station. So based upon that equation and based upon that discrepancy between what we have as our level of service for our impact fees and Page 19 November 5, 2007 what we have as our adopted level of service, it results in a continuing need for supplemental funding other than impact fees to help provide for the level of service that this board has deemed appropriate for the county. The last component on this slide, Amy Patterson and Steve Tindale were to be available to discuss impact fees. Steve Tindale, our outside consultant related to impact fees, is ill today, but Amy is more than capable and she has indicated that she will be here for whatever questions or whenever the issues surrounding impact fees will be addressed. And like we say, the three-day meetings with advisory boards, there was a heavy sway in discussion related to impact fees and/or relationship to the overall capital improvement program within the county. Based upon the change from last year, the revenue required from the 2006 compared to 2007, last year we had a deficit projected at $21,822,788. This year, based upon the standards that we have contained, we have a shortfall of $26,855,402. Basically a $5 million difference. The one note I will say, that that deficit has been revised if the board was to accept the revised level of service standard that's being recommended from both the planning commission and the productivity committee. That takes the deficit from 26 million down to 16 million. It basically would shave $10 million off the projected deficit for EMS. So if that standard was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, we basically would have $16 million worth of unfunded capital improvement projects contained within this AUIR. And I will further point out that all those revenue deficits at $16 million are solely within the Category B facilities, where the decision to either -- to build to your level of service standard or come close is strictly a local decision within the purview of the Board of County Page 20 November 5, 2007 Commissioners, it is not obligated at the state levels as roads and park lands and public utilities are. So that's a pretty important distinction amongst those facts. And finally, just a couple of the staff recommendations. Staff asked the board to find upon analysis and review actions taken and directions given based upon the 2007 AUIR that adequate drainage canals and structures, potable water, water treatment and collection, solid waste, and parks and recreation facilities will be available as defined by the Collier County Concurrency Management System as implemented by Chapter 6.02.02 of the LDC to support the development order issues until presentation of the 2008 AUIR. And that basically says that there is sufficient funding in the programs within the Category A facilities are (sic) appropriate to maintain our concurrency management system for the following year. Also find that there is sufficient road network capacity in the transportation concurrency management data base for continued operation of the realtime declining balance ledger to support development order issuance until the FY '07, '08 end of the third quarter status report. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you continue with the next slide, Commissioner Henning, do you have something you want to address? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually, you're going to have to go back to the population slide. So maybe after the presentation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. If you want to put your light back on, Commissioner Henning, so I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- won't overlook you. MR. BOSI: Just four more recommendations, and this will wrap up the presentation. Accept and approve the attached document as the 2007 annual Page 21 November 5, 2007 update and inventory report on public facilities. Accept and approve the project and revenue sources contained within the A facilities set forth within this AUIR for inclusion of the update of the CIE. Also, recommend that Collier County staff -- we're asking that the board recommend to the staff to carefully scrutinize the actions taken by the state legislature prior to the preparation of the 2008 CIE, which may result in necessary changes to all the Category A facilities set forth within recommendations above. Basically what we're saying is right now as things exist within the Category A facilities, the revenue and the projected programs that we have identified, they meet, they balance out and they're whole. But before we prepare our CIE that's going to be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs, that we constantly or continuously monitor the state actions as to what any of those actions could possibly have to interfere with the revenue streams to provide for the capital improvement projects. And if that would occur, that we would pull back whatever projects to make sure that we are financially solvent, financially whole, to make sure that the ends do in fact meet. And then the last -- and this relates more -- or back to the issue of local control. We recommend that the Board of County Commissioners provide a policy direction that hurricane shelters with an alternative revenue source identified are not included within the five-year schedule of capital improvements. Basically what we're asking, within the EAR-based amendments within the coastal management element, we said evaluate whether we should include hurricane -- the provision of hurricane shelters as part of our CIE. And as I worked with emergency management, they currently are in the process for -- provision of hurricane shelters are covered by a five-year plan. It's annually reviewed by the Board of County Page 22 November 5,2007 Commissioners and it's looked at at the state every five years, but it's a coordinated effort with the state. And basically how hurricane shelters are provided with in this county, it's a collaborative effort between the public school system and Red Cross in the county, and it's provided by interlocal agreements. We're asking you that we maintain the current status of how we plan for them and not add hurricane shelter provision as a part of the CIE, which would open up for further review from the Department of Community Affairs. And I'm sure Dan Summers, during the EMS component, if you had any questions related to the hurricane shelter issue, would be more than happy to address them for you. With that, that's the wrap-up of the overview. We do have -- and I guess I would open myself to any questions that the board -- before we go further with the agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Let's go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you go back to the slide predicting the population. Is there any reason why we don't have '07, '08 and '09 in there? MR. BOSI: No, there's not a particular reason. The reason why I put April I st was because that's the last estimate that we had from BEBR in terms of the actual population in the county. And then I just showed five-year increments to show what the difference between the BEBR high, the BEBR medium and the BEBR low were. But no, there's no reason why I don't have those populations. And those populations are addressed within every component of the AUIR book. But no, there wasn't a reason I specifically omitted it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We went from permanent to weighted last year, correct? MR. BOSI: We went from a weighted to a peak season for calculation to account for the seasonal increase within the county. Page 23 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'm going by 1995, and it's on your website. It says permanent population. MR. BOSI: The numbers we get from BEBR are all permanent populations. The way that we used to calculate the seasonal increase was a term we used as weighted, and that was taking your permanent population and adding an 11.6 percent increase to account for that seasonal increase. Well, now that we've gone to a BEBR medium, we utilize the BEBR medium permanent population, not an 11.6 percent increase for seasonal increase, we actually now use a 20 percent increase to account for the seasonal influx and the demands that that seasonal influx places upon the services. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, on the chart in the book on Page 4, which one are you using to figure out your capital improvement plan? Which line? MR. BOSI: The second line. The new methodology is what we will now use for the CIE. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, you're using the peak population. MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that -- and maybe I'm looking at the wrong chart on your website, because using that, we're actually looking at about a 50,000 increase population as we go on. But what effects -- so actually there's a change in the methodology added. And I'm trying to go by what you said, a 20 percent increase? MR. BOSI: Correct, a 20 percent-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're going to be showing shortfalls as we go on our capital improvement plan by adding that -- MR. BOSI: The way that it works, there is -- the population numbers in years one, two and three are higher with our new Page 24 November 5, 2007 methodology. As before we had BEBR high medium in their permanent numbers, and we added 11.6 percent. Well, now we utilize BEBR medium, which is a little bit lower, but we're adding a 20 percent markup. So for your early years, your first three years, the new methodology shows a greater population number. But at the end of the five-year, it shows less and at the end of the 10-year it shows less and at the end of the 20 years it shows a dramatically declining population. So that's just a nuisance of when we went to the BEBR medium changing from an 11 percent markup to a 20 percent markup. And that results in a higher number in the first three years, and that's why you see those numbers as they exist. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we didn't go by permanent population prior. MR. BOSI: Well, permanent population has always been our base. Then we've always marked it up to account for the seasonal influx that we expenence. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Based upon the permits that we see in 2007, this year, can we honestly say that we're going to increase that population from 2006 to 2007 to be 20,000? MR. BOSI: You know, I'm going to defer to my director who has much more interaction with not only BEBR but for DCA. So I will defer to Randy on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Here's the question, I'll restate it again. 1 want to know from 2006 to 2007 -- or actually, 2007 permits, did you see a 20,000 population increase? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, what you're going to see -- again, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. At the beginning of every year we receive estimates from BEBR with respect to what they expect and how they expect us to grow. We projected from April of2006 to April of2007, 12,000 people. Just about a month ago we received correspondence from BEBR Page 25 November 5, 2007 that said you way overstated what you were going to grow in 2006 to 2007, based on what they looked at, which are two factors primarily, which are previous past trends and electrical hookups. Statewide they looked at electrical hookups way more than in the past. And by looking at our electrical hookups, what they noticed and which everybody would notice, we have a lot of vacant buildings and a lot of vacant structures around. So they came back and they asked us to revise our population for that period of time by down 6,000 something. We realized that they looked at it from a period of time way before they gave us that number, and we had an absorption rate. As some of those units were sold, a lot of the builders were discounting their buildings along the way. And as a result they settled on a number of around 9,000. With respect to this year, to be frank with you, when we get the April numbers I'm expecting a number anywhere probably between four and 6,000. I think the number's going to be way down, based on our C.o. data. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't get my question answered. I guess I really want to know the projected permits of new homes. Because when you talk about the vacancy rate -- MR. COHEN: They're way down, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, the vacancy rate is, correct? MR. COHEN: In the COs data, the COs are way down as well, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The permits, okay. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But just because you've got a vacant structure, whether new or used, doesn't mean that you haven't collected impact fees or taxes from it. So I want to try to correlate the permits, the new home permits for this year. Page 26 November 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we're looking that data up right now. And we'll multiply it by 2.3 and that's what you get for the number of bodies that are coming on board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great, thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have used these adjusted population estimates across the board throughout the AUIR, right? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why is that? Why is it necessary that you use the BEBR medium projections for all categories of facilities when it is clear, at least to me, that all categories of facilities don't respond in the same way to increases or declines in population figures? Let me give you an example: Public utilities is particularly sensitive to any fluctuations in population. Whereas I would say to you that stormwater canals and drainage are not. They do not have much to do with the population. Nor does the jail population and law enforcement have as direct a correlation as would public utilities. So my point is this: Public utilities is concerned about reducing their actual peeks of 28.6 percent, if I remember correctly, in the most recent year, to 20 percent to conform to the BEBR. Why don't we let public utilities forecast their growth rates at what they can justifY, which apparently is at least 28.6 percent increase, independent of the medium BEBR numbers? Because it is critical that they have sufficient water and sewer support. And use either low BEBR numbers or high BEBR numbers for some of the other categories of facilities. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, your point is extremely well taken. If you recall, as part of the EAR-based amendments, public utilities used to have a separate mechanism for calculating population. Page 27 November 5, 2007 State statute requires that we have one population methodology across the board. It's in the statutes, it's in the Florida Administrative Code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's the state again, trying to tell us how to run the county. MR. COHEN: It's in their infinite wisdom. So what we've done in working with Mr. DeLony, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, in trying to provide public utilities with some type of pad, as part of the EAR-based amendments, you directed us as the county commission to go ahead and provide -- it was Commissioner Halas that made the recommendation that you give public utilities some type of padding to make sure that when the rough times come up or we experience some type of spurt in growth or something along those lines, that they have a little bit more leeway in there. Their planning will be done in time but they'll be ready to get going with respect to the building aspects of it if that transpires. So we have -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand we've accelerated the capital improvement process for them. But the point is that the long-range planning is really based upon an incorrect application of population, peak population numbers, because of state mandates. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, you're correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what I would prefer to do is to try to call this problem to the attention of the state government and get them to understand that we need some flexibility if we're going to do reasonable planning. What we're doing now is an end run. What 1 would prefer to do is do it the right way and project it the right way. And if Mr. DeLony believes and can substantiate a peak increase of28.6 percent, he ought to be able to use 28.6 percent in his projections rather than the 20 percent that would be mandated by the state. Page 28 November 5, 2007 MR. COHEN: And ironically, Commissioners, this provision by the state is extremely antiquated. It was part of the original 1985 Growth Management Act, and it would probably be a good idea for them to take a look at it, because one size doesn't fit all. Obviously one county doesn't fit -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the concept 1 don't quite understand, isn't it? But my point is I don't think we can change that right now. We do what you've got here, as long as Mr. DeLony feels comfortable that he can respond to the peak demands as they occur. So I'm not going to object to that for this purpose. But can we reach agreement as the Board of County Commissioners to ask the staff to surface this issue with the state and see if we can't get something more reasonable out of them? Because I don't want to run short of water and sewer services, and I'm sure you don't either, Mr. DeLony. MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. Absolutely not. I've always viewed AUIR as the base, you know, as the minimum to sustain concurrency and provide the level of service. You know, it's just the first indicator. And I always felt that if we had the justification to go above that minimum, that we would find -- you know, we would come to this board and express that. The challenge then that Randy has is taking that above the minimum to the state for their approval has been problematic. Because typically we will use another methodology to justifY something above that baseline. Just as we have done in the past and you described before. Working within those constraints, though, as we indicated in our comments back to you, we will continue to provide you not only what is prescripted, but we also will provide our judgment from that and it will Page 29 November 5, 2007 will allow you to take which course of actions you want to direct us to take. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be okay for me for public utilities, but I personally believe the same thing applies to transportation. Transportation is showing substantially higher forecast of traffic than we had previously thought. So if we use a medium BEBR number rather than a high BEBR number, we're going to under-forecast traffic impacts. So it appears to me that we've got to surface this issue to the state legislature to make them understand that tourist seasons, heavy tourist seasons and seasonal residents during peak seasons of the year for a county like Collier, that those peak populations have a bigger impact upon us than if those were year round populations. And I won't go into the reasons why, but it's true. Now, can we at least do that? Can we at least surface this issue and try to get it resolved? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, one of the things that you have that's an advantage for you, we added a policy as part of the Growth Management Plan, and in that policy where it establishes the seasonal rate at 20 percent, you're allowed to revisit every year, as part of the capital improvements element, that particular seasonal rate. Right now we're sitting here with BEBR medium and a 20 percent seasonal rate. If you think, in your wisdom as a board, that that seasonal rate is higher, what you can do, you may want to move the seasonal rate up; however, that's going to have a cost associated with it, because it's going to increase your numbers for your other public facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see, if you don't do it, the effect is we don't plan for that increased cost, we don't provide for the necessary capacity, and then the people in Collier County do not get the essential services they need. But I'm bringing this up not -- I am confident that Mr. DeLony has Page 30 November 5, 2007 has this issue addressed properly in public utilities. But I think it is a problem that affects other things, and I've mentioned transportation, and there are perhaps some others, but certainly those two should be able to adjust the effects of the peak population higher than the 20 percent that we apparently are forecasting in this case. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, the one advantage that we do have, the CIE says that we have to build it, for example, by 2017. That doesn't mean that Mr. DeLony can't complete it by 2015. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but it takes more money to do that. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's the problem. And if we're getting squeezed on the one hand with less money opportunities by the state legislature, how can we accelerate these very expensive projects when the costs for the projects are going up every year? It's a very difficult problem. I'd rather get out ahead of this thing and know today what it's going to cost us in 2015 or 2017 to accelerate a project, at least as best we can. MR. COHEN: Like I said, your point is well taken. One size doesn't fit all with respect to level of service. And the only way to modifY that is have the state take a look at it and have the legislature take action on it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then I would like to suggest that we give the staff guidance to at least pursue that. Define the problem more clearly. I am not saying that we apply a 28.6 percent increase across all of the A and B facilities. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying pick the facilities that are most directly affected by the seasonal population and adjust those a little higher. We can leave some of the others alone or maybe we can even reduce them, okay? MR. COHEN: And as a point of emphasis again, the Category B facilities state has no regulation over. What we're talking about Page 31 November 5, 2007 basically is the public utilities, transportation, drainage, sanitary solid waste, and also parks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you applied this change to drainage? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why does the peak population affect drainage? MR. COHEN: You're going to have to ask the state that question, SIr. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They tell us that we've got to do it that way, right? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means money, doesn't it? MR. COHEN: That means a whole lot of money, sir. MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner, you could go to low -- you could go to low BEBR for drainage with the peak into it, okay, because, you know, peak happens during the high season. High season happens to correspond with the dry season, okay, where there's no drainage needed. The key here is -- but if the houses exist, but you might decide in drainage you want to do low instead of do medium BEBR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my question. But we've used medium BEBR throughout this AUIR, haven't we? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And to clarifY the issue, you could only have one population methodology. So you couldn't use one for drainage, one for parks, and apply the population differently for library. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even though they're clearly affected differently. MR. COHEN: Even though they're clearly identified, you have to have one. And that was a major point of contention in the EAR -- in the ORC Page 32 November 5, 2007 ORC response from DCA. Because we did have a substantially different methodology for Mr. DeLony's shop. We used high BEBR numbers plus the 33 percent factor for his facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when the state mandates that we have to use that BEBR, it means that that translates into additional millions, tens of millions of dollars that we've got to spend when we know that drainage isn't affected by peak population figures. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And what a lot of governments have done is they've looked at their levels of service in some of those areas and they've reduced their level of service in some of those areas to account for those extra expenditures. And that's how when you realize well, yes, the demand for public utilities is up here but the demand for drainage is down there, you can change your level of service, you can obviously deal with it in that manner. And that's what a lot of local governments have done. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll just wrap this up. We can't solve this problem today. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a suggestion that we provide guidance to staff to evaluate some alternatives to how we can do this, whether it's by adjusting levels of service or whether we go to the state and try to get permission to use different peak values? Because it's clear that not all of these facilities are impact facilities. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. How about you, Mr. Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good luck. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to give further guidance, because we need to figure out as a body what our goals and objectives are for these capital improvements. You know, another factor that is played into this is what the level of service is. Norm Feder has counters out there, Jim DeLony knows what Page 33 November 5, 2007 knows what his demand for water and what -- you know, how much stuff he's putting in the tank, so-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me come right back to you. I just wanted to see if you agree in partial. But you don't think we've hashed this out all the way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we need to give specific guidance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand and I agree. What I'd like to do is take the liberty of asking Ms. Vasey to come up here, because the productivity committee has discussed this for a considerable length of time. And I'd like to hear their particular spin on it, because they've spent a lot more time with it than we have, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to ask a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do, if I may, if in any way I'm imposing upon you and you feel uncomfortable coming up, you just have to state so and we'll throw you out of the building. I'm just kidding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's double her salary. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll double your salary if you do a good job. MS. VASEY: We would appreciate that, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, so people understand what we're doing here, the productivity committee is a volunteer committee that is made up of, oh, what do you want to call it, people from the industries, people that were leaders of the industry from throughout the country that have come here, settled in Florida, retired and we use their expertise. You yourself were very involved with the U.S. Army as a -- not an accountant, you were a cost analysis? MS. VASEY: A financial analyst. Page 34 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me for understating your position. But I just wanted the listening public to understand what we're doing here and why you're being called on. You're not a member of staff, you're not an elected official. You're a person of a committee who's been very influential in the decision-making process for this commission for many years now. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please go ahead and take us along the process that the productivity committee has gone through as far as the weighing of the different factors to reach the determinations for the AUIR. MS. VASEY: Well, on the utility ones, I have to tell you that we were quite shocked at the change, based on what happened with BEBR. We had already seen last year a very significant building program planned over the next 10, 15, 20 years, and it was cut way back. And so we asked the same kinds of questions that you're asking: Is this going to cost us, you know, sewage in the streets or what are the implications of this. And basically staff assured us that even though they aren't -- they don't include all of these facilities in their current building program, they are actively proceeding with the design of the facilities which are a lower cost fund -- a lower cost part of the building process, and that this would ensure that we're okay for the near term future. And then we would evaluate how the BEBR numbers actually come out over the next couple of years to see if that is a more realistic way, or if we do have to find some other methodology. And that basically is as far as we went during the review process. But we were quite shocked that so many of the facilities were pushed way out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and you hear the direction we're Page 35 November 5, 2007 we're going. We're trying to give staff direction as to what to look towards for several different options, and I'm going to let Commissioner Coyle direct the questions that we're trying to come across. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm next. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know you are. But we're going to handle this one issue. You led the particular direction on it. And why we're trying to define it, as per Commissioner Henning's request. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any other questions, I just wanted to address one of the issues that Commissioner Henning brought up, since it was a continuation of the question I had asked earlier. There's no contradiction here between specific guidance and general guidance. We're going to give specific guidance as we go through this document today. We're going to take it piece by piece and we're going to give them specific guidance on this. My objective is to provide general guidance for the staff to go research solutions to the problems that I just raised and suggest to us how we can best address that problem. We can't come up with all the guidance necessary to tell them what to do now. They have to do the work and advise us what is the best way and give us some alternatives, and then we will at a later point in time make a decision on that. That is my -- was my intent. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, one of the first things that we'll do prior to the next AUIR is we'll do a comparative analysis across the board of all capital facilities, levels of service, and have that available. That way you'll have a better understanding -- we'll have a better understanding on how those standards are actually applied statewide. And we'll specifically look at similarly situated counties. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If! could suggest a modification to Page 36 November 5, 2007 that. Ifwe wait until the next AUIR to try to get that clarified, and if it requires some action by state government to give us permission to achieve the solution we want, there's a huge lead time to do that. I would ask that somebody take on a special study soon so that we can -- we can go ahead and pass this AUIR with our recommendations and modification as they come up today, but immediately after that, I think we need to start an action program to specifically address how we apply the population figures and the peak population figures to specific government facilities. Because it's clear that government facilities are impacted differently. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, if that's your direction and the rest of the board's direction, we'll do that starting immediately after this AUIR. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got three nods? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, you do. Let's go to Commissioner Halas. Please stay available someplace close by. Appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a discussion about stormwater and that it may not impact during the peak season. The concerns that I have is that people build houses and we got rooftops. So therefore we have impervious surface areas. And it does impact the area when people aren't here. So that can't be looked at as, well, we don't have any storm flooding or anything else, because the peak season the people aren't here. Off season. But their homes are still here. So it does have a big impact in regards to stormwater. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's just -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those homes being built are being built in areas that they have to have stormwater retention. I don't know of any cases where they don't. And the board just passed an amendment, Land Development Code, Page 37 November 5, 2007 Code, it says, you know, if you're going to do some rebuilding or something in Naples Park or whatever, that you need to have that stormwater storage or you can't build, expand or whatever. So I think we got that covered. Commissioner Coyle is correct that, you know, peak season doesn't have a impact of stormwater. MR. MUDD: The only -- Commissioner Henning -- if! may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, sir, go ahead. MR. MUDD: To answer Commissioner Henning's earlier question, there were 2,762 new residents in -- by the end ofFY 2007. We normally go with 2.3 people per dwelling. That gives you 6,352.6 -- we won't count the .6, we just say it's 6,353 as far as increase in population. And if you even went as high as three persons per dwelling, it would be 8,286. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're way off on what we're showing. MR. MUDD: Mud based on building permits and what BEBR basically gives us, we're off base, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in turn you have less money to make those improvements, but you're basing it upon projected population. So that just presents a problem, wouldn't you say? MR. MUDD: I would say in down turns you're probably going to be off from estimates that are given to you a year prior. And as I believe Mr. Cohen mentioned, he believes that there's going to be an adjustment to the BEBR projections that we are given for the next AUIR. And if we don't get that, then we need to raise the flag as a staff and say, hey, look at, building permits and what you're giving us don't make sense in Collier County, and you're inflating what we're getting. But I see what your -- what you're getting at is what they gave us Page 38 November 5, 2007 last year, this year's projection, and what we finally finished up the year with we have a lag period of time. MR. SCHMITT: Last year was based on 5,753. MR. MUDD: Yeah, and last year projection we got was based on what we ended with '06 with, which was 5,753 as far as new units were coming on board. So they are off by a year, just as is taxes are off by a year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. MUDD: The other thing that I just want to add to the dialogue is if you're in a PUD, you have stormwater. If you're building on an individual lot that isn't in a PUD, maybe Naples Park or the Estates or Pine Ridge, north of that, when you get into that particular area you're building individual homes, and most are above elevation. And Commissioner Halas can tell you from his site visits that they do have an impact upon the local neighborhood, because the local neighborhood was built normally below the ball of the road, the crown of the road. And these newer homes are coming up 18 inches above the crown, and the water is affecting those low-lying homes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then what Commissioner Coyle said yesterday about the numbers, it's hard to be able to transpose population numbers in every instance that would really work for this. Something like drainage should be based upon the square footage of rooftops that they displaced. It would be much more applicable than using it on a population basis. Then again, I'm not too sure we could ever get to that point. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you can. As a matter of fact, the City of Naples has done that. And the County Manager has a draft copy of that ordinance which deals with the retention of runoff water on your own property. It's not allowed to run off on to some body else's property. So there is a way to do that. Page 39 November 5, 2007 And hopefully staff can take a look at that draft ordinance and see if there's a way we can adopt it here. But let me make sure there's a clear understanding of what I'm talking about. Ifwe have an average population of379,000 people and we have an extraordinary tourist season that adds another 10,000 people to that, that's not going to require a capital improvement to a drainage canal. If you build a house that is going to divert more water into the drainage system, that will certainly cumulatively have an effect, but you deal with that through impact fees and/or ordinances. You don't calculate the need for drainage systems on the basis of whether or not you have a good tourist season, you know. It just doesn't compute. So that's what we're getting at. If you have a good tourist season, there's a big impact on Mr. DeLony's water and wastewater treatment facilities. There's a big impact on Norm Feder's transportation system. But there's not an impact on the drainage system, the canals. So that's all I'm trying to do is get an understanding that we ought to apply these things in a way that makes sense for the facility that we are considering. And so I think we've got at least three nods to do that, so I'll -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have enough to put that in your directions. Before we again, let's go ahead and take a 10-minute break and we'll be right back. (Recess.) MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. Subject to no further questions from Mr. Bosi, Mr. Feder -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good job. MR. MUDD: -- will start Category A with transportation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Mike, thank you. Page 40 November 5, 2007 Item #2C COUNTY ROADS MR. FEDER: For the record, Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'm going to be fairly brief and I'm going to hand it over to Nick Casalanguida to go through the specifics on the roads portion. What I do want to point out, though, I think the discussion today is excellent. We had very good participation and input from the planning commission and the productivity committee and I think the product is better for that, as well as I think it will be from the discussions today. I do need to point out in transportation, we don't use directly population as you saw up on the slide there, let's say on the library example. In reality what we use is traffic counts out there on the road, as well as modeling that basically utilizes population, also socioeconomic data and spacial distribution to evaluate trends and needs. On the roads, we came to you last AUIR, we identified a potential $180 million shortfall. The board took that information and through the budget cycle gave us some good direction that is reflected here in the new AUIR, as well as obviously in the budget that we have for fiscal year '08. Specifically our impact fees have taken up, with a 30 percent increase expected to come in in January, will hit about half of that shortfall need through that increase as well. We removed County Barn four-laning, and have added two additional lanes be the Santa Barbara extension. That was a sizeable savings, and gave us the capacity needs, although we are still production ready on County Barn and expect to go with that both for L.A.S.J.P. and for the road needs in the future. Page 41 November 5, 2007 needs in the future. We also were given 50 million in general obligation bonds. They are shown in our fiscal year '08. But we will not take any of that money out, any portion of it until in fact it's needed to meet the letting requirements within the plan. So we did address that shortfall. We appreciate your actions previously. And I think what you'll see in the transportation is we do have a cost feasible plan that meets our needs. Our deficiency segments are greatly reduced. They still reflect heavily the state highway system components of the network. And I'll have Nick go through that in detail. The only other thing that I wanted to note to you is we were discussing impact fees and other revenue sources. One thing that we're going to be bringing to you during the budget cycle that goes a little bit beyond the AUIR which is predominately to look at concurrency capacity needs is that our growing needs relative to the bridge program where we have about 110 bridge structures, if you will, more than 20 feet over water body approaching the 50-year time frame. We are studying a number of them right now where the deficiency rating is getting to a point where work, repair at least, and renovations are required. That area is going to need to be budgeted. As well as, as we add more and more lane miles we need to maintain that investment in that lane miles and resurfacing. And right now we have a fairly small resurfacing program that doesn't in any way meet basically the life cycle expectations of paving. So our 0 and M costs are going to go up, none of which can be covered by impact fees. And yet what we're facing right now is about 24 million a year, if that can be maintained out of ad valorem. And then we're facing a gas tax that although everybody talks about gas going up to $3.00 a gallon -- Jim DeLony just asked me how long I think we're going to be experiencing that and I said until it goes to four. Page 42 November 5, 2007 But that does not increase our revenue stream. We are not set on a basis of cost, we're set on a per gallon. And as the cost goes up, people are I guess fortunately finding ways to be a little more fuel efficient in their vehicles, reduce number of trips and so we're not going to experience as a gas tax revenue that's also supporting our subsidy of transit and all of our areas that we can't use impact fees on. So that's going to be the major issue we're going to have to address beyond this five-year and start with our budgeting processes to look at. The capacity end, I'm going to let Nick walk you through that. We're in good shape. I will point out on the teleprompter here, you have basically -- what this board has done in its support of transportation in adding lane miles since 2000, we have over 200 lane miles added to the system on different facilities that are either completed or about to be completed throughout the network. That has greatly assisted, and I think you'll see it as Nick goes through the details, the deficient segments are reducing over time. Our focus of course now is on maintaining what we have within the urbanized area, its sufficiency, not losing that capacity and then moving out to the Estates where we have the opportunity of a grid system but still have some significant needs as we continue to grow. With that, I'll ask Nick to go and we'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you do, sir, Commissioner Henning has some questions, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On your projected capitals, are you seeing $67 million in impact fees? MR. FEDER: Yes. As a matter of fact, our impact fees are up. Our gas tax is close to what you see in the projection. Our impact fees are up. Remember also in our impact fees, we have a provision for 50 Page 43 November 5, 2007 percent upfront and then 50 percent within three years. It's anticipated that what we call COA, but those other 50 percent dollars, and what we were actually realizing in collections are showing that we're tracking pretty well. But it does assume that 30 percent increase is coming up in January, if that is maintained. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Vanderbilt Beach extension-- if you want me to wait for Nick, I mean, I just have some questions on the scheduling on that. Did you want me to wait? MR. FEDER: I'll be happy to discuss it or we can wait, whichever you'd like to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right, since you're there. VBR extension from Collier to Wilson. I see a lot of acquisitions out for this AUIR. MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The construction is not there. When do you plan on the construction to be there? MR. FEDER: Right now it would probably be in the sixth or seventh year. We see that we were required as we had direction from the board, we're requiring the whole takes throughout the corridor all the way out to DeSoto, and we're well along in that process. We are getting closer to our design standards, 60 percent, before we can start pursuing the right-of-way acquisitions basically in that first segment, as you said, from Collier out to Wilson. These dollars reflect that pursuit of the right-of-way and we would expect that we'd be in a position to seek construction if the funding's available in year six or seven. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In year six or seven, so that's 13 or 14. MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know how much you anticipated spending for right-of-way on that -- for this year? MR. FEDER: I think what you see in the plan here is pretty close to Page 44 November 5, 2007 close to what we expect relative to the portion out to Wilson. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's my last question. MR. FEDER: Thank you. Nick? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Norm, a question I have for you. As we move through getting more fuel efficient vehicles and obviously as the price of gas goes up, people are being more cautious in regards to trips. Do impact fees, do they -- are they used for establishing bus lines? MR. FEDER: No, Commissioner, the bus services right now are -- come through federal grant monies. The county is right now subsidizing about two million a year out of your gas tax revenues. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there's no way that road impact fees can be used for establishing bus lines as the price of fuel continues to go up. MR. FEDER: Right now it is not utilized that way, and that's something we could try to explore, but the state provisions are added capacity, and that is typically seen as additional lanes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, what is our deficit on our five-year program? MR. FEDER: We do not have a deficit in our five-year program as noted. What you have is about 36 million, as you'll see at the end, that is held in abeyance. But you'll also see that while we don't bring forward a construction phase until I actually have a contract that's approved by this board, we didn't program a lot of new projects in the fourth and fifth year of this program, waiting to make sure that the revenue streams as expected through increased impact fees and other issues are realized. And I would hope that we would be in a position in the next AUIR, the Page 45 November 5, 2007 in the next AUIR, the one to follow, to add some additional projects in what would be years 2011 and '12. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me rephrase the question. Ifwe wanted to meet our objectives, going out five or 10 years, for the money stream that we have coming in, how short will we be? MR. FEDER: If you want to meet it relative to capacity at a level of service D and E, which is your level of service in transportation, it is met with this capital improvement element, including that $50 million barn that we will pursue, only when and if it's needed. MR. MUDD: If you take a look at Page 9, sir, of Norman's presentation, you've got the chart which at the top it says, Attachment C proposed five-year work program CIE. If you go down the first column under FY '08, almost down to the bottom of the page and it says short-term loan commercial paper, that's that $50 million. He says he's going to be 36 up at the end of the five-year period of time, but he's got a shortage over that period of time where that loan bridges the gap and he pays it back as those proceeds comes in. But in the first couple of years there's a shortage versus the monies that he's got in order to build the program. That's why he needs that loan. And we talked about that before in front of this board. At one time it was up to 100 million, we got Norman to acquiesce to 50. And if! can get him to 25 and still get the program accomplished, I will. MR. FEDER: At 50 it's covered. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The productivity committee has a general recommendation that all future capital improvement projects be limited to their impact fund balance plus anticipated collections and not be subsidized with loans or general fund revenue. Page 46 November 5, 2007 Have you adopted that position for anything beyond the five-year plan? MR. FEDER: First of all, all you have here is the five-year plan. The five-year plan does rely on 24 million a year, which has been historical from general fund revenue stream. It also relies on that 50 million, as I mentioned, of that general obligation bonding when and if it's required. So in answer to your question, no. I think the issue they were raising was likelihood to be able to repay. I think your five years shows that that general obligation will be paid back. But it is utilizing 24 million a year of ad valorem, and it continues to require that to not only meet your capacity but to address some of your operations and maintenance. And that's the critical area. A lot of your capacity is being handled, the bulk of it, by impact fees, assuming we do our increase and continue to do that. But I have a lot of operations and maintenance which is growing, whether it be my traffic operation system, support for the transit, resurfacing, those issues and now bridges that are becoming a bigger requirement that I still maintain that ad valorem support of the program, because my gas tax revenues as you know are already at max, have been maxed since the beginning of that opportunity by this board, and that stream is not growing. As a matter of fact, its actual buying power has been going down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How important is an impact fee adjustment for transportation? MR. FEDER: It is very important. As I said here on balance, based on 24 million a year and 50 million, if! assume almost 96 million have increased over five years of impact fee collections. So far that seems to be tracking relative to our current rate what we expected, and we would hope that that would continue. But that's also why I left 36 on the table at the end of the five years, in case we don't realize that level of impact fee collections so we can Page 47 November 5, 2007 we can adjust throughout the five-year period. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we don't achieve that level of property tax revenue support, what are you going to do? MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, that would hit a number of areas. I'd probably have to hit some of the capacity, but I couldn't use my impact fees on my operations and maintenance requirements, which is a rapidly growing requirement where predominantly I'm utilizing that 24 million of ad valorem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would be the impact, though? MR. FEDER: The impact would be that instead of an assumption of almost 45 years of useful life of pavement, which basically should be about 11 years on average, depending on the nature of the facilities, some a little less, some major and some a little more on the others, I would be further out, further elongating. If you in fact let pavement go to the point where you crack and you start hitting your subbase, then you've lost your investment. That's like the little leak in the roof that you let go there until it becomes a big leak and then you've got major problems. I will have bridges, but right now I have five that I have to respond to I know based on their deteriorating condition. All of them are safe, all of them are structures that aren't going to come down based on people's concern. But that's what we need to do is make sure that they're maintained so they don't -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what would be -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, he never answered your question. And I'm not picking on Norman. He talked about operational because he's worried about operational right now. Because if you take a look at the 24 million in ad valorem going here, there's another 24 to 26 going into his operation for operational sides, roads and bridges and things like that. And as we tweak this budget down and down, based on some Page 48 November 5, 2007 mandates that we're getting, he's getting less and less ofthose dollars in order to maintain. So he is really worried. He's got five bridges right now that need to be -- have major work on them. And we're going to talk about that some more. But what he would have to do is have to slip. This program would have to slip out to the right based on less building, less impact fees coming in. And you do have things in FY 'II and '12 on your program that have some significant amounts of money on them. He would have to slip one or two of those projects -- MR. FEDER: I would have to do that. But your question was ifl lost ad valorem as opposed to reduced impact fees. And understand that while Jim is perfectly correct, I would look to slip the capacity project further out and that might create a concurrency Issue. If it is impact fee funded, I could not use that to replace the 0 and M. And that's why I focused on than that in my answer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you slip it out beyond the five years, under -- the state's Growth Management Plan development can continue. MR. FEDER: If they pay a proportionate share. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they pay a proportionate fair share, which we know is not enough to cover the -- MR. FEDER: It's not what we wanted. Under our terms we would consider a concurrency issue and seek not to move on that development along with this board's assistance. But yes, you're right, there are escape patches that have been set up by the legislative action. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you're going to have to start planning -- well, you already have started planning for years after the five years. Is it your planning guidance to your staff that they should not expect ad valorem property tax contributions to support your capital Page 49 November 5, 2007 improvement project? MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Commissioner, and I know it's not the answer you're seeking, I would probably tell them that I have to have another source of funding beyond impact fees, beyond the decreasing valued gas tax, and that is either additional ad valorem or some other source of funding, whether it be the penny that requires referendum of sales tax or some other source. I can tell you that we are not sustainable further out based on simply the income streams that we have today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we do not increase impact fees, you are negatively impacted, not only for the five-year program but for any programs beyond that. MR. FEDER: Definitely. We will find ourselves much like we were when I came here. From the mid Nineties to 2000 we didn't build it and they came. We didn't increase the impact fees, they built it. But the infrastructure was not built. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, a question I have. You keep talking about maintenance levels that are going to increase. Approximately what is the amount of ad valorem taxes that you presently are using to repair roads, and what is your projected outlook for the next five years in road maintenance? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, that's a very valid question and I'm going to need to look at that before I mislead you in specifics. And I'm going to bring that during the budgeting process. I can just tell you right now I only have about two million a year towards resurfacing. And I have one million a year essentially as you can see in here towards bridges. Both of them are woefully inadequate. And yet I'm balanced out based on my concurrency needs generally. So I'm going to need to come to you in the budget cycle to Page 50 November 5, 2007 understand how we're going to cover this 0 and M cost as it increases. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's very important that we have that information. MR. MUDD: And Norman said $2 million for resurfacing, that's resurfacing an existing hard type road. MR. FEDER: That's not-- MR. MUDD: Okay, he's got -- out in the Estates he's got about five million or so to do limerock to asphalt. MR. FEDER: And that's part of the discussion we'll have. But yes, as far as actual already paved roadway, maintaining that and upgrading it, about two million a year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. You had mentioned five bridges. And according to this system line capacity that's on the overhead, I see three. Could you tell me where the other two bridges are? MR. FEDER: No, understand, those are new bridges that have been added into the system for capacity and for mobility improvements. What I'm talking about is we've got about 110 bridges on our system, and so most people need to understand that any time I have a box culvert of a water body of more than 20 feet in span, that is considered a bridge. So about 20 or 30 of those are just basically box culverts, and the others are what you might more routinely consider a bridge, and an awful lot of them out in the Estates. The key issue is most of them are starting to get closer to their generally considered useful life of 50 years, and so I need to do what I can to repair and rehabilitate rather than get in a position of replace, which is much more expensive. MR. MUDD: Now, how about giving the Commissioner an example of one of the bridges that you just had to do a quick fix to Page 51 November 5, 2007 because we decreased the tonnage that could transfer over the top of the bridge. MR. FEDER: On Immokalee Road east of29, not a heavily traveled section of roadway, but nonetheless we had a structure that we worked with the state. Based on its condition rating, it started going down rather quickly. We didn't want to leave ourselves in any position of failure. And so we got with the state, we reduced the weight on it, or placed a restriction to what size vehicles go across it. We've gone in, made the repairs that were required, particularly to the support columns. That work has been done. We had it inspected by the state. Reinspected. They concurred that the repairs were good and the weight restriction's been taken off of that section of bridge. We have some others that were in that position. We have others we hope not to get into that position, based on an ongoing bridge program, knowing that our bridges are starting to age. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that works me into my second question, which is, all of the dump trucks that are traveling to and from the mines, I'm sure that they're detrimental to those bridges, yet we're not collecting a dollar a load on those. Only the brand new ones that we've approved recently. But we're not getting anything to help you rebuild the bridges that I'm sure the dump trucks are helping to weaken. MR. FEDER: We are going to bring a resolution to you hopefully supporting that idea of one dollar per truck you've applied most recently to developments that have come in. But by resolution we'd like to get that issue addressed so that you don't have to address it on a one-per-one basis. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You'll be bringing it up pretty quickly, right? MR. FEDER: Yes. Page 52 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. FEDER: We'll be bringing it to the board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but didn't we have this issue come before us about six years ago? MR. FEDER: Oh, yes. About six years ago we were trying to put a fee on dump trucks. We were working with Lee County. It was proceeding with something at the time. They ran into a number of problems as they were trying to update their impact fees and issues. What we're talking about is not an impact fee, it's a per truck load, acknowledging the damage. And it's not just to bridges, it's also to the roadways themselves, based on heavy loads. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we would just be able to collect that within Collier County, though. MR. FEDER: Yes. That's what we're seeking is a local fee item relative to the number of trucks coming out of mines within Collier. Obviously somebody is mining in Lee and the trucks are driving through, but that's not something we can collect on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. Item #2C COUNTY ROADS MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with transportation. And I'll take you to Page 6 of the AUIR for transportation. We'll start there. A couple of clarifications. You had asked Mr. Feder about the dollar fee per truck. We're looking as part of our spring update that's going through right now the impact -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Nick. When we refer to a Page 53 November 5, 2007 page, could we put it on the visualizer, Mr. Mudd, so the public can see what we're talking about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Swipe my page. I'll have to look at that from time to time. MR. MUDD: Here, take the page. We'll work mine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As part of our impact fee update that we have going forward, we're looking at a fee per truck, an impact fee for heavy hauling facilities. So it's a correctional resolution that might be in your spring update for your impact fee. And we're trying to rationalize between a one-time fee or an annual fee. And we're working with Tindale-Oliver to work that out. We're also working with the school district to look at an impact fee increase for them as it relates to capacity improvements for each school that's installed as well, too. So we're looking at different areas to mitigate for some of those impacts that we receive. On Page 6, the biggest thing that probably sticks out at the top of the page is your unit cost variable average per land mile. Up to almost $8 million. Now, it's a lagging indicator. So when you look at that, you're seeing numbers that reflect the Santa Barbara project or the Collier north project. We've started to receive projects coming in right now that are bringing that cost down, but we use it as a lagging indicator. And we have to. It's the way we regulate our impact fees as well, too. Approximately 500,000 to a million of that could be utilities as well, too. And as we go to the rural areas, that may decrease as well. So note of that. Recommendations from the planning commission, productivity committee were positive. And again I'd like to caution and echo what Mr. Feder has pointed out, we do not recommend delaying your impact fee increase for roads. We thought it was a detriment delaying it when we had done it in the last Page 54 November 5, 2007 done it in the last quarter of last year, and we think going forward it may hurt us if we do that. So we recommend installing that per your last guidance ofthis spring coming up, or actually January. Mr. Feder also pointed out that as gas prices go up, you may see a lower gas revenue. Because you'll see people consolidating, commuting, public transportation. So we consider that as well too when we review our AUIR. Going to Page 8 now, if I could, we do -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just mentioned public transportation. Have we noticed -- and I realize Diane Flagg isn't here, but have we noticed an increase in the people using our public transportation system since the gas prices have gone so high? MR. CASALANGUIDA: She has had a steady increase in ridership, but it's too early to tell because of that correlation of gas prices to ridership. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: There have been -- the increase overall to the system has happened every year since it's been on board. There are some sections, segments, routes, okay, that's had a decrease in ridership. And we're trying to analyze that to see if that was because we added another route and those are competing as we go through it. So when you look at route by route, it doesn't all have the same increase level, but overall it's increased as far as ridership is concerned. And we're analyzing those routes and just exactly what's causing the decrease to them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're also trying to figure out as you're analyzing whether there's some correlation between the gas prices and the ridership increase. I mean, we understand that it's increasing, it's because you have a wonderful service, we have a wonderful service. But it would be interesting to see if somehow gas prices directly relate to that, which of course then as you guys are both saying which then Page 55 November 5, 2007 both saying which then decrease our gasoline taxes. That's where I'm coming from. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And anecdotally we're seeing employees already talking about commuting. As gas prices are going to approach $4.00 a gallon, we talk, staff, in our department about commuting together. So you'll see that drop. I mean, it's good on one hand, but on the back hand you've got decreased revenues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, before you go on, for our viewing public, are these documents available on-line? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Comprehensive planning website. Mike Bosi can probably put that on the record, if need be. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So anyone that would like to go back and view these documents and ask questions at a future meeting, they're ready and available? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, they are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've spent a lot of time with the stakeholders going over this as well, too. We're on Page 8. And most interesting about reviewing traffic counts, and it's the mundane part of our job, they're done quarterly and we have some permanent count stations, is there's a lot of trends that you notice real quick when a certain road goes under construction. You may see an alternative route pick up. And when a facility opens up, you see that road start to pick up and a parallel facility start to drop down. So when you look at quarterly counts, some of the observations that you've seen, some go up, some go down. Typically when you look at an overall system-wide count, we've gone up about two percent throughout the county . Your rural area has gone up a little bit higher, which is expected. It's not affected by construction traffic in some of the road construction that's going on in the urban area currently right now. Page 56 November 5,2007 currently right now. So at the bottom of the page it gives you a breakdown of some of the count stations, and there were anomalies in there, but they were explainable. We could see when the overpass opened up or the interchange opened up, we saw jumps in certain volumes on certain roads. Like Pine Ridge Road would drop down when we had the Golden Gate Parkway interchange open up. Going to your next page, Page 9 -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go forward, Nick. Commissioner Coyle, did you want to address something on that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to make a request. Nick, can you give me a copy of the data that shows the stations and the percentage decreases from 2005? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At a later time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As we get into your five-year plan on Page 9, according to the note, that we took out County Barn, as you know, and replaced it with Santa Barbara. Overall savings of approximately $40 million. While we expect Santa Barbara as a six-lane facility to replace the additional two lanes on County Barn, you're not going to realize that improvement for two or three years. We also want to note, although you show the commercial paper in your first year, and as Mr. Feder pointed out it will be borrowed as needed and hopefully, as the County Manager also pointed out, hopefully we won't get to it in the first year and the second year impact fees will come in, our prices will come down and we can defer that loan. Page 57 November 5, 2007 And it should be noted it's not a bond, it's a commercial paper loan. Are there any questions on this page? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Next page is pretty much a summary page, Page 10. And it shows, as Mr. Feder pointed out, a surplus in the final year of$36 million. We are cautiously optimistic as we are -- as you get out into your outer years of projecting revenue streams, you pointed out how comfortable we are with impact fees. Well, in year, one, two, you're pretty comfortable. In year three, four and five you get a little bit nervous. And that's why my boss said leave 36 million on the table, to make some adjustments. Hopefully when we put out the next three projects that we bid they'll come down, some of the costs will come down. And we're starting to see a lot of competition, a lot of interest in road projects. I'd like to point out Page 12, because in front of the MPO board-- MR. MUDD: Well, let's not go to 12 yet. Take a look at the chart that's up on the visualizer right now, and we basically say that the $50 million isn't necessary in the first year. It's because when you finish out the first year, you've got $51 million in surplus. So why would you borrow $50 million when you're going to end up with a surplus? You really don't need it. You start getting a shortfall right here in FY '11 when you go $94 million in the drink. That's when you need to have the $50 million locked in. And then you phase out and go through that shortage and you go to that 36. So he's got a little bit of weighing to do and some moving a little bit, but you don't want to strike that $50 million right off the get-go. Because you don't want to be paying interest on money you're not going to need. But he's showing it there so that you understand it's based on impact fees coming into it. Page 58 November 5, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I don't want to prove the big boss wrong, but if we're optimistic and we can bring some of the projects in earlier, we will get to that $50 million earlier. There are projects out that we show in the tenth and eleventh year that we're permitting, hoping to be construction ready next year. So if we are aggressive with permitting, we'll do that early. And the good note to take advantage of that is now while the construction folks are aggressive with jobs, if you can bring these jobs forward and have bidders where you have six, seven, eight, nine bidders on one job, your prices are better. So if we're going to be optimistic and say that we want to borrow that upfront, but our program right now shows it in the outer years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was answered, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Page 11 and -- pages 11 through 14 are your detail breakdown of the links. I won't get into a lot of that, except for Page 12 I want to touch something out over there. What we've done this year in the AUIR, and it was the intention of me and Mr. Scott last year to do it as well, too, we're starting to break down some of the longer links because some of the facilities have opened up. Where Livingston Road is now running parallel to 41 and Airport, you're going to want to break down those links into smaller links, because that -- those are your points where traffic is starting to divert. On Page 12, a note of caution. We were at the MPO meeting on Friday and we discussed the interchange project with the MPO board. That interchange is a DOT project. We don't control the schedule of that project. That interchange is critical to the capacity on Immokalee Road. So if you look at the top of Page 12, and I know it's fine print, we have linked 42.2 and 43.1. We have broken down Immokalee Road into Page 59 November 5, 2007 Road into sub-links because of Livingston Road and Logan Boulevard. We're showing a six-lane capacity. Our recommendation to the board today would be we should drop that down to a four-lane capacity and reduce the ability for projects to permit in that area until that interchange is done. We don't control that area. You will have zoning, SDP development order applications that will come on line. And if we show that capacity there, it wouldn't probably be a good idea. So one of the guidance we'd like to get from the board is to say maybe we knock that down to the most restricted number of lanes that operate. Right now that's currently four lanes. So if we get concurrence on that, that would be good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put that on the executive summary? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, if we could, let's go to Commissioner Coyle first and then we'll come to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put that in a regular board meeting? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the interchange coming up at the next board meeting and we can discuss it then. It's programmed on the 13th board meeting. So we could get a little guidance today, but we could probably take final action on the board meeting based on your discussion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And because you don't have control of it, you don't know when it's going to be completed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm optimistic. Again, we've had really Page 60 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, don't use optimism and FDOT in the same sentence. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't control that project. Collier County does not control that project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Ijust want you to know, I would support your recommendation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also would support that. My understanding is that we're probably looking somewheres in the time frame of about 2010, 20 II for that to be completed; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say towards the end of2011, you're correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So four lanes is the maximum capacity on there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, I do believe that we're going to have this coming back before us the next meeting? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A week from tomorrow. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 13th. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And at that point in time we'll be in a deep discussion about it. Thank you. Please continue, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Again, we've broken down the links accordingly. We get down to the deficiency page, which is Page 15. And that's more of a table versus the graphic that's on the next page. But I'll run down the table real quick. Your first deficiency is based on traffic counts, which is Golden Gate Boulevard. We anticipated our ready -- construction ready in 2008, 2009. Weare working on that right now going through 60 percent plans getting ready to do property acquisition on that project. That is based on counts. Page 61 November 5, 2007 Your deficiencies in the next form of the table are based on vested trips that are in the area and then projected deficiencies going down. Other than going these line-by-line, it's probably easier just to go through the map that's on the next page. And that is Page 16, attachment F. I'll start in the northwest quadrant of the county and work our way around and we can take questions as we go. We have Old 41 in the northwest corner. Most of that capacity or transportation is because of an intersection problem, and we're addressing that now. We're adding an additional left turn lane, an additional northbound right turn lane at that intersection, and we think that will take care ofthe problem, but we're going to keep an eye on that. We're showing that a 2009 deficiency. It's currently in our TCMA, and that TCMA is running well. There are no issues to report in that area, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, before you leave that subject, too, Commissioner Halas would like to address a question to you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I thought he would. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did, too -- I did, too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a couple of large shopping centers that are presently being developed there. How much has the developers contributed to increasing the capacity on Old U.S. 41? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The developer is the one providing the additional southbound westbound/turn lane, left turn lane. He is building that as part of his project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the length of that road all the way up to Lee County. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, there are no scheduled improvements to widen that road to Lee County. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we have a huge area that's presently being cleared as large boxes are going to be put in there. Page 62 November 5, 2007 Obviously that's going to draw traffic into that location. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unfortunately some of that is vested development that was -- I don't know the term that was used, but it was concurrency that was purchased through the old system prior to us having that ability to stop them from growing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's been on the books for a number of years then you're telling me? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's been on the books for a number of years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What intersection improvements are -- is going to be there? I know we addressed an issue there at 41 and Old 41 right-hand turn lane. How quick is that going to be addressed? Since the FDOT in their infinite wisdom didn't put a right turn lane in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're hoping to have it done in 12 months. We have found some finances. As part of one of the developer commitments he paid to put money towards intersection improvements. We'll use that funding and then probably have our internal design team take a look at that. But our goal is to have it done within the next 12 months. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. As you go down the page, you look at Immokalee Road. We just discussed that. It is in yellow in this link, but it's not broken down the way we'd like it broken down. But we have shown it in the tables in the prior pages. Again, that recommendation we just discussed, and we'll bring it back on the 13th. I'd like to note that that improvement that's programmed or being brought forward is part of our joint cooperation with DOT. Will more than suffice to capacity -- to take care of the capacity problem that's at that area. But again, it's not realized until it's actually completed, and we don't control that. Page 63 November 5, 2007 We have Oil Well Road in the northeast part of this diaphragm, and that's going to be construction ready in 2008. We're working through some permitting issues right now, but we're looking forward to bringing that on-line next year. Although it's not expected deficient until 2010. As you know, so we have an agreement in hand that we have to provide capacity improvements there. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have the funds to proceed with the construction of this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The first phase is funded, sir. As you look down the page and slide south, we talked about Golden Gate Boulevard being construction ready. It's shown in red. We're moving forward on that project. We also show Golden Gate Boulevard. Now, what the rule is -- what normally happens, more that it happens in the urban area. Your peak traffic is peak peak traffic. What I mean by that is that is that you have a real specific half hour, 45 minutes in the morning where that road is over capacity. And the same as well in the p.m. And if you notice, when the school (sic) comes on in the boulevard, because I happen to live in that area, it's detrimental for about a 45-minute period. Most of the times during the day that roadway runs -- you could drive down that road and not see another car. Weare looking, as part of that, doing the Collier Boulevard intersection with Golden Gate Boulevard, taking advantage of an additional left turn lane as we modifY that road, so that we expect to normalize that volume on by doing that. Although we may show in outer years again over capacity in that p.m. peak hour, it is a peak, peak overcapacity problem, not a problem you would feel during the day. We also have Vanderbilt road in the long-range plan to take care of Page 64 November 5, 2007 of that capacity problem as well, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Nick, isn't it pretty standard most of the roads don't fail all day long, they seem to go through the rush hours in the morning, in the afternoon, and the rest of the day, I mean, you can travel those roads without any problem? So, I mean, I just wanted to make sure that this isn't something that we're trying to say is unique to Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's more unique than your urban area. Because you don't have any services on the boulevard. It's pretty much a computer road. As opposed to your urban area, you have shopping, retail in the area that takes up a lot of trips. If you looked at the trip counts throughout the day in the urban area, it gradually rises and sustains for quite a bit of time and then gradually declines. On the boulevard you get a much sharper peak. In other words, there's that time where people are getting out of work or going to work and a very concentrated time where that road goes overcapacity. So your rural area is different. I live out there, I see it. Your urban area, it's prolonged. So again, you don't build your roads, as Mr. Feder pointed out, for that peak, peak season factor. We should also maybe keep an eye on Golden Gate Boulevard and see what it does. If it goes over capacity only for a very short half-hour window in the future we're going to keep an eye on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're still going ahead with construction of this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a needed facility. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding on it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm selfish. I live out there. So there's no Page 65 November 5, 2007 there's no -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You and I got to stick together on this thing. Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- do you know what the build-out of the Estates is at this point? What we have for residents and how many more potential build-out or potential residents that could move into this area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think our comprehensive planning department, 50,000 -- 80,000 total. We're at 50. Potentially 80 to 90,000. That doesn't include -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eighty, 90,000. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then you've got to keep in mind, some of those could have guest homes and things like that, so we're kind of keeping an eye on that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But right now we're about 50,000? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's about what I'm told. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're looking at that as permanent residents; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are more permanent residents than the other part of the county, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you mean by construction ready? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was one of the things we worked with you on. What we had said was it will be ready in a certain year but it's in an outer year program. If we have the funds to bring it forward, that's the year that we'll probably be ready to bring it on line. And from a prior board direction, we talked about keeping something out until we actually knew we could pay for it. Construction ready is the year that we think we'll have it permitted, programmed, ready to go and funding in Page 66 November 5, 2007 programmed, ready to go and funding in place to actually do the process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. Does that mean that might be the beginning of construction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's when we let construction. That's the year we might do construction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's not when it's going to be ready for traffic? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What must we add to these dates to get an understanding of when it will be actually ready for traffic? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends on the length of the segment. You're looking at 24 to 36 months, depending on the length of the project. Twenty-four is typical. So you may look at about a two-year addition to that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: Just for further clarification, I think we've got it, but whether you call it production readiness or construction readiness, what this is talking about is we follow the phases of the planning studies, the design, the right-of-way acquisition and the permitting. Save letting it out to construction and bringing a contract to the board, it will be done and ready to go to that letting at that time. Now, we have to have the funding, I have to have the board approve that contract, and then I can have that construction move in. So as we discussed before, we have some projects we expect to have ready to go to construction, hopefully let them bring it to this board for approval, that are shown later, but production readiness or construction readiness will be on us in '08 and some in '09. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As you continue down the map you have Collier Boulevard south of Golden Gate Boulevard in orange, Page 67 November 5, 2007 construction ready in 20 I O. And that map doesn't tell the complete story. We're looking at doing the approaches on Pine Ridge Road and east on White and expanding that intersection and max it out. So we expect a big benefit out of that project. That is anticipated to go all the way down to Green Boulevard as part of construction. We are doing 60 percent plans continuing south. Our goal is to try and have a project between Green Boulevard and north of the canal design/build ready in the future so that we can take advantage of that. As you continue south you're in a TCMA, which is intact. Your Golden Gate Parkway and your Collier Boulevard and that link, we expect to do interim intersection improvements and continue to work with Mr. Tipton's office on doing timing and intelligent traffic management systems to try and squeeze out some capacity on some of those roadways. Continuing south, we're going to 60 percent plans from the canal underneath 1-75 to Davis. That's a county project. We're looking at an eight-lane section underneath the highway, similar to Immokalee Road, with drop rights both north and south. We expect to permit that and build that as one project with a state-designed project on Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to Collier Boulevard. Right now they're on track. If one of them falls out or one falls behind the other, we could bid them and construct them separately, if we wanted to. Our goal is again to do them together. The state has the remaining portion still in their work program from Radio Road west to Santa Barbara in 2011, 2012. And what's not shown here is that we plan to do Santa Barbara heading south from Davis Boulevard, which is parallel to County Barn Road. Again you're going to have zoning application maybe on County Barn that will count on that capacity on Santa Barbara. We'll give the board recommendations until you have Santa Barbara in place and November 5, 2007 you've shown that you're pulling traffic off County Barn. The board may want to cautiously review those projects as they come forward. But it's a tremendous savings to be able to put two more lanes on Santa Barbara and push out County Barn. We would not have been able to balance our program. But we are still looking at that. And if bids come down and impact fee revenues maintain or go up a little bit, we'll be looking at bringing that back in in the future. As you head south, you're at the intersection of 951 and U.S. 41. On the south of 951, the state road section, we have done an improvement. We're going to reevaluate that link. We expect capacity to have gone up because of that improvement. More importantly, FDOT has just finished their PD&E and done an analysis of what needs to be there. Weare looking at the ultimate at grade intersection build-out. And then that link on 41 from 951 heading east right now is on the November 13th agenda for the developers to fully fund that project. So we're looking at that possibility as well, too. What's not shown here is that as you get out past your five years, we are doing a corridor study east of 951, the Wilson Boulevard, Benfield Road corridor study. Because we realize once you get five years out and into the later years you're going to need some additional relief on the 951 corridor. I think we've been fortunate, the combination of this year of bidding and letting some good projects that we've been able to kind of get caught up in this five-year program. Again, we're cautiously optimistic about impact fee revenues, and we don't recommend deferring those increases out any longer. Your next two reports are pretty much your TCMA reports. They just show that the TCMAs are intact and they break down volumes, based on individual links. The only ones that are shown failing are addressed as part of our improvements. Page 69 November 5, 2007 With that, I'll entertain any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any new questions. Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Mike, are you going to take votes on each element, or MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, if we could vote on this element before we go into county drainage, canals and structures. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would it be appropriate to try to give guidance to staff at this point in time concerning adding future years to this and their reliance upon ad valorem property taxes? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think we want to stay with the five-year capital improvement element. I don't want to go to a 10 years the state's trying to get me to. But we will come back to you with some idea of those issues and what you've asked for, and would obviously entertain and appreciate any guidance from the board. MR. MUDD: Just an add-on to Norman's statement, you go to a 1 O-year plan, you get proportionate share to development on 10 years instead of five, and now you're giving guarantees that you might not be able to give, and development's going to happen at day zero. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're going to have to go at least one year further out. You're going to be having to plan beyond the five-year plan. You're going to start that -- MR. FEDER: We've got a 30 year long-range plan and we'll continue -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'm not talking about those. You're going to have to come up with another five-year capital Page 70 November 5, 2007 improvement element. So you've got to look at another year. And all I'm suggesting is that it might be appropriate if we gave some guidance to the staff about how they can rely -- how much they should rely on -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we do the guidance separate from the motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, that would be fine with me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go ahead and vote on the motion and we'll continue with the guidance. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Sorry to interrupt you, please continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. It's appropriate to do it separately. The only thing I would suggest is that when the County Manager and the staff has an opportunity to assess the potential impact of legislative budget reductions, that we make some determination about how much you should be relying on future ad valorem property tax subsidies of the road program. MR. FEDER: We understand fully. Right now you're assuming 24 million a year. That may not be the case in the future as what -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be zero. MR. FEDER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It could be considerably more. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It could be if we've got it, that's Page 71 November 5, 2007 correct. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just another statement, just to give you what happened the last budget thing. $14 million is recurring of that 24, and 10 million was one-time money, okay, that we basically figured in the short term because of interest that would continue in order to go. So we understand that. But you've got to understand, 14 million is on a loan that goes out to 2023. MR. FEDER: And Commissioners, what I will assure you is we will work within whatever revenues and resources are provided. I will tell you that we will make sure that you understand the implications of that. Actually, our item was probably moving the other way. Reality may not allow that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just one final request: What is your recommendation about delaying the road -- or transportation impact fee? MR. FEDER: It was when I came here today that I need to move on it. We were concerned that we delay it up until January. We need to move on it. It's assumed in balancing. And from the discussion I'm hearing today, I will even more strongly tell you that I need to have that happen in January. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment, I believe that what Commissioner Henning and I were both saying is that if we hold the increases to where they are now on impact fees, it doesn't include transportation. Am I correct with that, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's what was said. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to clarifY that point one more time. With that, what's the -- well, let's see. Well, no, we'll keep going. We're going to ]2:00. MR. MUDD: You're going to drainage. That's part of Norman's Page 72 November 5,2007 outfit. Item #2D DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES MR. FEDER: Stormwater -- and I'll be brief, and then I'll ask Gene Calvert to walk you through the exact AUIR. Some good discussion this morning. First thing I want to do is make sure you realize that while stormwater was a Category B up until not too long ago and now it's a Category A facility, a class A, the program, the ability to define level of service is only now growing. We had some discussion with you last time that we had had, discussion about how many miles of canals I had, how many structures. That really didn't answer any question as to truly what my needs were and my supply and therefore my deficiencies. We've taken some steps towards that. We're not there yet. The other one I need to define for you is we are not working under the basis of purely population. I think the discussion was good this morning and Commissioner Coyle is quite correct, the tourist season doesn't mean that all of a sudden storm water changes at 20 percent or 18 or 28. What we do have though is as we continue to grow, as we continue to have more impervious surface as we have new design standards and other issues for all the areas, we do have different implications. Particularly while we allow new development, as Commissioner Henning pointed out, new development must meet our standards, which is basically a three-day 25-year event, storm event, and they incorporate that within a PUD. A lot of new development goes outside of the PUD's, and in particular out in the Estates. Right now they are not required to handle Page 73 November 5, 2007 handle their stormwater, and that's going to become a growing issue for us. Having said all that, the real critical issue for stormwater is it is a resource. And I think we've shown ourselves over time that draining the swamp as quickly as you can is always not the best answer. The issue is we need to address both the ability to control flooding, in other words, to convey stormwater particularly during storm events, which is basically a CFS or a cubic feet per second concern, as well as our ability to recharge the aquifer to improve water quality, which is an acre foot calculation. And what you'll find is in stormwater, while we're new to the game of being a Class A, we only have within the Growth Management Plan four facilities or four projects, if you will, in the capital improvement element. Those four are first and foremost L.A.S.I.P. or Lely area stormwater. The one that we spent 19 years studying and are now implementing with the board's assistance. We have the Gateway Triangle. We have the Gordon River. And then last we have North Belle Meade, which we really don't have a lot of data on. The first three have some extensive stormwater master planning efforts that were undertaken and are the basis for the improvements that we're working on now. What we didn't really have is an idea of what does our system have in capacity in those areas in both, as I mentioned, CFS to convey the water and in acre feet to promote some level of retention for basically recharge of the aquifer, as well as water quality. What you have in the AUIR, I'll let Gene go through with you, is an analysis based on those standards rather than just miles of canals and number of structures. And that's how we're moving away [rom the old orientation of stormwater to one that's going to give us information. Page 74 November 5, 2007 We also have an issue that came out through our legislative actions, and it seems to be a theme for us these days, and that is based on their action, if you formulate an MSTU, then you have to reduce your ad valorem to a corresponding level from whatever revenue stream you might bring in from that MSTU. So we had a funding policy that was looking on major projects for one-third to come from MSTU's. We had issues of implementation before, but now it's become a policy constraint. We're going to bring back to this board a new funding policy. What I'm hoping to share with you through this AUIR process is an idea of where we're trying to go with that, and then we'd be happy to get your guidance. And essentially what we're looking at, it's somewhat parallel to the road system. I've got a primary system which is Big Cypress Basin maintained, I've got the secondary system, our arterials, if you will, that the county maintain, as well as the tertiary system, almost like the local roads. The .15 mill of ad valorem dedicated to stormwater by this board needs to be concentrated at that secondary system, that one that collects the water off of the tertiary, the local streets and gets it out to the primary system and then effectively hopefully well treated out into the bay and outfalls. So the emphasis of the funding policy needs to be that that .15 mill is for capacity improvements, and that the only time we spend it on tertiary system is where either one of the two activities takes place: One, I've got a concern for the health, safety, welfare of the community on those local streets, so to speak, on the tertiary system where possible flooding in the homes, concerns relative to the septic tank systems and other issues come to play, or roadways are inundated where vehicles can't get in and out on a long basis. Other than that, the only time you would spend part of that .15 mills on the tertiary system would be where you show, and I'll get back to this in a second, but that you need on the secondary system to be more Page 75 November 5, 2007 be more effectively efficiently handled by an improvement to the tertiary. For instance, if the secondary paralleled secondary, you didn't have enough right-of-way to make the expansion needed for conveyance, you might be able to use a portion of the tertiary, use the two together and then downstream where you do have the capability, bring it back into the secondary system. The reason I'm raising this is because as I said the MSTU issues are out there; two, we did not and have not had a level of service for stormwater as it became a new Class A facility. What we're going to do is take that secondary system and look at what we have both in CFS and in acre feet capabilities for conveyance, for treatment and retention, identifY that as we're continuing to work with CDES on the watershed master planning to define what our needs truly are. And then we compare our needs versus what we have and then be able to address specifically where our deficiencies are and drive the future capital improvement elements. The good news is, or the bad news is, whichever way you want to look at it, L.A.S.l.P., the Gateway Triangle and Gordon River will be multi-year projects under our .15 mill and the grants that we'll be receiving and are pursuing. So we've got the time for that watershed master planning and for these effort to get us to where we need to be that we can truly graphically and spatially define where the needs are in our system, either for better conveyance or for additional storage based on the watershed master plans that are being undertaken now. If we find that we move forward and we have spot areas, we can do sub-basin storm water studies, as we did for those other three that we're working on as we wait for the watershed master plans to come. But that would be the basis for the need side of the equation. We're trying to define our current supply side, and then we'll compare for deficiencies over time. Page 76 November 5, 2007 So that's a quick overview. If there's any questions raised out of that, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Otherwise, I'll have Gene walk you through. And I think you'll see on the three capital improvement element items how we're trying to bring forward this effort of level of service indication and the policy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, youjust mentioned collecting all of the storm water and then it goes through the system and then eventually out to the bay. Is there -- can we ever take that stormwater and use it for reclaimed water rather than -- MR. FEDER: We're looking at issues like for instance in the Triangle, possible recharge. We're looking at it in issues of ASR, I guess it's called, is a technology that we bring it down, hold onto it and then bring it back up during the dry season. And that's critical. Because the reason we can't just look at CFS, how quickly can I get rid of it, is during the wet season that's what everybody wants. But during the dry season, somebody wants it back. So we're trying to look at how we recharge and different options. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you are looking into that? MR. FEDER: Yes. Even the Caribbean Gardens area in some we're looking at, we're looking at some of that technology. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It certainly would help us during our dry season. And secondly, it would cause less pollution into the bay. So it's as win/win there. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The big issue there is how do you store it from wet season to dry season. And the surficial water ASR is the biggest issue right now with the comprehensive Everglades restoration program and the 333 ASR wells that they're going to surficially recharge and the standards that need to be met before that water goes underground. Page 77 November 5, 2007 And right now the state has not got that down yet. I've got to be honest with you. They've got potable water ASRs. Mr. DeLony is mixed on the reclaimed water. We think we've got it on the reclaimed water ASR, but we keep running into another hurdle on ours because we're out there in front. But the surficial ASR, I know of no one except for Marco Island that has a surficial ASR. They take it down, they bring it back up again, and then they take it to the water plant and purifY it before it goes out to the customers. That's the only one, and it was done on a demonstration project. And I'd love to know how they got permitting in order to go do that. But it's on our radar. But it was a demo project. And the large-scale pieces is a little bit harder, but you're absolutely right, hold onto it and minimize the point discharge out to our estuary system and we'll increase the health of our estuary system. And the Caloosahatchee River is a perfect example of that. It's not getting any discharges from Triblaco (phonetic), and everything's a lot better. They don't have anymore blue slime on top of the river and that kind of business. The tide business is a little bit different. I'm talking about red tide. It's changed dramatically this year because of the low water levels at Layco (phonetic) and the lack of discharge. So it will help our estuary system. We've just got to get the permitting issues done and the details and requirements out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you are working on that. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's great. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe one of the other things that we have to address this year also on the stormwater is total maximum daily loads. So that's going to put a crimp on our budget in regards to addressing those issues with the storm water. Page 78 November 5, 2007 MR. FEDER: Yes. And when Gene goes through it, I think you'll see we have a component of that already in our overall capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's mandated by the state and federal government. MR. FEDER: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The productivity committee has recommended that you remove $6.8 million in grants from your budget because of the uncertainty of federal funding. What's your reaction? MR. FEDER: My reaction is I have to concur with them because until you have the grant it's hard to rely on it. We've done so, we've taken it out. Having said that, we're going to pursue as hard as we can any and all grants. But once we have them, we'll bring it into the public. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Now, with respect to the MSTU's, are MSTBU's treated the same way? MR. FEDER: What I'm hearing is I can possibly work with BUs. The difficulty then is knowing the direct benefit one-for-one. And it's usually very difficult on the stormwater to get to a BU calculation. But my understanding as to your question, no, I don't have that same constraint relative to ad valorem I have with the TUs. The difficulty is then the ability to show the direct benefit one-for-one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. Are we going to be voting on these individually, by the way? Then I make a motion to approve with the changes that you've just explained. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second Page 79 November 5, 2007 second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification on the motion. Is that including productivity committee recommendations? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. The recommendations were the elimination of $6.8 million in federal fund grants out in I think years four and five, if! remember correctly. MR. FEDER: And I believe they're already included in the document you have in front of you from that meeting, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, you agree with that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Item #2E POTABLE WATER SYSTEM MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, the next area we'll be getting into is county potable water. And I do not see Mr. DeLony and his team. Page 80 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we skip over to the next item, if we're prepared for that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's -- there's -- what's the recommendation from the productivity committee? I don't think -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: They recommended approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- they had any concerns. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They didn't have any problem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the planning commission didn't. And it is what it is. And I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning made a motion, it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by -- MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, that is for potable water -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- on the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Correct. And with that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0. Mr. DeLony, wonderful presentation. MR. DeLONY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Winning. Page 81 November 5, 2007 Item #2F SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS MR. SCHMITT: Next one we'll get into is the county sewer treatment and collection system. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. And Commissioner Halas, you have a comments or question? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How are we coming along with other water systems that were in the process of taking over and also package plants? MR. DeLONY: Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. Sir, we have no acquisitions in this AUIR plan as directed by this board except for in 2012 we will assume the service area currently of that of the Orangetree utility per an agreement between the county and Orangetree that's been back since the mid Eighties and ratified a couple of times since then. And this AUIR presentation, or this concurrency document reflects the execution of that agreement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it does reflect it. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, that's the question. Thank you so much. MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) Page 82 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0. Item #2G SOLID WASTE MR. SCHMITT: The next area then is on Page 49, starting on Page 49, county solid waste. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm on the right page now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 49. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I wanted to see what our historical and projected tons per capita. MR. DeLONY: Sir, if you look at I believe Page 54. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 5 I I have. MR. DeLONY: 51. Excuse me, 51. Yes, sir. Page 83 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looks like it's out years we're at .7. 2008 we have -- no, I'm sorry, 2006 we have .6. So we're looking at increasing your solid waste per capita. MR. DeLONY: Sir, as is noted in the notes below, the way we generate that go-ahead rate is we look backwards three years and we average those three years. And so that's what you see is an average of those three previous years. And that's the reason. In this case we've had a really good experience here in terms of 2007. Hopefully we'll continue to have a reduction. But to plan with only a one-year trend would not be my recommendation, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Good enough. Thank you. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Urn-hum. And a second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thanks to the productivity committee we're going through this, and the planning commission. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the planning commission, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're just moving right on through Page 84 November 5, 2007 this. They get all the work done, we sit here and say okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Isn't it great they all work for free, too? Item #2H COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda is county parks and recreation facilities. It's on Page 57. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon. I'm Amanda Townsend, Operations Analyst with your public services division. I wanted to go through a few changes that you'll see in your 2007 AUIR for Parks and Recreation over what you saw last year. In particular, some changes that came out ofthe level of service workshop that happened and this board approved in June. We have changed the former level of service for parks facilities value, and that is now represented as a level of service guideline for facility type. What that means is that level of service is now an internal benchmark and it will not be part of the CIE that gets transmitted to DCA with the other elements of your AUIR. This change is based on your direction and the difficulty that we had last year in expressing facilities value and keeping those values up with the increasing cost of construction. This change will not become permanent until the CIE is transmitted and accepted by DCA. However, we have had talks with DCA staff and they saw the problematic nature of facilities value and are expecting this change and seem to be in support of it. Couple of minor changes that you'll see in this year's AUIR are a leveling off, if you will, of the numbers that we use to express our level of service for community and regional park lands. These are -- represent a very slight increase in the level of service, but mostly were done to Page 85 November 5, 2007 were done to make the numbers a little easier to use. And that is that we've changed from 1.2882 acres of community park land per thousand to 1.3. And the same goes for regional park lands, you'll see it change from 2.9412 to 3.0. Another slight change that you'll see from last year's AUIR is that within the regional park numbers we have at your direction included land within the municipalities in the inventory. And also, when we're looking at those facilities types, we are including facilities within the municipalities in the inventory when we measure against those guidelines. This is because we use a county-wide population in looking at those facilities and regional park lands. So we've accepted into the inventory those city facilities as well. However, you will see that community park land is not included in the inventory, and that is because we use an unincorporated population when measuring ourselves against our level of service standard for community parks. So since we're not including those cities' populations, we're not including their community park lands. We had discussions with the planning commission and the productivity committee about whether or not it would be appropriate to include state and federal lands in the inventories. We would recommend against that. It was addressed in the level of service workshop. In general, those lands are very, very large in acreage, in contrast to the recreational amenities that they provide. In general, those types of lands, those state and federal parks, their primary public benefit is an ecological one and not a recreational one, and I think it would skew terribly what we -- the real public demand for recreation facilities that we are meeting. One further change that you'll see in this year's AUIR is an increase in the unit cost of acres of land from the 200,000 per acre that we've been using for several years, as a result of the study that was done in Page 86 November 5, 2007 was done in conjunction with the last impact fee study, to $230,000 per acre. And that's simply a reflection of the 15 adjustment that was done in your impact fee study update. Again, we had conversations with the productivity committee and the planning commission about the appropriateness of this figure, and the suggestion was made that the next impact fee study update be done prior to the completion of next year's AUIR. Of course if that's this board's direction, we'll be prepared to do so. In general, the five-year program for community park lands in this year's AUIR attempts to give just sort of ajust-in-time delivery, as this board has directed, of community park land, noting of course that that just-in-time comes generally in 30 to 60-acre chunks for a community park. The school parks allow us to pick up that community park land in a little smaller chunks. And you'll see that we're anticipating within the next five years to make one cash acquisition of a community park somewhere in the east of 951 area. The regional park land element that you see in our five-year work program is projected to be satisfied by the South Florida Water Management District commitment to provide 625 acres for use for A TV. Other than that, you'll see a couple of projects that will be cash acquisitions of land in conjunction with our beach and boat access program. The facility type guidelines that you'll see in this AUIR is of course a new program and something that we'll be working on. But you'll see our projected -- the facilities we intend to build in the next five years and how those will meet the guidelines we've established in the five areas, those being athletic facilities, hard courts, indoor recreation facilities, beach and water access and pathways. Finally, of course, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, there's operational data and level of service comparison data included in the packet, and I'll Page 87 November 5, 2007 I'll answer any questions you have on those as we go page by page. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Start with Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- on your existing capital improvements, which one pays -- comes out of the general fund or how much is the support? MS. TOWNSEND: We have no projects that will be supported of the general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have them today? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: North Regional Collier is strictly paid by impact fees? MS. TOWNSEND: For development, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, capital improvement. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. MUDD: No operations, you know, to maintain it, operate it, staff it. That's all ad valorem monies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Geez. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: You talked briefly about the 625 acres that South Florida Water Management was going to dedicate for us as a park, a recreational park for A TVs. That's still up in the air. And I don't know if we can really put that on our inventory or not. MS. TOWNSEND: I have had discussions with comprehensive planning regarding that, and because we do have a signed agreement with them and there is a guarantee there, comprehensive planning staff has said that they feel comfortable forwarding that within the CIE. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we don't know when this is going to come on-line. I mean, we may have a signed agreement, but we've been playing around with this thing for three or four years now, maybe Page 88 November 5, 2007 now, maybe five years, and obviously we're not going to get our hands on it any time too soon because of the fact that they got some problems out there addressing the water levels so they can continue to dredge Lake Trafford. So what's your best time line of when you think that we'll be able to put this really into the inventory? MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. That's a very good question, Commissioner. And what you have stated so far is true, is that the water levels are too low. As a matter of fact, they have pulled all the piping out at that location to relocate it to someplace else until the water levels come up. And with the drought that we have currently going on, it really is going to be a guess at this. But I'm assuming that they have about 12 more months of pumping, give or take, and then another 12 months probably of it sitting and settling before we could actually get out there and do any work on it. So we're going to have at least two years from the date that they come back and start dredging. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's not the answer I wanted to hear, but I guess that's the best that you can provide us at this point. MR. MUDD: Well, the other choice is that they give up that piece of property and they go find another one in order to put the spoil material on for the second phase, because this has languished too long and you get it. Now, if the board wants to press that, it's going to increase the cost of the dredging for Lake Trafford, and probably will cause the second phase to not happen, because they don't have the federal dollars, nor the local dollars in the Big Cypress Basin in order to do that. But that's an option. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess we need to bring this back and discuss it in more detail, really. Thank you. Page 89 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to hear what Janet Vasey has to say about what she's heard so far. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the productivity committee. Basically Amanda has identified a lot of our issues. We didn't have any strong recommendations other than things that didn't seem to look right. That's why our main recommendation is to move up the impact fee study that is scheduled for 2009 to 2008 and talk to the consultant ahead of time so we can address some of these issues of whether state parks should be included or not. There wasn't a strong indication that we felt it had to be included, but it used to be included. And that is a resource out there that the community can use. So to the extent that that's not counted, are we over-servicing the community? There was a general concern, and it's mentioned in our report, that either the way we account for some of these things is flawed, and that's probably the case, because we get these big chunks of land, like 625 acres, that then shows that we have much more level of service than our standard requires us to have over the AUIR period. And in fact I would draw your attention to Page 62 for the regional parks. Our five-year surplus is almost 290 acres and $66 million. Well, that's because of this A TV land that's been transferred. And does that really fit our use? So we didn't have a lot of answers, but we had a lot of questions. And we were hoping that some of those issues we could get to under the impact fee study and have it before the next AUIR. I think those are the basic issues that we had. We did want to see -- we would really like to see the financial data for facilities, because that's really where your money is. A lot of these level of service standards for the acreage are kind of not very well defined. It's just kind of out there. Page 90 November 5, 2007 But the real money is in the facilities, and we wanted to see when the facilities were planned to come on line over this period for all this land that we're getting. You can have all the land in the world but, you know, until you've got some facilities and some public access, that's really important to you. And while you may not want to send that in the CIE up to DCA, it's something we felt we would really like to look at. And, let's see -- oh, and then the other one was the acreage cost of $230,000 per acre. The study that was done a few years ago was done looking at prices of land in the areas where major regional parks were possibly going to be planned. And that's what the study came out with at that time, that no one believes that to be true in this environment, economic environment, and so we felt like it would be a real good idea to have that part of the impact fee study to take another look at the cost that's associated with that. And that's pretty much what we had. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, my concern is putting the state park into the inventory. The state park is pretty much regimented in the sense of level of service that they'll allow people in there. And of course we've tried to establish some cooperation with them, and they pretty much want to run their own basis. So I don't believe that we should incorporate state parks as far as part of our park service, because they are totally different. They're a different breed of cat. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we probably have one of the best park systems in the state. And you're to be congratulated for doing a really great job of creating it and operating it. But I feel ifthere's any chance anywhere in Collier County government where we can find reductions in impact fees, it's here. And I Page 91 November 5,2007 And I am concerned that we have changed the level of service upward rather than downward. I believe -- I don't quite understand yet the logic and I want you to explain it to me again, the logic for not including the -- and I think you said the city's regional parks or community parks in the -- community parks in the inventory. I need to understand that a little better. I have always maintained that we need to take into consideration the nature of our community when we are developing recreational facilities. And all of the recreational facilities that exist, not necessarily for the public, but to those members who have those recreational facilities as part of their property owners association facilities. I'm not suggesting that those are public facilities, but what I am suggesting is that we need to adjust our population based upon those facilities that are available to a percentage of the population. And with respect to state parks when it comes to beach access, I see no reason in the world why we shouldn't include state parks for that sort of thing. We are listing our parks that provide beach access as public amenities, I see no reason we shouldn't take into consideration similar state parks. For those state parks that are located inland, however, I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Halas, that they don't necessarily offer a lot of recreational activity of the type that you generally provide. And I also agree with Janet Vasey and the productivity committee, that it is premature to add the 625 acres to our inventory. I don't think-- it's not operational, we can't use it for anything, why would we want it as part of our inventory? Have we actually signed an acceptance of the property? I don't know why we'd want to put it as inventory at the present time, quite frankly. But anyway, that's a whole list of questions. I don't know if you can Page 92 November 5, 2007 can answer them all today. But can we get started on it? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure. Amanda Townsend. As far as addressing community parks within the municipalities, this is the one place in the AUIR where you will see different population numbers, and that is in the community park level of service. The reason for that is that we are looking at the unincorporated areas only when we look at community parks. We have an expectation that the municipalities will take care of the community park needs within their jurisdictions. We remove their population from our equation when we're looking at level of service and community parks, and that's why we also exclude their -- the parks that they provide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we know that they are serving more county residents in Fleischmann Park than they're severing city residents. How do you account for that? MS. TOWNSEND: That is the information that the city has provided to us. However, we only assess impact fees on the unincorporated area of Collier County for community parks, and that's where we're reinvesting that money and that's where we're -- that's how we're measuring that particular level of service. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but because you're excluding the city park availability, you are overbuilding in the county and therefore overcharging impact fees. You could lower impact fees if you didn't -- if you took into consideration the facilities that are available in the city for use by members of the unincorporated area. MR. RAMSEY: Well, I'm not sure that I can argue that one with you one way or another, because I'm not sure what the outcome would be if you included the inventory into our level of service and the population in and what does that look like at the end and then how much would that affect. Because at that point then we would be charging community park Page 93 November 5, 2007 charging community park impact fees in the community itself, the Marco Island's, the Everglades City's and the City of Naples. So as part of our impact fee study we have eliminated them, also because we don't control what happens in those municipalities and how they program them and how they charge for them, et cetera. And I know that there's the ongoing debate between the city and the county about the Fleischmann -- you know, it's been debated at the community advisory areas in the city, as well as the parks and recreation advisory board here. And how do you address that particular park because its location is right next to the mall? And I think that's one of the biggest draws that it has is its location. So, you know, we can look at it if you want us to in the future as to what does that do to our level of service. Our level of service is -- what we've done is we've looked at it historically, what is it that the public is asking us, and we've tried to maintain that level of service. We also note, we haven't built very many tennis courts in the last few years. In the 10 years that I've been here, we haven't built very many, because they're all being built within the communities themselves. I f we were to add those to our level of service, then our level of service would have to be something different than it is today. So I think we do address those items that we do inventory, the hard courts, specifically, that are being built in the communities themselves by not having a level of service that makes us build an outrageous number of those within our community parks themselves. I don't know if that answers your question, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I am concerned that we've asked for that kind of evaluation before, we asked for it this past year, that is a clear indication as to whether or not there is reason to include the city's community parks in the inventory, or at least to adjust our population downward or our level of service downward, because those parks do exist to be used by county residents. We know that they're being used by county residents. Page 94 November 5, 2007 I can understand your reluctance to accept the city's data on that because there's been some friction between the two about who's using what and how much. But it seems to me that that data can be accurately obtained. And I would have hoped that it would have been done before now. But another question I have is how do we account for differences in demographics in a place like Collier County where there are a large number of retirees, a large number of seasonal residents? And comparing them with some other county in Florida might not be an appropriate thing to do. I see, in going through the tables here, that other counties have substantially different levels of service for different levels of parks, and they're quite low, going from .87 to as high as 3. It's -- (microphone noise) feedback. So I'm concerned about these things, and I'm particularly concerned about the increase in level of service that requires the expenditure of additional monies that I quite frankly don't believe is necessary. Because it's going to have to be made up in impact fees, and ultimately ad valorem property tax money for operations cost. And at a time when we need to be conserving on those things and trying to find savings where we can get the money, I find it unacceptable that we're going to a more luxurious level of service in this particular report. So thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you measure activities at the park? MR. RAMSEY : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you do that? MR. RAMSEY: You see some of the data that you have included in your packet. We do it through class registrations, we do it through Page 95 November 5, 2007 through visitor counts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Visitor counts, by people driving In or -- MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or just people there? MR. RAMSEY: Could be either/or. Could be ours and then a multiplier, or it could be the number of people that we hand count as they come through to an event, et cetera. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Did you count at the safety MR. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. That's what those people are doing -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- up there. And that's a part of the overall usage? MR. RAMSEY: That's park users, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Park users. But that was just a one-time event. MR. RAMSEY: It would fall into a monthly category and then that would all roll up into a year as the number of users that have come through a specific park or a park in total. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you only have that event once a year. MR. RAMSEY: Well, that particular event, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Country Jam? MR. RAMSEY: Correct, do the same thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Once a year? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many other programs do you do? MR. RAMSEY: I couldn't imagine to tell you, standing here right Page 96 November 5, 2007 right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's quite a few of those. Ice cream socials -- MR. RAMSEY: I mean, there's big ones, there's little ones, there's, you know, egg hunts here and there, there's, you know, halloween events, there's the haunted house. I mean, I could go on and on. There are a lot of one-time events. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many of those are really recreation? MR. RAMSEY: I think all of them are. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the safety program recreation or is that educational? MR. RAMSEY: It's both, recreational and educational. We do try to tie into our -- to the various agencies. In that particular case there are I think 40 different vendors that were there from the community to try to get the word out about child safety. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Child safety. So that's really an educational -- MR. RAMSEY: It has a recreational element to it, though, if you recall. I think you were at that event, and there were all kinds of activities for the kids to participate in while they were there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, in my opinion it was educational. It was good educational. Country Jam is considered recreational or entertainment? MR. RAMSEY: I think it's recreational. Or be entertainment. You could use either word you want to, I guess. It's a benefit I think to the community . COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well I, like my colleague, see a need for change. There are several communities in -- gated communities that offer recreation, and you can't do them both. You can't golf, you can't play tennis at the same time. So I agree, this one category I think needs to be changed. And I Page 97 November 5, 2007 would like to see change. If you compare it with other communities -- if you take this community versus others, you never see so much internal recreation as any other community. And myself, I would like to see an adjustment. So I agree with Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, would somebody like to make a motion? And we've got Commissioner Halas that's still to hear from. Or do you want to wait on that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like just to weigh into this. I believe that we take care of the people here and the county. I know that we've had people come before us that want additional baseball diamonds, additional soccer fields. I feel that the level of service that we presently use I think is adequate. Now, to get back to the state park, one particular park that I've had a number of discussions with, and they won't increase their level of service, and that's Oelnor- Wiggins State Park. And they have a load-carrying capacity and then that's it. And so even though it's an access to the beach, it's very limited on the amount of people. And I've had discussions with them and I think county staff has had numerous discussions with them. So I'm not sure. And then as far as recreational activities and gated communities, I'm not sure that we should be counting that. They have the tennis courts and so on, and maybe bocce ball courts, but we sure don't have that, and I'm sure that those same people that are in a gated community and have facilities, I'm sure they come to our parks, like the water park or whatever else. So it leaves a lot to be desired here in regards to the direction that we need to go. I'm satisfied with what I read in the information that has been presented to us, both the -- by what staff has to say and also weighing in on what the planning commission had, and also the productivity commission. I believe that the 625 acres shouldn't be included in it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to weigh in now, too. Page 98 November 5, 2007 And I agree in good part with Commissioner Coyle. As far as the facilities like private communities have and tennis, why should we be providing tennis courts for people that already have it on their premise? So you make a small adjustment to allow for the fact that the 5,000 some people within one community aren't going to be traveling to other communities to use a tennis court. So there needs to be an adjustment. As far as the state parks, yeah, I agree with you, they are a limited resource and they kept it that way, but still, we could prorate it for what the amount of the facilities do offer our residents. I think it's a fair trade-off. I agree, you can't compare apples to apples. It's not. But still, there's a real value to our residents. And we want to make sure we don't provide a surplus that won't be utilized by the public. I believe that's the biggest concern of this commission, that we get the biggest bang we can for our buck. And there have been very cooperative arrangements with the City of Naples over recognizing certain parts of their facilities, and we've been underwriting parts of the costs of it. And we should be able to pick them up in our AUIR, as far as the inventory goes. That's my own personal feeling. Ms. Vasey, did you want to comment on this discussion? I see you standing there very patiently. MS. VASEY: Well, just we were hoping to get at these kind of issues in an impact fee update, to look at exactly the kinds of things of what's counted, what's excluded and try to see what possibilities make sense. And with the help of the impact fee consultant who knows how other people do it and how we can, you know, count the different activities. So that was our recommendation, to try and come to grips with some of these issues. And then with impact fees, you know you always have the option if Page 99 November 5, 2007 option if you believe that the impact fees are too high, the study can come in at whatever level and you don't have to accept it at that level. But you have at least a level of what's supportable and a clear rationale of what's included and why it makes sense to do it that way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, I'm going to leave it up to this board. We can either go ahead and make a motion now and tailor that motion to fit what we're going for, or we can take a break now for lunch and continue the discussion afterwards. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For approval as is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a second to that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, the motion fails. Commissioner Coyle -- I'm sorry, I didn't see you, Mr. Mudd. Go ahead, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: One of the things that I've heard, real quick, is first of all, staff started and said they rounded up, okay. They went where it was 2.94 something or other, they went to 3. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 2.88. MR. MUDD: Where it was 1.2 something or other, they went to 1.3. My recommendation is you round down, you don't round up, based on what I just heard from the commissioners, at least from three on the dais. And the next piece is that you direct staff in your motion to do this impact fee update now instead of2009, to get at those issues and make sure that we engage the productivity committee as we do that one. Because there are some serious issues that we need to get while we do that particular study. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you want to try a motion? Page 100 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve with the following modifications: That the level of service is rounded down to the nearest one-tenth, and that the 625 acres is not included in our inventory until such time as we actually take possession of it and it can be used by county residents. That state parks, particularly beach access parks, to the extent they offer an opportunity for real recreation, should be included in our inventory . The staff should begin the impact fee study immediately and take into consideration all of those issues plus the inclusion of -- I said take into consideration, I'm not saying that you include them, I'm saying take into consideration the inclusion of all municipal community parks and the recreational facilities which exist in communities themselves, either include them or adjust the population, so that we're not double-serving those people, okay. And including them is not possible in a gated community, so you'd have to adjust the population. And I would also like that demographics be considered in the impact fee study. And I think that's probably it. MR. RAMSEY: Can Ijust address one thing there, Commissioner? In regards to things within gated communities, the only thing that's really a recreational element there is tennis. I mean, there's some hard courts, but there are no ball fields, there are no little league, there are no soccer facilities in those locations. If you look at what we bought -- we have been building over the last probably eight years, there aren't a lot of tennis courts being built. I think I've built two so far. So we've already taken into consideration in our level of service what is already going on within those gated communities, because there's not a need. They're not requesting, we don't have the courts -- the courts tell us when we need to put out a new court. It's when they get full and when we've got waiting lists and we know that we need to have a court in this particular area. Page 10 1 November 5, 2007 particular area. I believe that our level of service currently is adjusted to include those facilities that you're talking about, mainly hard courts, because there are no other -- that's all they ever offer. There are (sic) nothing that's larger than that except for swimming pools. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be willing to bet you that you don't get that many little league participants out of gated communities. You don't get that many soccer participants out of gated communities. But you are including those populations in your level of service standards. That's why demographics are important. You've got a lot of older people who would rather go out and play golf on their own golf course rather than go out and play soccer somewhere. But you're including all those old people in your level of service population standards. And so I don't believe it is adjusted properly. So that's what I am suggesting to you is let's see if we cannot get the consultant to take these things into consideration. If it looks like it's been accounted for, fine, I'm happy with it. But I don't get the feeling that anybody's really taken a lot of time to take a look at this. And we gave the same guidance last year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think there's one possible fatal flaw to what we just discussed. Is there a possibility that if we tried to say that the gated communities are exceptions to the need, the actual need of parks or rec that all of a sudden they might want an adjustment to their impact fees to reflect that? At which case it's going to be pandemonium, because even people that have swimming pools could come back and say we provide for our own family with our personal swimming pool. That's a concern I got. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it doesn't work that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me weigh in on -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go around the room. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On your comment. Page 102 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On my comment. Please do. And then we'll -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: On his comment. He's just talking about weighing in and gated communities. I just felt -- we discussed Manatee Park about a year ago, remember, and we were going to make it a soccer park at the time. And then we decided to make it more of a passive park instead. And what we found when we polled the people there, the gated communities especially knocked our socks off, because they wanted tennis courts and they wanted a place to fish with their grandchildren and they wanted places to go picnicking and picnic tables. We didn't even realize the needs that they wanted. And when we build that, we're going to answer needs for those gated communities in that area. So there's a counter look at that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, anything else staff wants to add to that? MR. RAMSEY: Yeah, one other thing. In your Growth Management Plan that has been approved, there is a request that by 2010 that we come up with a master plan. So we will be bringing forward to you in the next year a request for that consultant to do the master planning, which will include a lot of the issues that you brought up today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I second your motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, go ahead. And then we'll -- MR. COHEN: One major point. The motion includes taking out the acreage for the A TV park. If that transpires, you're not going to retain your level of service and be financially feasible. If that occurs, we're going to get an ORC from DCA with one of the CIEs that finds us not meeting our level of service and not being financially feasible. And that would probably transpire not this CIE, but probably the next one. But it could possibly transpire in the CIE we transmit this spring coming Page 103 November 5, 2007 spring coming up. Very good possibility. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At that point in time, maybe we could sue water management for damages. MR. COHEN: What I might recommend is Commissioner Coyle made a very good point, and what we could do is put an asterisk next to that particular item at the bottom, include in the language that he used in the motion, if the Commission would be agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, explain that one more time what we're going to do. MR. COHEN: Well, we're depending on an outside agency. Obviously we have an agreement, but we don't have a transaction that's transpired. We may include in the CIE itself that we programmed it for a specific year, but it's not guaranteed in that particular year, because we're still waiting for that outside other party, which I believe it's DEP, to come through with their end of the year agreement. And as a result of that, there's no guarantees that it's going to transpire in that year. But DCA, when they look at comprehensive plans, if they know that it's going to happen eventually, they have a level of comfort. That's why we sent up the agreement with the package that we had this past year. And they're okay with the 626 acres, based on the agreement that Ms. Ramsey gave us. So they had no problems with that, as long as the agreement was in hand. So I need, from a comprehensive planning standpoint, to leave it in there to show that it's financially feasible. Ifwe need to push it back further if we don't have it and we let them know, well, this is what's happened with OEP, they're not going to have a problem with that. As long as they know it's going to transpire, and that's the key. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to want you to respond, but first I'm going to go to Commissioner Henning, he's been waiting for some time. Page 104 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and for me to support the motion, that would have to be in there. But Mr. Coyle, let me ask you a question. In the EAR-based amendments that we said that the AUIR and the impact fees need to correlate together, are we going to get a consultant, impact fee consultant to say well, no, we can't do what the board wants because Growth Management Plan says that this needs to be tied together? MR. COHEN: Well, all of your impact fees and elements in the comprehensive plan don't correlate. Transportation's a primary example. I guess one of the best ways to explain it -- and Ms. Patterson's back there as well, too -- a lot of times the minute you adopt one of your impact fees, you have that lag factor, and it starts diminishing. In other areas such as EMS where we don't own everything, which you'll get to probably this afternoon or tomorrow, because of the lead stations and the co-located stations, that impact fee is only going to reflect what you own. So there's situations where they're not going to be exactly the same. The key with the impact fees, and Ms. Patterson would probably state it the best way she could state it, is that your level of service cannot go below your impact fee adopted level of service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's the correlation with the EAR-based amendments and the AUIR? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'm a little perplexed here. Everybody has the opinion that gated communities only hold older people such as myself. But I think -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's older, older people. Page 105 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. But I think that we're also finding that more and more families are moving into gated communities. They may have tennis courts and stuff of this nature, but they don't have ball parks. So I don't think we should cut ourselves short in saying that gated facilities have their facilities. But because of the fact that more and more -- as I said earlier, more and more families are moving into a gated community. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I don't want anyone to ever think that I was referring to your wife as older. She's still very young. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just him? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I had to cover that real quick. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's not what we're saying. We're just saying that the uses are different. You don't have the same number of small children that you would have in other non-gated communities. The ratios are different, so the numbers should be adjusted. And they need to be studied. So that's all we're saying. I don't have any problem modifYing my motion to include the 225 (sic) acres, as long as it's footnoted. And I think that's the proper way to do it, quite frankly. We know we're going to get it some day, so let's put it in there and footnote it. I would raise a question, though, about whether or not we would meet our level of service. Mr. Cohen, wouldn't the inclusion of certain state facilities that are recreational facilities help us do that, even if the 225 wasn't included? MR. MUDD: 625. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. MR. MUDD: 625 acres is a lot of acres, okay, and it's over $150 million of -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but remember, remember, it's Page 106 November 5, 2007 it's not the number of acreage that makes the difference, it is the number of people who will be using it. And I'll be willing to bet you there are more people at the state beach parks using that state beach than there are on that 625 acres running around on all terrain vehicles and four-wheel drive trucks. MR. MUDD: I'm not arguing with that point. But your level of service is based on acreage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's the problem. MR. MUDD: I'm not arguing with you. That's not -- you've got two knobs: You've got a population knob and you've got a level of service knob. And the problem I've got is the population knob, we've been playing around with it a little bit. And Mr. Bosi basically said you take your population times your level of service and you come up with what you need. And that's the algorithm you're dealing with. The other knob you can turn down as your level of service. We did a level of service workshop, which she inventoried every gated community and every asset that they had, and we're still -- and we're back to level of service again. I'm not arguing with you. What Randy's telling you is if you take out 625 acres worth of stuff, you're going to have to spend maybe $70 million trying to find that acreage. And that's all he's trying to tell you, based on your level of service -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we already changed the motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to go in there. But the point is, we have been trying to get you to take a closer look at how you calculate levels of service, okay? And that is a perfect example why it is inappropriate to use acreage for the calculation of levels of service. You'd be lucky I think if you got 1,000 people on this 625 acres. On any weekend. MR. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, you could not include that in your level of service, if you so wish. I mean, just because we have that Page 107 November 5, 2007 have that land and it belongs to the county doesn't mean it has to be in the inventory of the parks and recreation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's not my point. My point is that if you're trying to calculate a level of service based upon acreage and you're assuming the same intensity of use of that acreage that you're assuming for all the other acreage in Collier County, you're simply making the wrong decisions. And it doesn't make sense. So what the Planning Commission tried to get you to do and what I'm trying to get you to do and what we tried to get you to do last year is to find a better, more sensible way to calculate levels of service. And we're not there, okay? And so now we're going to do it for next year. I hope. Okay? So you've got the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got the motion. Do you amend your second to reflect it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Halas being in the opposition. With that, we're going to break for lunch now. We'll be back here at 1 :30. (Luncheon recess.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your Page 108 November 5, 2007 seats. Item #2I COUNTY JAIL Commissioners, this brings us to Category B. And your first -- Michael, are you going to talk about the general level of service comparison spreadsheet? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope not. MR. MUDD: No? MR. BOSI: No further advisory boards. MR. MUDD: Okay, so first item of discussion is county jail. Who's going to present, Mike? MR. BOSI: Chief Smith. MR. MUDD: Chief Smith. MR. SCHMITT: That's what I call on-time delivery, right here. Here he is. MR. MUDD: He's looking pretty good. This would be on Page 99 of your book. CHIEF SMITH: I haven't been following along this morning, so I really don't know what level of detail you've been used to by the presenters up here. But what I'm custom to doing, just standing for questions you have in the report in front of you. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the way this thing -- we had done a study out of facilities. The consultant came back with a recommendation of3.8 beds per 1,000 population. We chose, based on the committee that we have that's in existence that has the Sheriff, Commissioner Coyle as your representative and the judges, we seem to be holding our own pretty much on population, and so our recommendation is to keep it at 3.2 beds per 1,000. There is a deficit, five-year deficit of 61 beds to the tune of about Page 109 November 5, 2007 about 4.2 million dollars. But again, we're going to keep our eyes on that as we go forward as far as how the committee's working. And what we're trying to do is move prisoners through the docket to get final sentence or some kind of adjudication on their particular case. And then if they have more than a year time to do, then they'll go the state penitentiary system instead of being in our wonderful county jail. And so that also frees up space. We've been pretty good about it. I look today at the jail counts and we're at 1,215, and we were at 1,215 in 2005. So we've been able to hold that level. And I think it's been a cooperative agreement with the judges and with the Sheriffs Office, the state attorney, public defender. Again, Commissioner Coyle is the chair of that particular group, and it's been quite successful. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It just proves that capital punishment for red light running works. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe because a lot of the illegals aren't coming. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we'll go to Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I heard of a concept -- and Chief, you can help me out -- that a lot of beds are taken up for weekenders, people who have DUIs or have to serve some kind of jail time is that is non a criminal -- well, they're criminal offenses, but they're non-risk people. And they take up a lot of your spaces on weekends? CHIEF SMITH: Well, not as much as they've done in other years. About probably six years ago I was still the jail administrator when we started this program, but we recognized that there were a lot of individuals coming into custody situations just on weekends. And we did what you now probably have witnessed out in communities, some of them, is the Sheriffs weekend work project, where we take about 200 Page 110 November 5, 2007 about 200 individuals -- now, this is how big the program's grown -- but we take 200 individuals, and instead of locking them up, they report here to the government complex on 8:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday and we take them out and work them for 10 hours a day. And that's how they get their jail credit taken care of. But there are still a number, and I would say that number is probably higher than 50, that aren't suitable for that program. The judiciary feels they're not suitable for that program either. It's a determinate sentence that's mandated by statute for certain levels or categories of offenses, or because they've tried other sanctions and these people are just not conformitive (sic) with what's required under policy. So you're correct, on the weekends we probably do have at least 50, sometimes upwards to 100 offenders who come in just for the weekend. But that's in spite of our efforts to try to mitigate that the best we can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're really not a risk then of fleeing; is that correct? CHIEF SMITH: A much lesser degree than other types we come into contact with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be possible in the future instead of putting them, housing them in the jail system is put them in temporary tents? CHIEF SMITH: That's certainly one thing that we can look at. But it's still going to have a direct bearing on your population. It's still going to roll into the numbers as presented. But absolutely, you could do that with much lesser degree of housing, something much-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Less cost. CHIEF SMITH: Less costly, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure that the committee will look at ideas like that. Page III November 5, 2007 That's all I have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just hope that when we're releasing these people from the jail that they're not the type of people that are going to be out in the community conducting their business because they were thrown in jail the first time. So I hope we're not getting too lenient with releasing prisoners. CHIEF SMITH: We're not really in the releasing prisoner business. We're in the business of making sure they get locked up and stay locked up. The judiciary at times I know grants certain leniencies, but I guess that's their ability to do so. But-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I was wrong in addressing that question to you. CHIEF SMITH: There's a very good reason why the Sheriff, even though empowered to do so, doesn't come before the Board of County Commissioners to ask for getting time credits off of prisoners sentences. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to Commissioner Coyle, is there any way we can get the federal government to pay for the illegal aliens that we have to house in the jail? CHIEF SMITH: We're looking at that right now, as part of our 287(g) program that once we file detainers on them and they've exhausted what's required under the local sentence, then that kicks in and they can start reimbursing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just as a matter of interest, the public safety coordinating council is meeting with other public safety coordinating councils in Southwest Florida in early December, I think it's Page 112 November 5, 2007 it's the 5th or 7th, because there are possible federal or state funds that we could get to help in diversion programs to get people who are not a threat into treatment programs, maybe at David Lawrence or some other places. And we can't -- we don't have as much influence with legislators acting alone as we might if we acted with other public safety coordinating councils. So we're sort of banding together and we're going to try to develop a coordinated front and go after some of that funding. Because Commissioner Henning is right, the more people who are not a danger to the community we can get out of the jail and into a treatment program of some kind, the better off we're going to be. And we've already begun a program to try to expedite the handling of people who are arrested to determine whether or not they should be released on their own recognizance or retained in jail. And the judiciary is working fairly well in that respect. So a lot of progress has been made. And hopefully we will get more progress in the future. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing no other lights on, did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion that we approve. I would like to clarifY one thing. The 3.2 beds per 1,000 population is a reduction from 3.8 that was previously recommended; is that true? CHIEF SMITH: The 3.8 was the recommendation of the consultant study. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And we're sticking with 3.2. CHIEF SMITH: We're sticking with 3.2, which is where it's been for I think the past five years. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Page 113 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle for approval, a second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that was one of the questions I was going to ask about, 3.8 versus 3.2. And the other one is it says that you are now already taking the time to identifY and acquire land to build a new jail. Are you in the process of doing that now? CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. Recent dialogs have begun with Skip Camp and the county manager's staff regarding where that possible site may be. One piece that looks particularly promising is one that's adjacent to the current Immokalee jail. There's formerly some landfill. That could have a lot of promises. The core facility is already there and we could just service that out of one -- we'll get some bang for the buck regarding construction costs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that we've outgrown this one already, I think we just finished building it and so forth, are you going to build it a lot bigger? CHIEF SMITH: That's part of the design team that would go in and determine. But absolutely, you'd want to build it big enough so where -- you know, as soon as the doors swing open you don't outgrow it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're going to want to -- you're going to build it, ma'am. You provide his facilities, okay, but with his expert advise, we're going to make sure. You're probably we're going to make sure that this jail -- you're probably going to have an adjoining courthouse with it, too, okay, at a separate location so that you can do both things. You have your incarceration population and you have a courthouse that's there that can adjudicate and then -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That makes sense. Page 114 November 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: So we're trying to make sure it's a big enough postage stamp, footprint that we can get things done that we need to there. And ifthere is some areas that we can reclaim out of that the landfill, that would probably be good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, when you build Commissioner Fiala's jail -- he did say it was your jail. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. They can call it the Fialajail cell. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, at least something's named after you. Is there any possibility we could do like Orange County did and have a shared facility with other counties to bring the cost down further? CHIEF SMITH: That's something that we can look at during the course of that design implementation study. Regional jails is something that's absolutely not a new concept, something that's been looked at. Obviously the real advantage is to the host county. So if we could be the host county, we'd absolutely be interested in it. So that's one thing that I think we should look at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because I took a tour of one. I think it was last year, Florida Association of Counties, we had a meeting there, and this was a side trip. But their cost of doing business was considerably less than all the surrounding counties combined, just by the fact they did it. They also too privatized the jail part, that part of it, which may be something for consideration too in the future. If it's going to be a shared facility, we could come up with a whole different concept. Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Page 115 November 5, 2007 aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4-0. Item #2J LA W ENFORCEMENT MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, which is county law enforcement. Chief Smith will present again. CHIEF SMITH: Again, there's no real departure from what we've presented previous in other years. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? I only have a question about the productivity committee's concern about the $8.1 million loan from the general fund, and the possibility of delaying the second five-year facilities expansion. Would you want to hear from Janet Vasey on that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, very much so. MR. MUDD: Before she does that, take the loan so you don't have to give your impact fee a credit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. MR. MUDD: Okay? You're already not collecting enough. This impact fee you can use to outfit new deputies, okay, but we've never had enough money into this impact fee outside of paying for the physical facility for you to do that. And as you look at the second five years, you have an admin. Page 116 November 5, 2007 building and you have an Orangetree substation. The only thing I look at in the second two years to do, I look at the admin. building getting pushed out to probably 11 through 15. The Orangetree substation is a possibility, but that's predicated on having Mr. OeLony in with a new water/sewer plant out there so I can get a water/sewer hookup to that particular facility. Because that's the long pole in the tent at this particular juncture as far as getting the Orangetree substation. Because I've got the plans on it. We've got it 100 percent designed. I just need a water/sewer hookup and I can't get one right now, so that's what precludes me from -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a contract with the City of Naples. MR. MUDD: Out at Orangetree, sir? Yes, sir, why not? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet. I was going to listen to Janet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She gets her time. We got a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, this is Janet, she's here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Janet, forgive me. I got distracted by the county manager again. I think that was intentional. Please, go ahead. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the record, and the productivity committee. Basically this is the first time, if you look at Page 109. This is the first of four facilities that have loans from the general fund to assist with commercial paper loan debt service payments. And as Jim Mudd said, the possibility exists to pay this off if you Page 11 7 November 5, 2007 you push these new facilities into the -- past 2017. Because on Page III that table shows your capital improvements coming in in the second five-year period. There's $29 million there. Most of that is for the admin. facility, and then a little bit is for the Orangetree substation. Now, if you push those out of that five-year period, you probably could payoff this loan. But this is the first one of several that it's looking like the requirement for the next year's AUIR, we saw it first time last year with EMS. Now this year we've added one more new year, and it's in four facilities, these loans, and it's looking like we're getting into an area where impact fees are really not enough to pay for the new facilities, and we're coming up with other ways of coming in with the money. And we were concerned with the tax reform legislation that as we start bringing more and more requirements in for ad valorem dollars that you might run into problems, so we wanted to bring that to your attention. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the impact of delaying these facilities until after FY '177 CHIEF SMITH: Well, obviously the main concern we would have is the facility at Orangetree. That's critical. That's in one of the highest growth areas in the county, and we've needed one out there for years. And our presence out there right now is by virtue of a partnership we forged with the Collier County public school system to let us site a modular double wide there on the middle school property. That's bought us some time and has put our presence in there and basically has allowed us to get out there and do some really good work in that community. If you look through these numbers and you see that, you know, crime went up in ~istrict 4, which is the Estates, over 100 percent, well, that's because we finally put law enforcement in the area and told them, Page 118 November 5, 2007 told them, go out there and do what you do, guys. And they found grow houses and they found chop chops and truck theft rings and all that other stuff. And we've made some huge inroads in bringing that activity under curtailment. We need a presence out there. Although we've worked with the county manager's staff and we understand that you can't build a government building and hook it up to a sprinkler system if you have 15 pounds of water pressure. So we're going to have to have a water treatment plant, we're going to have to have sewer in the area. But just as soon as that's laid in, we really need to give some thought to doing a permanent presence, sheriffs substation or -- MR. MUDD: Of that $27.9 million, sir, 27 million is the admin. building. And you could push that out, okay? The Orangetree substation represents 2.7 million of that 29.7. Kind of give you an idea. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but if we push it out, what are we doing for the Sheriffs Department? MR. MUDD: The admin. building? The admin. building sits over on Horseshoe Drive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. MR. MUDD: It already exists. It isn't here on the compound, okay. So we can hold on to that, all right? And we still have room in there, Chief, if my recollection -- so he's still okay there. It's just -- it's getting to the point in time where our master plan has it located on this particular table. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you can shift the admin. building out to beyond F Y 17 -- CHIEF SMITH: You can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and get enough money to payoff the loan and still get the substation built in Orangetree. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Page 119 November 5, 2007 CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. Yeah, that's why I didn't even address the admin. building. I started offwith Orangetree. You know, that's our concern. Admin., we have space right now, and we're okay with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we'll come back to you. Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. And what we got is Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager, is there any way to change the loan payments? I mean, stretch them out? You know, I agree with Janet, we are -- I don't want to cut service to our existing residents by -- and I see this as one way to provide to the existing residents with that $17 million loan payment. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We're going to stretch it out as much as we can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And the reason for the loan, and I just want to make sure -- and you were out when I mentioned it to the board just a second ago. The reason for the loan is to keep the impact fee pure. Because if you give them the money out of ad valorem it's a credit. And that means the impact fee is going to be less because of that credit than it would be to help you pay off the facility. So we've said hey, if they're going to be short, we're going to loan it to you. This way it's not a credit, this way your exact fee is where it's supposed to be. And then as they bring their building permits in, then we pay it off. But we'll try to push those out as long as-- Page 120 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I misstated. I didn't say give the law enforcement impact fee from the general fund, I'm saying how can we remove this from the repayment. MR. MUDD: The impact fee is going to pay it back and that's the way we're going to get this one down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, in that motion, does that need to be a clarifYing motion? Anticipated that these funds will go back into the general fund, it won't be a loan to this impact fee category? MR. MUDD: No, you're going to have to make the loan to the impact fee category, but when the impact fees come in, they're going to pay the loan off and come back to the general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But in the meantime they're going to come out of the general fund. MR. MUDD: It comes out of301, which is that third mill that you have for facilities, and that's where I account for it. It doesn't get into the other operational pieces. That has to do with facilities, and that's -- and I watch that like a hawk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's still an internal policy. What I want to get at is I'm not going to -- or during the budget process I'm not going to look at raising fees for services or I'm not going to be cutting services to our existing residents, I want to make them whole first. So do I have an opportunity to do that at the budget time with this $17 million? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, we need to do it now then. MR. MUDD: Then I'm going to -- then you're going to tell me to stop construction right now on the EOC, the special operations building and County Barn. That's what you're talking about in order to get at those particular dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But these jails, this is for future. Page 121 November 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: If you don't want to build the jail, that 64 beds -- we finished with jails, but we can go back to it. There's a 64-bed expansion out at the Immokalee jail, and that's the last wing that didn't get build built. And that's the only addition that you have on there, and you have 61 -- you still have a 61-bed shortage based on our estimation of population. And the recommendation is you let the 61 beds stay short, relook at place for the new jail in order to get that done, and we're already doing that particular issue. But that's jail. Now we're in the county law enforcement side of the house. There's three facilities that are in your five-year plan right now, and I mentioned them to you. They're County Barn. Motor pool shop for the Sheriff, he's got stuff all over the county, a lot of places are closing down, your rental agreements. You've got the special operations facility that sits on the Naples Airport. And you have his piece of the emergency operations center for his 9-1-1 and his substation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But we -- that's not being built next year, so we can still continue this discussion to try to make the existing residents whole. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We're going to try to do that, that's absolutely the case. The piece that's puzzling for me as the manager is the freeze that we have on. The temps, outright on 1 July we let around 35 people leave -- I let them go -- because of a decision we made in order to try to get a quarter jump on this FY so that we could stretch it out a little bit because we're looking for $5.8 million. I know the Sheriffs doing particular issues with his staffing. I don't know if you have a freeze on, but we have a freeze. We have 176 vacancies right now, and it's growing. And I'd say at least 85 percent of those vacancies are frozen. And we're going to continue to see people leave. You haven't got libraries yet, but when Marilyn gets in here she'll Page 122 November 5, 2007 she'll tell you that she's got eight vacancies now and she's got two within next month or so that's already given her paperwork that they'll be leaving and she's frozen. So sooner or later, those shortages, unless there's volunteers to take it over, we're going to start adjusting times that facilities are open and that kind of business in order to make the cuts, just from the last budget approval that we received and the mandate you got from Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then maybe my concerns need to be brought up in the budget then, okay. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe Commissioner Fiala, you're next? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I wasn't, but Commissioner Henning's first question was my question, so you can -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing here in making sure that we continue to have a good level of service for our citizens that are here. So I hope that -- the other thing is, I guess my main question, and this is basically to Janet. Janet, did you -- not looking at just the financial aspect of this, but the level of service, did you address this level of service as far as the productivity group? MS. VASEY: Yes, we did a little bit. We didn't make any strong recommendations. This is what it's been, this is what it is in the impact fee study, so it is consistent. It does create some odd situations where it's difficult to explain, but we have -- well, look at Page 109, at the officers. We are at a surplus of Page 123 November 5,2007 surplus of 87 officers at the end of the five-year period. And that's not actually how many officers would be hired, it's because of the fact that you're spending so much money on construction on these three facilities that Jim just talked about, and they're tied to people. So-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm still looking at the level of service. Do you feel that the level of service is adequate for what we've addressed here? The financial end of it, I think that's going to be the responsibility of the county manager. I'm just trying to make sure that you feel comfortable with the level of service or that the productivity group feels comfortable. MS. VASEY: The 1.96 officers per 100,000, is that the level you're talking? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the whole level of service as far as law enforcement. I think the -- as far as officers, I think that's going to take care of itself as far as people that are going to be leaving. And since there's a freeze, I'm not sure where the Sheriff is on it, but I think that's going to probably take care of itself. MS. VASEY: Yes, I think we're okay with the level of service. CHIEF SMITH: Commissioner, if I could, we have long held that if you're looking at just a pure level of service and a ratio to attain that, you probably want to look more at the federal LOS, the average of 2.4. We've always held that 1.96 is okay when we're dealing with AUIR, because we understand that AUIR is primarily for facilities development. And most of the times you'd prefer your deputy to be in a car on patrol rather than sitting at a desk in a facility. So if you look at it from a sterile point of just managing when you bring your facilities on-line, then absolutely, we can live with the 1.96. But the reality is if you want to provide a level of service to the county that we've become accustomed to doing in the like manner in which fashion that we've done it historically, then 2.4 is really the Page 124 November 5, 2007 number. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you, Janet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just for clarification, part of that motion was to move out the admin. building past 2016, correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was that in your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that was in your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: Thank you. Item #2K LIBRARY That brings us to county libraries, collection and facilities. It's on Page 126. You're up. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon. Amanda Townsend with the Page 125 November 5, 2007 the public services division. The library AUIR for 2007 has once again a couple of changes from the AUIRs you've seen in the past. And I'll address those briefly. You have two levels of service standards established. One is .33 square feet per capita. And that level of service has remained the same since this spring when we took a look at levels of service. The other is your level of service for Materials. Formerly the library looked at a standard of 1.75 books per capita. And we made the recommendation and this board gave us direction to now look at all materials and all formats per capita. The library is currently carrying a 1.87 materials in all formats per capita, and we have adopted that as -- or are proposing that as the level of service here. This does not represent an increase in level of service whatsoever. This simply reflects that we used to count only books and we have now added A V materials such as CO's and OVO's into what we're including. You'll see in this year's AUIR a unit cost increase in the square footage for a library building. Last year you saw $341. This was indexed in the impact fee study to $376. The unit cost that you will see in this year's AUIR is $421. And what that represents is the total project cost; that is, land acquisition, if that was necessary, design, permitting, construction and outfitting of the buildings for the two contracts that we recently let. So those figures are a reflection of the actual business that we're conducting in building libraries today. You'll see that your unit cost per item has remained static at $25 per volume. And that is appropriate for those DVD's and CD's that we've included in that inventory, as well as volumes of regular hard-bound and soft-bound books. And you'll see that we have a work program in the next five years in which we have three projects we'll be undertaking. One is the addition Page 126 November 5, 2007 the addition of 17,000 square feet at the Golden Gate Library, and that project is well underway. The other is the 30,000 square foot South Regional Library, which we've recently let the construction contract on. And then you'll see the 4,000 square foot addition to the Marco Island Library, and that is a project that will be 100 percent funded either by grants or donations. As you'll see from the graph also, these projects satisfY that level of service well into the out years. You'll see in our program for materials acquisition, last year we came to you and we were behind in replacement books. Those are the books that we purchased with ad valorem dollars for materials we lose, generally lost or stolen. We were behind on that. It's a good news story in that we've caught up much faster than we told you last year that we would be able to. So we'll be able to get out of that little hole that we're in by 2009 with what we're projecting in our five-year program. Beyond that, the acquisition program for library materials will deliver books and just in time with population increases. And of course once again your packet includes information on levels of service and library operating statistics. And I'll do my best to answer those, if you have questions on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your door counts in a number of cases have shown a decline between 2005 and 2006, and in other cases a relatively modest increase. What accounts for that? MS. MATTHES: October of2005 was Hurricane Wilma. That's the hurricane that took forever to come, and we were down in October. It happened in October. That's -- our children's programs were down for that year, too. And I attribute that to a busy time for kids programs in October. Page 127 November 5, 2007 And the hurricane prep time that people were leaving and getting ready to leave and then cleaning up afterwards, we lost a lot of people that year. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I understand what you said, but I just can't make sense of it. Let me try the question a different way. Let's take 2004 and compare it to 2006. You experienced a decline in the Naples branch, you experienced a decline in the Marco Island branch, you experienced a decline in -- no, I'm sorry. That first one was a headquarters branch. Naples branch, then Marco branch. You experienced a decline in Golden Gate. You experienced a slight gain -- well, a considerable gain in Immokalee. Almost the same over those two years in Vanderbilt Beach. You experienced a decline in East Naples. And you experienced a decline in the Estates branch. So from FY 2004 to 2006 you experienced a decline in head counts in virtually every facility. Why is that happening? MS. MATTHES: Overall, for '05 we were ahead of'04, though. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not talking about '05, I'm talking about '04 and '06. You just told me that '05 was an unusual year because of the hurricane, so I just eliminated that from consideration and we're going from FY -- MS. MATTHES: I'm sorry, October, '05 was part of fiscal year '06, and that was Hurricane Wilma. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could even go back to FY '03 if you wanted to and compare it to FY '06, and there's hardly any change in door counts at all. So I guess I'm a little confused. MR. MUDD: Let me just help a little bit. FY '06 -- October 24th, 2005 we got hit with Hurricane Wilma. That's FY '06. And for that whole quarter, just about up to February, people were cleaning up their Page 128 November 5, 2007 up their yards, cleaning up the other issues. I'm not too sure the libraries were closed except for the week that we got hit actually by the hurricane, but the community wasn't going to the library, they were moving stuff out to the curbs and getting stuff cleaned up. I believe that's what she's trying to tell you. The first quarter of FY '06 was a real anomaly for our library system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do we know about the first quarter of FY '077 MS. MATTHES: But we're up slightly on door counts over FY '06. That's not part of this. The figures weren't available when this was printed. Our circulation is also up about seven percent over fiscal '06 circulation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the percentage increase in population from, let's say, FY '04 to FY '05? Do we know? MS. MATTHES: I don't have that figure handy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. I quite frankly feel that door counts is probably a better indicator of the potential use of our libraries than is population, particular peak population. I don't know that a lot of tourists come here and spend their time in the libraries. MS. MATTHES: Actually, we do have a considerable number of people buying non-resident cards. And not just the three-month residents. The people who are down here for a month, we have those, too. Percentage-wise it's not a huge amount compared to their population, but five to 10,000 people a year on temporary cards. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have the same concern with that as I had with other population counts. You don't really have the same percentage in those peak population periods. And part of the peak population really isn't necessarily people who come here and spend four or five months. I mean, we have part-time residents who are here, you know, four, five months a year, and I understand they would probably use the library just like regular residents would. But tourists who are coming here to Collier County, and we have quite a few of those, I doubt Page 129 November 5, 2007 quite a few of those, I doubt seriously if many of them go to the library and spend time at the library. But again, I'd just like to find a way to refine these levels of service standards so that they begin to make sense for us. And I really like door counts. You know, those are -- you can't very easily argue with door counts. They either came in or they didn't. And that just seems like a good way of using -- or calculating a level of service standard. MS. MATTHES: We have no door count for Everglades City, which also is probably a minor usage. We also have some pretty primitive door counter mechanisms. And we are looking into upgrading those that really give us a better door count. Ours, if you have three people abreast, it counts one person. So these are -- you know, they track the same thing over time, but are they 100 percent accurate? Of course not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would also be interested, and you don't have to provide that to me right now, but maybe you have it here and I just missed it. The percentage in increase in funds to be spent on maintaining our level of service, compared with the percentage of increase in door counts. That would be very helpful for me in determining whether or not there's a close correlation. MS. MATTHES: Okay, we'll look at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you explain what the graph circulation is? It's on Page 142. MS. MATTHES: What page was that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: 142. Says circulation. MS. MATTHES: Thank you. The circulation is the check-out of any materials going through our automation system. And for the jail we do a manual count. We have collections in several jails. And those are counted manually and we add Page 130 November 5, 2007 and we add them into the circulation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is books that are going out and coming in? MS. MATTHES: Books that are going out. We don't have a count of what comes in. But the majority does come back. Some they're lost and paid for, that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, maybe I can help you out. If you look at FY '01 versus FY '02, you had a new library. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What page are we on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the same page you were on before, 142, with the door counts. And by the way, I agree with you, this is good information that needs to be taken under consideration as we go on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 142 is not the one I was referring to. That's just the door counts and circulation for things that were checked out, I think. There are door counts -- MR. MUDD: Page 143. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 143? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you could use the same stats as the new library. The Orange Blossom came on line -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, could you put that page up on the visualizer, please? Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you see some decreases in some of the other libraries, like Vanderbilt Beach. MS. MATTHES: When we opened the Orange Blossom library in February of2002, which is fiscal '02, the door counts went way down at a number of the libraries, other branch libraries, because everybody Page 13 1 November 5, 2007 everybody wanted to come to the new building and see that. We also experienced a large increase of number of users that had never had library cards when we opened that building, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You see what I mean? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's hard to deal with it like that, because you'll have a new library and then that will take away some people from another library. But if you look at the bottom line number, 1.6 million, and you compare that with, well, pick one, even FY '05, which was pretty big at one point, nine million, that gets you about three-and-a-half percent per year increase, which is a relatively small percentage increase. But it might also be almost exactly what the population increase is. I would guess the population is increasing about that much. I don't know. What do you think? MR. MUDD: I asked Randy a second ago, and he said population, based on BEBR now, okay, is around six percent a year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the library utilization, that's all true. And you have to check those figures to see if we're really right about this. If you check those figures and the library head counts or door counts don't match with the increases in population, then population is not a good way of measuring the level of service standard. And door counts might be more accurate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I took some of your time, but-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. That's where you need to go. Because it's all about the product that you're providing. It's not about the wish they will come in your door. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. MATTHES : We're also starting to provide a number of items that you don't really need to come into the library to get. Our on-line data bases help students throughout the county with their homework. You can use them from your office, too. We're also providing downloadable audio books and downloadable E-books that you don't Page 132 November 5, 2007 you don't even have to come into the library to get. And the circulation and the usage of those items is starting to increase also. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In can continue, I think what we need to do in this category is provide that -- not just the weighted population, but the door counts as part of an indicator of the level of service. Level of service should be not by population, it should be by the service that we're providing. You know what I mean? MR. MUDD: The level of service is -- you've got to watch out. You can't use an impact fee for door counts. It doesn't pass the legal challenge. And that's part of our -- it's kind of a problem with parks a little bit. And I don't want to go back and get Commissioner Coyle's ire up, but that's kind of the dilemma that we're in that we talked about when we had the level of service workshop we had with the board on this last year. But yes, door counts should be used as far as is the level of service correct or not. I mean, one of the disturbing things I have from a library standpoint is if you talk to some folks, librarians in particular, they will tell you most of their business is done on video take-outs, you know, movies. Not necessarily books, but it's rental of movies. I had one person tell me one time during one of our five or 10-year award breakfasts, he said, I feel like I'm Blockbuster versus a librarian anymore. And that's an issue. And it might be one that when we get real tight on dollars, do we want to keep providing that particular service, or do we want to do something a little bit different? But -- and I believe if you took away movie rentals and I don't know if they charge for them or are they free rentals, I haven't done -- it's not one of those things I do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Source of revenue. Page 133 November 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: You could -- your door counts are going to go way down. If they're doing over 50 percent of their circulation, whatnot, on movies and not on books, that becomes a really big issue. MS. MATTHES: It can't be a source of revenue unless we give up state aid to libraries, including construction money. That's based by the state library on free library core services to the public. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To all the public? MS. MATTHES: To residents. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to residents. MS. MATTHES: That's why we charge for a non-resident card, and why you suggested that we increase our charge for non-resident cards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there must be a way to figure in the uses of the system as far as a level of service. And I think that's just a better way of providing -- getting closer to provide what we need to do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was just wondering in the door counts, just in the year 2006 just for Immokalee, they jumped up 137,000 people that one year and then they went back down. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got that question too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You, too. That's wonderful, except that I thought maybe there might be a little error there or something. MS. MATTHES: No, we were closed part of the low year for the construction of the project. We were closed a couple of months, and then we had a large increase in people coming to see the library again. And the more children's programs we do, the higher our door counts are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it dropped back down 90,000 Page 134 November 5, 2007 people the next year, so I thought those are a lot of thousands. You think that's really a correct figure. Especially because you were talking about the hurricane and -- MS. MATTHES: As accurate as the mechanical door counters are, yes. It's as accurate as we can get. The door counters are read daily and reset daily. Power goes out, we might lose door count. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe you could gain a few hundred thousand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'm looking here at volunteer hours. Why are they all down at all the libraries? MS. MATTHES: We're not -- we haven't done any campaign to increase volunteers. Many of our volunteers are aging and they are no longer capable of volunteering. And it's something that we would like to work on in the coming year, but they are down everywhere. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I noticed that everywhere. And it's surprising, because people have the idea that libraries are very important, but yet I look at the volunteer hours, and starting way back in 2000 and looking at what's happening, and it's a great -- it's a slide. MS. MATTHES: It is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: As Randy Cohen has explained to me, the way the state requires that we do this thing is to utilize the population figure and utilize the level of service figure and you adjust them to arrive at the appropriate level. So I would encourage you to adjust the level of service level so that you meet the demand of the libraries from the standpoint of door counts. Now, please understand, I know the difference between somebody Page 135 November 5, 2007 somebody who walks in a door and somebody who inquires over the Internet. And you've pointed out that you're having more and more people accessing your data bases, both from inside and outside the library . I think that will be a continuing trend. And so I can't tell you what level of service you ought to use to adjust for that. But you're not going to require the same amount of square footage for facilities and you're not going to require the same level of service for hard copy books. You might need another media of some kind. But I would encourage you to adjust the level of service somehow to account for that, because I consider the way the state requires us to do this to be inaccurate and wasteful. If you're looking for a reason to suggest that impact fees are too high, this is certainly one of them. Ifwe had the ability to say how many books are we having checked out every week or every year and set the level of service standard on the basis of what we're really doing, rather than some fictitious number like population, then we could get a lot closer to what our needs are and refine impact fees a little bit better. So I would -- I would just like to encourage staff not to be so complacent about accepting what the state told us we need to do. I think we need to start going to the state and saying look, here's a better way of doing it; can you give us approval to do this. We can save our taxpayers money and we can do a better job of meeting their needs. And I'd just like to see us start questioning these things. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, are you saying basically that we should lower the level of service? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so, yeah. If it's justified. You see, the problem is I don't have as much information as the staff does on these things, and I don't have an appreciation for what people demand when they walk in the door. But the staff understands that. Since we already know right now that the door counts don't correspond with increases in population, why use population for Page 136 November 5, 2007 calculating it then? Then you tell me you have to because that's what the state tells you you have to do. Then our alternative is to adjust that other dial, which is level of service standard to arrive at what we need to get. And so that's all I'm saying you are to do is adjust the level of service to arrive at what we think we need to have in order to adequately serve the public. And it would seem to me that what you're going to do is dial down the level of service for hard copy books and dial up a level of service for electronic media and access, and you'll adjust it that way and we'll have a more accurate capital improvement program and maintenance program. And that's what I would suggest we do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I piggyback on that for a moment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I think that's very interesting. It mean, you already have statistical data of what's taking place, such things as adult programs. They fluctuate with the year, but I mean, one program to another. It might vary from library to library, but still you come up with some statistical data when you add them altogether. How much adult education do you need? Well, what's the demand that you can meet and you've been meeting? Maybe having that as your basis to be able to come up with what your needs are based upon these charts here having everything from children's programs right on through. I assume that your children's programs, maybe I'm wrong, that they're open enrollment, they're not closed? MS. MATTHES: They're open to anybody in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words you're meeting the demand. MS. MATTHES: Yes. At some of our locations we always have Page 137 November 5, 2007 have demand for more than children's program hour or half hour will hold. We have waiting lists for some, we have sign-ups at many of our libraries, so not everybody gets into children's programs. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There goes the point. That's what Commissioner Coyle was saying. You've got various factors that are out there by what the demand is. Now, maybe it's a particular thing, like books themselves might be an outgoing issue anymore. People might not be into books, they might be into the videos, they might be into whatever. If you can come up with some way that's used as statistical data to be able to adjust it rather than population, I agree with you. When you say 1.7 books, is it, 1.5 books? MS. MATTHES: 1.87 items per capita. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, per capita, items. MS. MATTHES: Items. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would items also be included, such things as children's activities? MS. MATTHES: No, those are materials that we check out, 1.87 items per capita. Books, videos, music, books on tape, all those kinds of things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the other services you provide, is there something in there that we have, an indicator that determines how much you're going to do? MS. MATTHES: No, we don't have a level of service for children's programs. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, then I'm kind of missing the point. I would think that children's programs would be just as important as books. MS. MATTHES: Yes, but there's not a level of service for impact fees or the AUIR. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, you want to add to that? MR. BOSI: Could I add one thing? The one thing we always have Page 138 November 5, 2007 have to remind ourselves as we go through the AUIR process is what we're trying to do for every single one of these categories is what is the appropriate fee we're charging for each new household that comes into this county. So what I hear a lot about are operational aspects. And this is the capital improvement program. And one of the things that -- and it's related to Commissioner Coyle's point, and we intend to continue to provide operational data from each of the service providers, so the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners can every year look at the levels of service standards that we have and see are they appropriate. One of the -- one of the components of the AUIR process is making sure that whatever the demand is being placed upon these services are appropriate. So when we use population -- when we use population, that's just to say at this time .33 square feet is appropriate per person. Now, we look at the operational statistics and the advisory bodies look at the door counts. They look at some of the things that the demands are being placed upon this department, or the division, and they say, you know, really, we see a downward trend. Maybe .33 is not appropriate anymore. So every year you have that opportunity to adjust the level of service. And another point, staff does not set level of service standards. That is the sole prerogative of the Board of County Commissioners. So we could look at trends and see how those trends relate to what our current standards are to help allow the advisory boards and the boards to the make I guess better informed decisions on that question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand what you're saying, and that's fine. But why do you offer us data that's not relevant to the discussion that we're coming up with and the determinations? If we're not going to be making the determination on children's services or adult education, why even include that data in here? Page 139 November 5, 2007 MR. BOSI: That -- I think the library director probably offered that to show the breadth of activities that were being offered within the service provisions for libraries. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and -- earlier, Commissioner Coletta, you piggybacked Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to piggyback Mr. Bosi over there. Commissioner Coyle made a statement about state regulation with respect to the libraries. They're not regulated by the state. This is something that comes under your purview, you set the level of service. The one place that it does come into effect is with your impact fees. You've got to be careful not to lower your level of service below your impact fees. If you do, then you're going to have to lower your impact fees accordingly and downward to that amount as well, too. The information that you received, like Mike Bosi indicated, is that operational data that you can rely on for trend analysis to make a determination when you want to lower that level of service or increase that level of service, depending on what's transpiring. Right now you're seeing a downward trend in some areas, and obviously in some of our facilities we're seeing an upward trend. This happens to be in an area where we're seeing a trend where things may be going down. What I might suggest in the AUIRs to come is that we do a trend analysis for all of our components in the AUIR where possible. We do traffic counts, obviously, and transportation, we do things in different areas as well, too, and we track that data, just like some of the operational data that we provide to you. That way you can make that informed decision whether or not you want to increase or decrease the level of service. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things, please. The Page 140 November 5, 2007 genealogy, I didn't -- I guess I didn't realize we had a genealogy program. That must be at the new library, the Orange Blossom? Because it starts about the same time. MS. MATTHES: Actually, no. The genealogy department's at the Naples Regional Library. It did move to the headquarters library on Orange Blossom when we first opened, but we've run out of space at that location and we had to move it back to where it was, because we had more space for the genealogy books at the Naples Regional. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is it a class or books or -- MS. MATTHES: It's a collection of materials, including data bases. We have a large number of genealogy volunteers who help do research in the -- on your own personal family tree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I notice you have a lot of volunteers. I also was pleased to see at the East Naples Library, although it's the tiniest library in the system, it's got a great deal of volunteers. And I'm very, very pleased to see that. That's wonderful. So maybe we'll be able to keep that library open with so many volunteers, right? Just a thought, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The data that we have before us today is very important. It's similar to what Norm Feder does. And I figured out about five -- per person, there's five visits to the library per year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For every man, woman and child? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Just a rough math. So, you know, we need to count that -- this stuff in with it similar to what Norm does. Is that possible, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you can take a look at the door counts and adjust it, and if your door counts are going down across the county, you can adjust what you're stocking in those libraries. In other words, how many books you carry on the shelves, that's where you really get into it. Page 141 November 5, 2007 you really get into it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I'm talking about is capacity. Norm has capacity out there. Is it reasonable for each man, woman and child of a residency to visit the library five times? You know what I mean? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You could -- if you -- for instance, the first thing that comes to mind as I mentioned just a second ago was you deal with the stockage of books and materials that you have that can go out into circulation. If you're getting reduced door counts in your libraries, then you're not going to have to stock the shelves full of those materials to get-go. If that continues -- and so the places that you really have an increase in your door counts, that's where you provide more materials to. The folks where you've got a reduced door count, you don't have to keep the shelves so stocked. I'm not saying you don't offer the book, just the book may not be there when you get there, but it's in her inventory and therefore we can have it delivered the next day to the library where that person can come back and pick it up. But if we get a decrease in door counts coming into our libraries, then you adjust your square footage, because you're not going to need to build as many or they won't have to be as big when you build them, and then you can get at that. But I would -- before you adjust your square footage, I would make sure that you've got 'em a couple of years consecutive with a decreasing trend and you don't have just an outlier just because of Wilma or whatever that popped up in the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's fine. But I think there's some data out there to show what the national average is of visits or -- MS. MATTHES: Certainly. There's some in your book, too. Compares -- Page 138 compares Collier to some other Florida counties. And 139 compares us to the State of Florida and the national average Page 142 November 5, 2007 national average where there is a national average. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, and then maybe we can get a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, just very briefly. I don't want to try to impress you with my ignorance, but it seems to me if I were operating a facility, I would want to know what every person who accesses that facility wants and needs. I'd like to know how many people check out audio books or videos, I'd like to know how many people come there just to read books in the library, how many people check out books to take them home, how many people access the reference material remotely through the Internet. And then once I had all that information, I would know where to devote most of my effort and spend most of my dollars to make sure we had the services to meet the demand. And that's quite different from just using a population figure and a single level of service. I think there's a level of service for books, there's a level of service for audio or visual material, there's a level of service for Internet access, all of those kinds of things. And I guess I'd like to -- for us to get to that point where we're collecting that kind of information and we can make more precise decisions about how best to serve the people of Collier County. And this isn't something that just applies to library. We've talked about this for a number of different issues today. So with that, I would be willing to make a motion to approve with guidance to the staff that they analyze the level of service standard with a view toward, number one, becoming more specific about the various types of services provided at the libraries and, number two, adjusting those level of service standards to a point that assures that we're addressing the right kinds of services for the people who want to use our libraries. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion. Page 143 November 5, 2007 Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from Commissioner Fiala, motion by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: In read this chart right on Page 138, right now we have -- our level of service is .33 square feet, correct? MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that you have in here, tell me if this is right, .14 (sic) square feet. MS. MATTHES: .41 is actually -- the .33 we use on the adjusted population. This chart uses the straight BEBR population. And it's from '05 statistics, because that's the most recent statistics I can use that I have all of the counties listed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what it tells us is that we've got more capacity than we really need. MS. MATTHES: According to the state population, we have .41 square feet per capita. According to the population that we use that you've discussed here today, we don't have quite that much. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We got-- MS. MATTHES: It's .36, I think. It's slightly higher than the .33. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought they said it was .33. MS. MATTHES: The standard is .33, but in actuality we're a little bit higher than the standard. And if you look on the chart -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're saying we got .36, you think? MS. MATTHES: Page 129. I seem to remember it was .36. I don't see that written here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what's this.4l then? Page 144 November 5, 2007 MS. MATTHES: That's compared to the population that the state uses that doesn't include any peak BEBR medium or any adjustment for seasonal population. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I guess what I'm saying is we've got more libraries than we have -- it exceeds -- MS. MATTHES: Slightly, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, that's -- it exceeds what our requirements are. MS. MATTHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Item #2L EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and it's Collier emergency medical services. And may I make a recommendation that you take a break before you start that particular item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What, two hours? MR. MUDD: No, sir. How about 10 to 15 minutes, sir. Page 145 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we vote on that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take a 15-minute break. Be back here at two minutes to three. MR. MUDD: The next item on our agenda is county emergency medical services, and Mr. Dan Summers is here, director of the bureau of environmen -- or emergency services environmental -- emergency services will present. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan Summers, for the record, bureau -- for the bureau of emergency services and emergency management. Just a couple of opening remarks. I don't want to take your time, but I wanted to get right to the experts. I wanted to let you know that EMS and your AUIR has adopted and supported the revised level of service that it shows in your report. That was also the by-product of an enormous amount of effort that we did this year with a review of our level of service bringing on board a consulting firm to help us in what we call an EMS master plan review. Excerpts of that review were in your -- as an executive summary were made available to you. Just to let you know, if any questions do come up, our consulting team is here. Mr. Phil Cowie (phonetic) is here and, also, Kent Green from Emergency Services Consultants, Incorporated, ESCI. This is their last visit with us as this winds up our particular effort. I want to tell you that, also, with the productivity committee and, most importantly, with discussions with our -- our own emergency medical services advisory council we've gone through a lot of detail and a lot of discussion on this particular activity. We're not asking for anything new. We've adjusted that with our discussion that's enclosed in the document. And Chief Page is here if you would like to get into any particular question and has a presentation available, but I think we'll hold off on that just to see if you have any Page 146 November 5, 2007 you have any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate that, Mr. Summers. MR. SUMMERS: So I'll bring it up to Chief Page. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Summers, Commissioner Coyle would like to address a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, I would like to ask Janet Vasey if she has any concerns other than the concern with respect to paying off the loan. MS. VASEY: Yes. Janet Vasey, for the record. We -- we did have a concern on the whole EMS master plan. We didn't have enough time really to review it. We don't know that we disagree with it or anything yet. We -- but we did want to offer to you that we'd like to review that, go over in particular the counting of the units. Last year we brought to you some concerns on how the ALS fire units were counted, and we'd still like to pursue that as well as other areas of the study. We were also -- we -- we got a letter from the MSAC saying that -- that they would like to participate with us on that, if you -- if you assign it to us. That's totally up to you, but we did want to offer. I think in general the only thing we had was the -- the loan issue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask for clarification from county manager and his staff about repayment of that $5.9 million loan. What's the story there? Are we going to be able to do it? MR. MUDD: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm not being -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not a good answer. MR. MUDD: I'm not being flippant with you. I just want to make sure that you -- that you understand. And I -- and I want to draw your attention to page 151, and I want to draw your attention to the top line. The level of service that you have on your impact fee is based on one unit Page 147 November 5, 2007 based on one unit for 34,652 in population, and your level of service, if you're going to adjust it this time to the recommended, would be one unit over 16,400. You are -- you are gathering in your impact fee less than 50 percent of what's required. And let me tell you what's hurting you. What's hurting you is when you co-locate with the fire district and the fire district owns the station and you have to rent it you get no credit toward your impact fee. So the key here is if you're going to co-locate you co-own, and if you can't do that don't do it because you're never going to get the impact fees that are going to be able to cover the cost of your EMS in this county, and you will have to subsidize them as far as their capital up to 60 percent. And so the reason there's a loan is because you want to keep what you have as far as impact fee as pure as you possibly can, but with this rate you'll never catch up. Okay. And I'm going to be brutally honest with you. And that's why I said no, and that's why I drew your attention to that particular page. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you go to one unit per 16,000 -- or 16,400, how is that going to change the situation? MR. MUDD: You would be able to pay -- your impact fee for EMS would double. The problem is all your rentals that you've got out there with fire districts don't count, so you get no credit for those particular facilities. Now -- and the reason the fire districts don't want you to do it is because if -- if they're co-owning then their impact fees can't be as high as they -- they -- they are. And, so, you know, they're -- they're sitting there fighting for those dollars, too, and that's -- and that's why you have this -- this bit of an arm-wrestling match. And so far we haven't been winning. But I -- I would tell you a good thing for -- policy from this board is if you're going to co-locate co-own, and -- and when you do that you will start getting your one-over percentage a lot closer to what the necessity is. Page 148 November 5, 2007 necessity is. And the one thing -- the other -- the other piece that I would mention in here that hasn't been presented yet is the change to level of service from one over 15,000 to one to 16,400. Okay. That's based on an 8-minute response travel time 90 percent of the time in the urban area and a 12-minute travel time response 90 percent of the time in the rural area. Okay. And there has been a change to the level of service, and what that has done by that small change, that -- that one thousand six hundred and -- or one thousand six hundred and forty -- forty folks -- what it's basically done for you is it's -- it's decreased the amount of monies that you need for your capital infrastructure by $10 million, and that was brought to your attention by Mr. Mike Bosi at the beginning. It went from 26 million down to 16 million as far as need is concerned in your Category B. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the new agreements negotiated with the -- the fire districts, are -- are -- are we getting an appropriate level of service that is an improvement over the situation that existed before those new agreements? MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir, absolutely. I mean, your ALS engines-- you had a guarantee of 5, I believe, from before, and now you have close to 17. Is that correct? CHIEF PAGE: It was 14 guaranteed. MR. MUDD: Four -- fourteen guaranteed. So it's been a significant improvement, almost triple what you had on ALS. The issue is -- and it-- and it's one that I keep pestering Mr. Summers and Mr. Page here is, how does the response work? What's the protocol? What's the process to get the response? An ALS engine and a paramedic vehicle all responding to the same emergency getting there at the same time doesn't help you much. It doesn't get your assets spread out as much as you need to, and that still is a bit of a dilemma for us, but we're working on it. Page 149 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way to -- to reach agreement with the fire departments that -- that you should decide who's going to respond? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and -- and I believe -- I believe this chart that's up here right now is -- is our first attempt to -- to get this straight, to figure out who responds during what kind of emergency. And I'm going to let Mr. Page talk about it a little bit. CHIEF PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with emergency medical services. Commissioner, this is what we've worked out with the medical director and the fire chiefs, and this should be implemented later this month. The direction I gave was the 11 th of this month. What this does is it indicates which units on different type of responses would respond solely by themselves, either -- where it says "hot" that would be lights and sirens. Where it says "cold," as in here, that would be no lights and sirens. But you can see there's about 23 responses that have been changed to where we were both going in the past to where now only one unit is responding, so we were able to work that out. But, again, that -- this only deals with the five districts that work under the ALS engine agreement. We have no jurisdiction over the -- the other independents. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let -- I'm -- I'm confused. It says an engine response, and in almost every cases -- case there is an engine response from diabetic problems to -- CHIEF PAGE: Well, we're -- it says nontransport unit only. That's an engine only, and the ambulance stays in house. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, when you sayan engine, you're talking about a fire engine? CHIEF PAGE: An ALS engine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: A fire truck? MR. MUDD: Uh-huh. Page 150 November 5, 2007 CHIEF PAGE: With a paramedic on it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is going to go out when somebody has a diabetic problem? CHIEF P AGE: Well, it's because typically a diabetic -- you give them the glucose, no transport. They administer the glucose. The person signs out, and there's no transport involved. So on -- on a lot of these calls -- another one would be an elevator rescue. Typically, there -- there's no medical issue there. Why would EMS want to respond? A fire engine goes by itself. Convulsions and seizures, this particular one is a person that's had a seizure as late as six hours previously, no dizziness. It's typically -- the ones that you see in pink are calls where there's no -- there's no issue at all and it doesn't look like it would result in a transport based on what the dispatcher's getting on the telephone call. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, a lot of these have both the ALS and the EMS responding. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir, the more critical calls. MR. MUDD: They're the more -- the -- the critical calls would require in most instances a transport, so you've got to get the only per -- the way -- only way the patient gets to the hospital is with -- with that paramedic vehicle, and so the engine would go and -- and so would the paramedic vehicle in that particular case. Now, one might get there sooner than the other, but our probability -- on this particular protocol, it would be high that the transport would be required; therefore, you need the paramedic vehicle there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHIEF PAGE: It is -- I -- it may not look like a lot, but this was a big step getting them to agree to this. Now, like I said, it's one step. That's not to say that this can't be tweaked further down the road, but I think -- I think both sides are suspicious of the other. Originally when this was brought forth two years ago, it was -- the thought process was EMS is trying to reduce our number of calls so it Page 151 November 5, 2007 so it doesn't look like we're doing as much. Eighty percent of the calls that they respond to are medical in nature, so to them it's a -- it's a tough thing to adopt, but I can tell you in the field both -- both EMS and fire personnel were not very receptive initially to this, although the -- at the chiefs' level they understood why. And it -- we started this before we actually got the consultant's survey back, but this was something they recommended as -- as a better way to go. But in the field their -- their basic response is if somebody calls for 911 they expect us to come. So it's a learning curve, and we're -- we're going to get there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if -- if this works as it should work, it should improve your overall response time because it distributes your assets over a broader area rather than having both fire and EMS assets at one location. CHIEF PAGE: Well, it may help in response times, but where we really expect to see a significant impact are the concurrent calls; in other words, where both units were on the same scene before the second call's dropped so it didn't have to come from another zone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. CHIEF PAGE: Now we're going to be able to backfill that call. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- this is going to help tremendously on -- on your calls, calls for service. And, like you said, is -- is you're not going to have to pull one unit out of a zone to cover another zone; correct? CHIEF PAGE: Well, these are, let's say, 23 to 33 calls, and they're all, basically, alpha calls. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh. CHIEF PAGE: The percentage of alpha calls are very small. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHIEF PAGE: So, I mean -- Page 152 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHIEF PAGE: -- it's not going to have a significant impact initially. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason that the fire departments respond with a fire engine -- what -- what we know is -- is they need to run that engine, and, also, they might not have a rescue unit to respond to that. But the question that I have -- in your capital improvement plan, how many dollars are going to units versus buildings to house that unit? CHIEF PAGE: Okay. Let me -- one of the slides that I had for you in this presentation was -- when we're talking about this -- this -- the next three units that are coming up on line of that 10 million that would be at the one -- or one to 16,400, we already know that at Ave Maria -- there's no land or building costs. They're providing that to us, so, obviously, that three -- three million five would just encompass maybe the five, six hundred -- well, actually, the cost of one ground unit and the personnel associated with that, but that's not the capital side. But all we'd be providing for that Ave Maria unit would be the unit itself as far as a capital expenditure. When we get down to Fiddler's Creek, that land is already provided for us, so we'd have just the cost of the station, and that could be ajoint station with East Naples. That's yet to be determined. And then Big Cypress, they're doing a -- a project, I think, off Desoto. I -- I talked to Chief Greenberg last week. Her board has directed that they would not agree to let us provide -- or help in the cost of that facility; however, they would allow us to be there rent free. We'd just pay a portion of our utilities. Now, this is where we'd get into problems in the past. It's kind of hard to say no when I can avoid that $3 million hit, but if I have no lease and there's no operating expenses other than electricity -- in previous times we've always gone that route because it seemed the right thing to Page 153 November 5, 2007 right thing to do. That's -- that's going to have to be a board decision if -- if we're to co-locate in a position like that, but-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- now, I guess we can get into that discussion later on, but -- but there's opportunities to expand facilities, maybe put the -- the sleeping quarters on top of the building, on top of the garage, or something like that. Is there -- is there any way to get more -- or is there a need to get more units in a particular area where you already have units? CHIEF PAGE: Well-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and is there a way to provide that type of building -- expanded building within the existing facility? CHIEF PAGE: The -- the co-location that we have planned for the North Naples Water Regional Park -- they're going to have the second floor of that building that -- that we're going to have. That's the proposed design. So when we have an opportunity to do that we do it. The -- the building that we're looking at at Old 41 and New 41, that will be co-located with North Naples, so they will have a fire engine operating out of there with us. I mean, those -- those are some of the options we have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, in may, let me see in understand this correctly. The reason we don't want to co-locate in a building where somebody's going to give it to us rent free is because we can't get the impact fees? CHIEF PAGE: I'm not saying that that's my position. I'm just saymg -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. No, I'm just -- I'm using logic. You -- you can stand out there as a third person, you know, as far as this goes. I didn't mean you. I'm talking about the way we're set up. CHIEF PAGE: Well, it's -- it's come to haunt us because we've done Page 154 November 5, 2007 done it that way in the past; that's why our impact fees only cover one to 34,000 in population; that's why there's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But still, I mean, there's a -- there's a net of savings, isn't there, to the public? They're already paying for the station. I mean, I don't give a darn if it's the fire department collecting the taxes or we're collecting the impact fees. The whole thing is is what can we provide as a better service for less cost, whether it's them paying for it or us paying for it, but just because we can't get the money I -- I -- tell me why it's wrong to be able to take on a building where they're not going to charge us rent. CHIEF PAGE: I'm not saying it is, Commissioner, but there are times that -- you know, fire bases their station location on fire load. EMS usually goes back to the -- the map where we have all the dots on the page so that when I'm looking at this page here all of these dots represent calls in excess of 10 minutes. Where I need a -- where I need an EMS station may not be where they need a fire station. And it's vice versa, so CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's --let's go back to the one that we were talking about out there in Corkscrew. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that the one you just served as an example? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That -- those two dots there were the ones that -- and so, in other words, we're going to spend millions of dollars to be able to gain two minutes' time or something; is that what I'm hearing? Help me with this a little bit. I'm trying to find the best I can possibly do with the amount of money that's available. I personally don't care if they're impact fees or general revenue or they come from the fire department. A dollar's a dollar no matter where it is. Why do we need to have a building in our inventory if we can use somebody else's building free? Page 155 November 5, 2007 CHIEF PAGE: Well, again, the AUIR is, like, the worst-case scenario where we're going to try and build as much as we can. You're going to have opportunities like Ave Maria come up, Big Corkscrew making that offer where we may choose to do that so that that money's not expended. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we may choose, the commission. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think many times in the past we gave directions to you to pursue this every avenue you get, and it seems like every time they come back with the scenario of events how it works there's reasons why it won't work. There's got to be some cooperation taking place because the day's got to come when there's one unit and it's all the fire departments and EMS into one, and I -- I feel like we're getting farther and farther away from it. CHIEF PAGE: Commissioner, I'm the one that pursued the Corkscrew deal. I'm the one that pursued the one at Jeepers Drive. I mean, we do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But the Corkscrew deal is a bad deal, I'm being told, because we're not going to be able to collect the impact fees. MR. MUDD: No, sir. What -- what we're basically saying to you is -- you made a -- you made a statement. You said you don't care where the dollars come from. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't. MR. MUDD: Well, is it -- is it -- well, there's taxpayers out there that basically say, "Growth pays for growth, and my ad valorem dollars I want to have to go to library operations" or "I want it to go to landscaping. I don't want to have to offset the impact fee dollars that should -- that should transpire when you have to build a new unit or put a new unit on because you've got increased population in your county." And that's the dilemma that we're in right now. You can't interchange those dollars. Page 156 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I hear you, Mr. Mudd, but the truth of the matter is you've got a station that you're going to be able to access for -- for nothing except for utilities, and in turn you don't have to collect the impact fees for it to cover it. I -- I -- I'm lost on this. There's something I don't understand here -- MR. MUDD: So-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and you need to explain it to me. MR. MUDD: Yeah. So your ad valorem dollars -- you're telling me that you get the unit with the -- almost the million dollars for the new unit to -- to head it up with the staff that you need, and you're going to take that all out of ad valorem as far as that growth unit is concerned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought salaries couldn't come out of impact fees. MR. MUDD: Well, you take your growth unit up. As you bring it on board with all the equipment and stuff, you bring it out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So, in other words, if you use this fire station, you can't -- you can't take -- and your fire equipment can't be purchased with impact fees. MR. MUDD: That's -- your impact fees don't cover it. That's right, SIr. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you use somebody else's building? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Because you're using it, you don't get the credit for it. You're giving -- you don't get the credit for it for your impact fee. You're giving them a credit in the impact fee calculation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's they? Who's they? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The fire department. MR. MUDD: No. Well-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The fire department, another -- another government entity. I --I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing. I see where we're going to spend extra money. MR. MUDD: Your impact fees that you're collecting -- Page 157 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- okay, do not cover the cost for your growth units in EMS, may it be station and/or -- and/or ambulances, and equipment that -- you need to outfit those ambulances and your -- your paramedics, okay, when you bring the growth unit up. And the reason that it doesn't is because you rent facilities, and when you rent facilities you can't count them, okay, as a demand for your impact fee calculation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we're not renting it. We're getting it rent free. I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd. I -- I am trying awful hard to understand the point of view you're putting across, but I don't. Let's see. Commissioner Fiala, you came last. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas, then back to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're confused. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Huh? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're confused. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, maybe. I mean-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm -- I'm confused too. You don't -- you don't get a credit for your income to -- I mean, your -- your impact fee because you haven't expended any money building the building. MR. OCHS: That's correct. MR. MUDD: That's correct. You have to spend it to get it. MR. OCHS: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you can -- you can establish an impact fee that will create a fund for you to build a building just like we did with the government building impact fee. So why -- if -- if you are going to need a building two years or three years from now, why -- why can't you say we're going to set the impact fee so that we can get some money to build this building in a few years? Page 158 November 5, 2007 CHIEF PAGE: I'm going to phone a friend. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Now, I -- I think I know what the answer is. You can only justifY the impact fee ifthere's been an increased demand placed on you. MR. MUDD: Uh-huh. MS. PATTERSON: You can -- Amy Patterson for the record. You can only charge new development for what you have paid for in the past, and that's why EMS has gotten into a little bit of trouble because they don't own half of what they have. They have leased stations. We don't own those; and, therefore, you can't charge new development to reproduce something that you don't physically -- you don't own. If we owned all those stations, then your impact fee would cover re-creating those stations for the -- for new development. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that part, but are you telling me we cannot create an impact fee for building a facility in the future -- MS. PATTERSON: You can't use-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- based upon current increased demand? MS. PATTERSON: You could -- right. You can do that, but you just can't use your impact fees to improve your level of service. That's what the problem is is your impact fees establish one level of service in EMS, but you happen to have a higher level of service as your adopted level of service. That gap between the two is what your impact fee can't fund. Your impact fee can cover all the demands of new growth relative to what you've done in the past but no more than that. The improvements to a level of service have to come from another funding source, be it ad valorem or grants or whatever you might have. And so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that means forever and ever Page 159 November 5, 2007 ever we will never be able to get an impact fee established that will help us build an EMS facility anywhere in Collier County? MS. PATTERSON: Well, there's a couple of different ways that you could approach that. One would be to throw a whole lot of money at the problem to actually improve your level of service giving a credit, and -- and then because those stations would be immediately owned -- if you took a pot of -- of taxes and built a couple of EMS stations -- we own them outright -- and you put them on the inventory, you could increase your fee that way. Or the other way our fees have increased is we've built with -- based on what the impact fee demand because of growth, we've built stations, and as they're paid for as -- as -- as we collect money we pay them off, and we add those -- those buildings onto the inventory. It's a slower way to do things, but it gets you out of this credit problem as Mr. Mudd had talked about earlier. So it's just -- our impact fees are behind, and they always will be because of these leased stations. It's going to take a long time to get away from that, and the first thing is to stop leasing. There -- there can't be -- in order for your impact fees to cover what you need, you can't -- you can't lease anymore. And then you're just going to have to work your way out of the problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe what -- what we have here today is -- right now we have a level of service one for every 34,000, and what we really need to obtain is one for 16,400; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: That -- that's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So because of the fact that we've been -- since the -- since we've been co-locating but not co-owning, that's put us in the dilemma. MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, when it comes, as Commissioner Coletta was saying -- he said, well, you know, whether it's coming out of Page 160 November 5, 2007 it's coming out of one pot or another -- the problem is it's coming out of our pot, the -- the one that's under the county manager, and who's reaping the real benefits is the fire -- the different fire districts, and so I've got a problem with that. I think that we need to go after and make sure that we are -- have co-ownership. MS. PATTERSON: That works out the best. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That way we can justifY why we got the impact fees, and then I think this is where we run into a problem equipping these new facilities because we don't have the impact fees to buy the necessary ambulances to address the growth issue. Am I correct on that? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: In can address one more thing on the Ave Maria station, should Ave Maria elect to give you land and to build you a building, that's a different -- you need to set that apart from leased stations. That's different because if you're going to own it, they're going to give it to you free and clear, we handle that differently for the purposes of impact fees. That's not the same situation as leasing. That becomes ownership. It does go on the inventory, and we calculate a different type of credit for a contribution. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MS. PATTERSON: So those are good. If you get more of those, that's better. Those are not to -- you shouldn't shy away from those like leases. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, am having a problem. Don't go away, Amy. I'm still having a problem understanding it myself MS. PATTERSON: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I'm thinking the same thing. If you can save the taxpayer dollars and -- and you can pay for your Page 161 November 5, 2007 your equipment -- do we -- do impact pea -- fees pay for new transports? MS. PATTERSON: The -- the ambulance itself? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, they can pay for new -- anything new attributable to growth. That would be the station, the ambulance, and its initial setup. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, say, for instance, you don't have to pay for the station. Will it pay for the ambulance? MS. PATTERSON: That would be -- you'd prioritize the money you have. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: And then you would have to pay for what you could. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, if somebody gave us the station, whether it be that we're co-locating and they say, "You can have the space. All you have to do is pay for utilities" or "Here, we'll build you a station. You can move in," we can still get the transports to run it. Certainly, I'm -- impact fees don't pay for the personnel to operate them; right? So we've got the transport and we've got the station, and I'm having a problem understanding why we'd want to put out extra money if we've got it. MS. PATTERSON: You -- you would still have a gap between your adopted level of service and your achieved level of service. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now -- now we have, just as we were learning before and -- and -- and Jeff showed us how the transport -- or the -- the ALS engines were helping us out with that; right? They can go to a lot of these things where they don't need a transport there. Doesn't that help reduce that number, that one in thirty-four thousand to one in sixteen four because now we have two engines whether it be a transport or that going to them? Page 162 November 5, 2007 MS. PATTERSON: We -- well, that ALS engine can't be counted against -- in our impact fee inventory because we don't own it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but if we don't need the impact fee -- we're still giving the level of service. We don't need the impact fee because it's just paid for the transport. We didn't need to pay for the facility because it's already paid for. Now we're trying to get the level of service down to one in sixteen thousand four rather than one in thirty-four thousand. So we've got an extra ALS engine going out. So you've got your -- your -- your transport paid for. Your ALS engine's going out as well. So you've got all of this service. Why do we need to pay a few extra million dollars again? I just don't understand. I don't know why I can't get it through. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I'm not very smart either, I guess. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm having a hard time. Commissioner Henning might be able to help us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it come -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- I think where you're coming from it's theirs versus ours, and -- and the bottom line -- I think you're thinking it's not either ours. It's the -- it's the residents. And you're absolutely right, I mean, in my opinion. I'll -- I'll stick by that, but it's -- it's about serving the residents. It's not -- it's not the county versus the fire departments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not at all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So I agree with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So here we are -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, the staff still needs to come to us about co-locations; correct? You'll still come with those on all those proposals, and we can make that decision? CHIEF PAGE: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so, therefore, I make a -- I Page 163 November 5, 2007 make a motion to approve. And then I have a question for the county manager. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for approval. Do we hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what your motion is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the approval is for the recommendations that staff has given us; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. There is none. Okay. Then I have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is -- well, go ahead. Motion to approve -- I'm sorry -- the Collier County Planning Commission's recommendations or -- CHIEF PAGE: We do have staff recommendations. It's on page-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see it. CHIEF PAGE: -- 151.1. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 151.1, the last item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear from Janet Vasey what she thinks about this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Janet, do you have anything -- I mean, you don't have to speak on it, but if you have something to offer we'd -- we'd like to hear it. MS. VASEY: Okay. Just one quick thing. You don't have to -- to buy the -- the stations. It's just that's the only way you will help increase the impact fee collections is by buying your stations. Does it make sense to do it if somebody's going to give you a place to work rent free? No, it doesn't really make sense to -- to try to buy it yourself then, but that -- that is just something that you need to think about. You're not going to make yourself well on impact fees if you do a lot of that. So just a comment on that. One more thing. It sounds like from what things -- from what Jeff was saying was that that $10 million requirement -- by the time you Page 164 November 5, 2007 you factor in Ave Maria's gifts and the Corkscrew good deal, it might come down to about 7 million. Is that about right? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MS. VASEY: So just so you know that that's -- that's what the bottom-line additional revenue would be instead of the 10 million. And, also, one last thing on the -- the general fund loans. I just want you to understand that this will be a continuing problem because you're only collecting about a million dollars a year. And you're planning to add a new station every year, and the new station either costs you 3.5 if you have to pay for the land and the building and -- and the equipment or it's going to cost you about 2 million if you get some of that con -- through contributions, so you are always going to have -- every year this line is going to go up on general fund loans. I just wanted you to understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wished it was that easy. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Janet, you had mentioned before about the productivity committee maybe moving forward with that study and possibly including E -- MSAC into it. MS. VASEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would -- I would like to ask my fellow commissioners if they would agree that you move forward with that study, by the way. MS. VASEY: We particularly would like to because we've -- we've recommended as a sort of interim measure using the one unit for 16,400 people based on where we are currently, and the study supported that general level, so until we have a chance to really review it for the long term, you know, it's just sort of a temporary "we can agree to that," but if we could review it in more detail, look at the ALS units, and even, if you want, get into some of the operational issues we would really like to do that. The -- there seemed to be a lot of interest on the productivity Page 165 November 5, 2007 committee for doing that and working with MSAC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Got my nod. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mine too, but we still have a motion on the floor that we have to discuss too. I don't know. We got one COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got all that. No, don't withdraw your motion yet. I think just Staff Recommendation 151.1 -- for the 2007 AUIR staff is proposing no new growth units. Based upon findings and conclusions contained within the recent completed EMS master plan, staff is recommending a level-of-service standard of one unit per 16,400 population for inclusion in next year's AUIR. This loss is derived from the allocation of units to the population that currently exists and the per-unit ratio contained within the master plan. The executive summary of the EMS master plan is contained with the EMS component of this AUIR workbook. Okay. That -- that's the motion that you made; correct, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I removed my motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's -- okay. I -- but any case is there -- do I hear a motion on the floor so we can deal with this? Commissioner Henning, your light is on. Is that just dealing with something from before? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I have a question and possibly a motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it looks like -- correct me if I'm wrong, but the general fund enhances or loans to the impact fees for this -- this working area is about $3 million and above and beyond the transportation -- MR. MUDD: Are you talking about trans -- as Norm Feder transportation? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's -- let's forget Norman Page 166 November 5, 2007 Feder. Let's talk about a loan to the -- to the capital program for parks, libraries, EMS, all the -- all others except for -- except for transportation. What do we loan to -- to those? MR. MUDD: We're going to give him right now in -- in loan payment, it looks like, in '08 it's -- it's $814,000 to -- to EMS. So over -- over the five-year period of time you're -- you're -- you're looking at around 4 million doll -- a little over $4 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the overall is five million for all of them according to the productivity committee. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's sitting on page 154.2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's $5.8 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Per year? MR. MUDD: No, that's -- that's total, five years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- is that for all of the impact fees? MR. MUDD: No, that's just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the EMS. MR. MUDD: Just for EMS, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm trying to get an overall picture of it. MR. MUDD: Janet, was it about 17 million? MS. VASEY: We'd identified 25 million total that was part of the loans from the general fund, if that's what -- if you -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. VASEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. MS. VASEY: There was eight point one million for law enforcement, two point five for libraries, five point nine for EMS, and eight point six for government buildings for a total of twenty five five. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's over a five-year period. Page 167 November 5, 2007 MS. VASEY: That's for the five-year AUIR period, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And what do we pay now? Are we looking at an increase of general fund monies? MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we looking for an increase of general fund monies of what we're paying this fiscal year versus what we're talking about for this? MR. MUDD: No. I've got that worked out in the 301 fund where that -- that money is covered in that particular case. Now, we are waiting for impact fees to pay us back in the majority of cases. In two out of the four cases we believe our chances are good that we'll recover those dollars. EMS is in one place where we don't think our chances are good that we're going to recover, and we mentioned it. The impact fee is set at one to 34,000, and your -- and your level of service is set at one over 16,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's all coming out of301? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I agree that it doesn't make sense to -- in the case of Corkscrew to -- to -- to -- to not partnership with them and pay -- pay the -- I think that we need to partnership with the -- the other emergency services fire -- fire districts whenever we can and -- and try to co-build, but, you know, if you can't you can't. I mean, I -- I just can't accept -- the most important part is to get those units on the ground, so I'm going to make a motion to accept the productivity committee's recommendations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion for discussion until I can find what their recommendations are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Henning and a second conditionally by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could -- and I'd love to add that -- if this is okay with the motion maker, that we ask the productivity to move Page 168 November 5, 2007 move forward with this study and invite MSAC, if -- if that is their wish. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May -- may I make a suggestion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that would be a direction to staff COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we might want to keep separate from the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skip that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I think we're going to have a lot of support for it when the time comes. We'll finish the motion first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that discussion, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have the money to put the units in service? I think we're -- I think the -- the motion maker said that we need to go forward and make sure that we can put the units in service that we need to take care of the requirements of the citizens in Collier County. Now, my question is, how -- who's going to pay that? Is it -- do we have the impact fees to pay for this new equipment? MR. MUDD: Well, let's-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what they said. MR. MUDD: I want to make sure I'm not reading this wrong because when I -- when I look at these -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have a shortfall. MR. MUDD: -- two charts on 154.3 in particular -- because that has to do with the new level of service -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It has shortfall. MR. MUDD: -- I don't see when Janet says a new -- a new unit's supposed to -- a new unit's supposed to come on and -- but the Page 169 November 5, 2007 recommendation is that no units come on new for that five-year period of time from '07 through '12, and I see a big goose egg that sits right there on page 154.2 where it says units. So you're basically going to have a deficit of 3.4 units at the end of this three -- at the end of this five years. That's what that chart tells me. So I want to make sure that we're not -- we're not mixing apples and oranges here. You're -- you're still going to have a $10 million shortfall, okay, even with adding no new units. So, yes, sir, we've got the money in order to pay for that shortfall out of that 301 loan, but you're going to have a deficit at the end of this five years of 3.4 units unless the MSAC subcommittee and the productivity committee can find a golden egg someplace with this study that was just done by our consultant that took a look at ALS engines and our EMS and the new protocols that Mr. -- that Mr. Page described to you just a while ago. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the motion is -- is to -- what is the motion again? MR. MUDD: The motion is to -- to -- to follow the productivity committee recommendation, which is pretty much the staff recommendation, approval of the emergency medical services program. We recommend acceptance of the new level of service standard of one unit per 16,400 population for the 2007 AUIR. This LOS is consistent with the actual current level of service as well as recommendations provided in the EMS master plan. Since no new stations are required in FY '08, there will be time to fully evaluate the EMS master plan before additional capital resources are committed, and that's verbatim. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that tells -- that -- that's saying that we're going to go ahead and purchase this equipment? MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's basically saying we're not going to do anything in '08. We're going to go through further study to see if -- if we Page 170 November 5, 2007 we can find something else to squeeze out, and then we'll come back to the board at the next AUIR or sooner, depending on -- with this joint committee between MSAC and productivity committee what they, basically, determine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But right now our level of service is one per 34,000. MR. MUDD: No, that's what you're collecting as far as your impact fees are concerned. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your impact fees. Okay. All right. MR. MUDD: So you're collecting 40 percent of what you need to bring on new units. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got you. MR. MUDD: And that's our problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the "ayes" have it five to zero. Thank you so much. I know we put you through quite a bit. This has been a contentious issue. Now, Commissioner Fiala, you wanted a direction to staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I would like staff to -- to have the productivity committee meet and invite -- invite the MSAC group, if they'd like to, to study this issue further regarding -- regarding the whole EMS issue with the -- with the transports and the impact fees and so forth. Page 171 November 5, 2007 impact fees and so forth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shared stations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And stations and -- yes. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, those are your committees as the Board of County Commissioners. I would suggest that you have the chairman write a letter to both and let them know the board's desires as far as that's concerned so that that can happen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, would you do that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd be happy to if I can get one more nod. Yeah, I got them. We've got -- we've got enough nods. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Item #2M GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is county government buildings. Mr. Skip Camp will present. MR. CAMP: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Skip Camp, facilities management direcor -- director. This year it's pretty unremarkable. I will tell you that the planning commission had one comment. They did approve it, but their comment was, "Why don't we add -- why don't we include Marco Island and the City of Naples, their government facilities?" And the answer, quite frankly, is just that we don't offer those services in those facilities. And the -- the productivity committee also recommended approval. They did have a comment also about technology. I'm happy to announce that this year since -- since the last AUIR meeting we do have now a policy on working from home. We are also looking at what's called hoteling, people sharing desks, so we -- we Page 172 November 5, 2007 -- we are looking at technology and those kinds of things that we haven't really looked at in the past with any great degree of success, but we're looking at those more aggressively now. With that I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any questions at this time. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by Commissioner Halas, and I'll second that. Second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have no other capital improvements in this five-year plan except for what we're doing right now? MR. CAMP: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So this is kind of a no-brainer. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, where it really gets dicey in the facilities piece is what happens in the second five-year period of time. We're going to have to watch that very, very closely, and there's some things that'll probably slip out from that particular plan because of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well-- yeah. MR. MUDD: That's where the issue is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll worry about that when we get there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll all be here anyway. MR. MUDD: You won't mind if I worry about it a little bit ahead of time. Page 173 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I expect you to. We'll all be around to help you. We're staying for another 10 years along with you, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's enough discussion. All those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. Item #2N DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS: ISLE OF CAPRI MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on our agenda is the Isle of Capri Fire Control & Rescue ~istrict. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 174 November 5, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTE: The "ayes" have it five to zero. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice report, chief. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. Thank you. Glad you stayed around. Item #2N DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS: OCHOPEE MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on our agenda is the Ochopee Fire Control & Rescue ~istrict. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while we're here and before I let Dan leave, I just want to make sure that you're aware that -- that we've been approached by the Department of Transportation to -- to set up some kind of a, I'll call it, permanent but semi-temporary site on -- on 1-75 midway be -- Broward's got one on one side. We'll have one on the other, but Page 175 November 5, 2007 the other, but we'll have some kind of a law enforcement/EMS presence at one of the rest stops. We're investigating that still with them, but it -- it seems like the land nor the facility outside of maybe a trailer that would have to be put on station would be any cost to the county. And then you have to do the manning and whatever. That will significantly increase our response times on I -7 5. I -- I will tell you if you take a look at the stats from Ochopee and you -- and you -- and kind of take a look at the out-of-sector responses, out-of -- out-of-Everglades-City responses, there's a significant portion of those that are on 1-75, and I believe when you -- and you talk about response times. As far as the county is concerned, that will significantly increase our response times in -- in that part of the county. The other -- the other piece that's still out there and we're still coordinating with has to do with Port of the Isles. And they -- and they have a -- they have a -- a desire to have some kind of presence, may it be an ALS engine and/or EMS presence at that particular location. And all of those things are working in dialogue, and -- and you might hear something about those. I just want to make sure that you know that we're talking about them. Before we do anything, we'll be back to the board to -- to get your approval on them, but those discussions are transpiring, and they specifically have to do in and around the Ochopee Fire Control & Rescue ~istrict. Did I miss anything, Mr. Summers? MR. SUMMERS: No, that's it. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, Mr. Bosi, I think we've done them all. Now it's your turn to wrap it up and get the votes that you need, sir. Item #3 Page 176 November 5, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPTION OF 2007 AUIR MR. BOSI: Thank you, commission. One thing I do ask -- and within the executive summary there are six specific recommendations we ask for you to take upon the AUIR as a whole. I -- I -- I went over them within my -- my PowerPoint presentation, and, Commissioner, if you'd like me to go over them verbatim -- MR. MUDD: Can you give me the page numbers that they're on, sir? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page 9. MR. BOSI: Page -- page 9 within the executive summary. MR. MUDD: The annual update and inventory report, after that tab, page 9. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Number 1, you're saying that we have adequate facilities? MR. CAMP: Correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make a motion to do so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. Page 1 77 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second one you're saying that we have significant road network system? MR. CAMP: Correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should ask our constituents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can comment on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I haven't had a complaint about the road capacity in over three months, so I'll make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next one is to accept and approve the attached documents, not that we agree with them. You just -- okay. I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? Go ahead, Commissioner. Page 178 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I suggest that -- that the motion be modified by saying that we accept and approve the attached documents with changes as previously discussed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to because it wasn't clear. A head shake wasn't clear from Mr. Bosi, so we'll do it that way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that will be included in my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the "ayes" have it five to zero. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to accept Category A as amended. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr.-- Page 1 79 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: ~iscussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Randy wants to talk to you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Randy, go ahead. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, I just wanted to point something out. Normally, we bring the CIE back to you for a vote in March. Given the action that's going to be taken in January by referendum and, also, what the legislators do this particular session, we would like to as a staff bring it to you a little further in the process in case something runs askew with respect to your revenue stream. And I would just like that direction to bring it to you after the legislature actually takes its final action. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we don't want to take any action on 4 then? MR. COHEN : You want to take the action with further direction to actually postpone bringing the CIE back to you as a body until after the legislature adjourns. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you talking about their -- their '08 -- MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, where normally we would come to you after going through the planning commission in -- in March of '08, but we would probably wait to go to the planning commission probably until March or April and to you probably April or May. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, the -- the session -- the legislation session doesn't end till May, so how do you want to work that? MR. COHEN: It's going to be tough. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A suggestion, by -- by April you're going to know if they have anything-- MR. COHEN: Pretty much I think we're going to know. We're going to -- you know, there's two ways to do this. I mean, if we bring it back and your revenue stream is low, what you're going to be actually implementing is something that -- that's -- that's not going to work. Page 180 November 5, 2007 work. If I -- you know, this is snapshot in time. The CIE's a snapshot in time. I think we're going to know after January what's going to transpire with that revenue. The key is what is the legislature going to do. Obviously, you know, as a -- as somebody, you know, in the planning profession, I don't have to send them this book until prior to December 1. Okay. We're -- we're very early in the process, but I didn't want to mix, you know, apples and oranges and have you reviewing an AUIR for the next year while still having this CIE in process and confuse the two processes together. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about if we bring it back to the board in July? And that way you'll have enough time to get it to the productivity committee and the planning commission. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't -- July -- yeah, we have a meeting the end of July. MR. MUDD: You could get it July or the last meeting in June. That will give us enough time to do that, sure. MR. COHEN: That would be fine. The CIE, you know, because-- you know, the only thing that's going to transpire is if we have some massive changes in taxation we're going to have to go modifY this AUIR that you approved, and I just wanted to make sure you knew that at -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a motion to direct the county manager to bring back to the Board of Commissioners no later than the July meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is that included in your motion that we have on the floor? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I removed it and amended it. Page 181 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Fine. Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Now, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think another thing that we need to put into this equation, too, is it's my understanding there's a possibility that there may be another special session in January. COMMISSIONER HENNING: January. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that adds a little more to the -- to the information here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but the -- the date we got will cover that too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it will. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just letting you know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And No.5. MR. MUDD: No, sir. Category-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to do Category B? MR. MUDD: You have to do Category B before. Page 182 November 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we want to bring that back too. Well, it doesn't have -- even have to report to him. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just a motion to approve. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve as amended? COMMISSIONER HENNING: As amended. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As amended, right, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you want to look at an alternative revenue source for hurricane shelters? MR. BOSI: No, this was asking whether you believe that hurricane shelters should be included within the schedule of capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's -- it's not a board of one. That was my opinion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. We -- we understand that, Page 183 November 5, 2007 Commissioner Henning. Thank you for -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess nobody else in -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We haven't challenged you on it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Recommend that the Collier County staff carefully scrutinize the action taken by the legislators, which we're doing, in 2000 ACA, the result of Category A. So we already did that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already did that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're all done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait a minute now. We've got to-- 5 doesn't require a motion one way or the other? MR. OCHS: You gave us direction in the past the possibility of including it. In our executive summary, we asked that it not be included, and that's what we're asking you in -- in the recommendation -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- that it be -- not be included as part of the five-year CIE. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you -- MR. MUDD: What -- what you're going to get -- what you're going to get in here if you get into this business -- this is another one. Be careful what you ask for. You have other counties that have separate MSTUs that are set up to do hurricane shelters. You don't have it in this county. Okay. We've worked very well with our school district. And evacuations have been -- we've worked very good on routes, and we're -- we're still working on our timing business a little bit with the state study that's being done. Commissioners, if you start looking for a standard on this thing, and it -- it -- it could get very expensive for the county, and I don't think it's a -- I don't think we're -- I don't think we've got a problem. I think we're doing pretty good as far as the system that Page 184 November 5, 2007 the system that we've got set up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not arguing, but I -- shouldn't we have a motion since it's part of the agenda? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The recommendation is that -- that we not include this within our five-year schedule of capital improvements. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion -- second staffs recommendations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by -- motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll just send you out to say, "Get out of here. Get out of here." CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're -- we're going to let them come to your house. And with that -- no, we're doing an excellent job in Collier County meeting this need. I don't -- we're not coming from far behind. The homes -- most of the homes that we have built in Collier County would stand up to just about anything short of maybe a Category 5 or a -- or a -- or a tidal surge along the coast. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and we've got -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're better prepared than most areas. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And, again, we've got a great working relationship with the school district. Mr. Summers talks to anyone of the new PUO folks that if they're going to have a clubhouse that they -- they develop it in such a way that it can at least house the people if they need it within their communities, so we're -- we're working -- we're working through that. And -- and we've got a lot of community help and -- and Page 185 November 5, 2007 help and -- and support in this regard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now -- go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On that -- on that subject are there any grant dollars ever available to those mobile home communities who are a little bit older, really nice communities, and they have their clubhouses but to harden up their clubhouses? MR. MUDD: Uh-huh. That's this ORI business is that we had on the agenda last time. We had to take it off because of a payment schedule. We had a little problem with the clerk. They're all back on for the 13th, and I'm reviewing them right now. And it's basically to put grant monies out there. It's CDBG money that's hooked right into hurricane recovery, and it gets into those mobile home communities hardening their clubhouses so that they have a place to go into, yes, ma'am, exactly like that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. MR. MUDD: You'll have an opportunity to approve that real soon. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The "ayes" have it five to zero. Number Page 186 November 5, 2007 Number 6. MR. MUDD: Sir, you already did that when you did the Category A. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Great. MR. MUDD: And that was part of the -- and that was part of the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I -- I think we really need to thank staff. Michael, Ran -- Randy, Joe, you did a tremendous job with this. I know it's been a very, very long process. I mean, the planning commission, the -- the productivity committee, not to mention us, and you -- I -- I -- you seem to be well versed. Probably every question we asked has already been asked two or three times, but thank you. MR. COHEN: Well, commissioners, thank you very much. And one of the things I wanted you to do -- you -- we -- you always look at the persons behind some of this stuff. All your graphics and all your tables, that's Beth Yang out there, and she's done all that as far as the AUIR. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. YANG: Thank you. MR. MUDD: And I -- and I think the best compliment that could ever be made to these folks comes from Mark Strain. And Mark Strain wrote a little -- a little e-mail to Mike and to -- and to Randy, basically said this is the best AUIR as far as detail is concerned that -- that they'd ever had to review in preparedness of staff, and they -- and they have done an exceptional job with this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we direct you to write a letter to the planning commission and the productivity committee to thank them for their -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- tremendous amount of work? Page 187 November 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make one suggestion in addition to that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. You take them out to dinner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I was going to do it with your credit card, but my -- my suggestion was -- I've -- I've already -- this isn't an original one that came from me. It came from another person, which -- who I won't -- won't mention at the moment, but his name -- his last name is Strain -- that maybe we do a proclamation and write the letter. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that's excellent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This has been -- this has been phenomenal. I mean, we've been so many years with this process, and, boy, has it been contentious. And, I mean, you dealt with it. Nobody committed suicide. It's been wonderful the fact that we got to where it is. And I was going to deal with that on the side, but since we already suggested that I think both would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think anybody has any objections to that. Yeah, you -- no, I'm not going to let you go if you have an objection. Okay. With that I think we've covered everything. Mr. Mudd, is there any last-minute thing that you need to cover? MR. MUDD: No, sir, we're done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We're done. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 4:04 p.m. Page 188 November 5, 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPE~CTSlJNDERITSCONTROL (fH: JIM COLETTA, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ~ ~rOc. Attest II to eN . , ligutln .1.,.-' Thes~utes approved by the Board on or as corrected , as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 189