Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/28/2003 W (NCWRF; Road Financing; & Strategic Planning)February 28, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 2003 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Joe Schmitt, Norm Feder, John Dunnuck, Jim Deloney, Jeff Walker and Leo Ochs Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA February 28, 2003 9:00 a.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Agenda Items A and B will be heard in the Board of County Commissioners Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Bldg. F, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. Item C will be heard in the Supervisor of Elections, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, immediately following Items A and B. A. North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility B. Road Financing C. Strategic Planning 3. Adjourn February 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the special meeting of the board of commissioners to order. Would you all rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. And the clerk of courts' Jim Mitchell will lead us in the pledge. Please come up here. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: This morning we've got two items that we're going to cover: That is the wastewater treatment plant and then the bonding issue with the roads. And then we're going to go into strategic planning. And we're going to go on to the supervisor of elections for this. So we'll get through these issues and then break and walk down to the elections office. MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning, do you know what time we're supposed to head down there? Our security guard was asking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: When we're done with these two items. Yeah, if he could just focus on what we're doing, then he'll know when we're going to go down. MR. MUDD: Sir, the agenda today has three items: It's the North County Water Reclamation Facility. And this is basically a continuation item from Tuesday's agenda. It was Item 13(A), and it was a discussion that the board was having with the Clerk of Courts. That's item A. That will be followed by road financing. And that was an item that the board asked us to come back and talk to them about. And it had to do with an item that was before the board at the last meeting in January where we were -- we're advertising our bond issues and asking you to go out -- for us to have bonds against the gas tax. And one of the things that we're -- was on that particular item was the fact that we were asking the board to take a stance about continuing the gas tax -- gas taxes that had sunsets for a 30-year period of time. And there was some comment that was made, and you asked us before -- and you took that out of that particular item Page 2 February 28, 2003 and said you approved it without that -- you wanted the staff to come back to you and talk to you about those gas taxes and the need for continuing them as far as additional bond items. And we're prepared to discuss that with you at item number two. And then the third part, we'll go and do our yearly process, bring you up to speed upon about what we're doing as far as the strategy items that you had last year, and then ask you if there are any additional items or changes that you would like to make to that process before we go into the budget process in the next couple of months, along with a budget policy, and then finally getting the staff to work on the budgets for the 2004 season. So without -- and then that's the three items that we're going to do today. Hopefully we'll all be done before 12:00, but let's go to the first item, and that's a continuation of item 13(A) from the last agenda, and that's a discussion with the Clerk of Courts about the North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the record, Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, of counsel for the clerk. We have had (sic) in the last couple of days been working with Larry Farese, who's the attorney for Mitchell and Stark, with regards to an appropriate certification that would provide the requisite necessary determination at the time the contracts were let both to Mitchell and Stark to do the $6 million project, as well as change order number 11 to Project Integration, which both involve the flow equalization tank construction activity at the North Collier Water (sic) Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The action taken by the board approximately two years ago on the consent agenda articulated a determination predicated upon section 255.20(1)(A) -- 1 (A) and (B) and (C). And my opinion and my guidance and my legal opinion to the clerk is that based upon the information I've been provided is that my opinion is that in this Page 3 February 28, 2003 particular instance that the appropriate factual predicate determination for that criteria have not been achieved. However, in discussions with the county attorney's office, we began talking with them about a month or so ago, a question and issue was raised with regards to whether or not a determination could be made appropriately to waive the competitive bidding requirements under section 255.201(a)(5) (sic), which provides for waiver of the competitive bidding requirements when a project is undertaken as repair or maintenance of an existing public facility. That determination has not been made by this board, but we have been in the last two days, with the cooperation and assistance of Mr. Farese, who is the attorney for Mitchell and Stark, who's been doing the drafting with input from my office, and I believe from the county attorney's office, prepared an engineer's sworn certificate that is of a form and content that once executed by Hazen and Sawyer, who is your engineer of record in design in conjunction with this project, and accepted by this board, would provide the appropriate determination to waive the competitive bidding requirements for the construction contract between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County and Mitchell and Stark, dated on or about July 18th, 2002. And change order number 11, dated April 2, 2002 to the construction agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida and Project Integration, relating to the North Collier Water (sic) Wastewater Reclamation Facility Flow Equalization System package number two, equalization facilities project. And my opinion and guidance to my client would be that would provide the appropriate determination, once accepted by this board, for the appropriate payment, continued payment-- processing of payments under those contracts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In layman's terms, in other Page 4 February 28, 2003 words, the developer, the contractor, whatever we want to call the gentleman, is supplying the certificate, testifying to the fact that -- what exactly is it saying? MR. PIRES: The engineer's certi -- I'll read it verbatim and I'll try to read it slowly. I have -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can explain it just in layman's terms. That will work out fine. MR. PIRES: It certifies that the -- those two contracts, the one with Mitchell and Stark and change order number 11 with Project Integration concerning the flow equalization project at the North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility, constituted the repair or maintenance of an existing public facility, pursuant to Florida Statute 255.2(1)(a)(5), Florida Statutes, which then allows the waiving of the competitive bidding requirements. So basically they're saying that that capital project constituted the repair or maintenance of an existing public facility such as to authorize the contracts to be let without going through the competitive bidding process at the time they were let. And that solves the issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then we were right in paying him. MR. PIRES: Pardon? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we were right then in hiring him; is that what you're saying? MR. PIRES: It doesn't go into that determination, it just says at the time the contracts were let on July 18th of 2002, as to Mitchell and Stark, April 6th, 2002 as to the change order involving Project Integration, that the engineer certified that the projects outlined in those contracts constitute repair or maintenance of an existing public facility under the statute so as to allow the board to waive the competitive bidding requirements, if the board accepts that certification. Page 5 February 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me, Tony, does this -- you're saying that what we went through Tuesday, the only thing that was missing was this document from a signed professional engineer; is that correct? MR. PIRES: No, I'm not saying -- what I'm saying, the discussion Tuesday involved discussion with regards to the -- in the past the board and I believe the staff was of the opinion that the statutory criteria for waiving the competitive bidding process was achieved by virtue of 255(1)(a),(b) and (c), damage or destruction to an existing public facility. And my opinion to my client, based upon the record that I've reviewed and the materials provided, that that does not appear to exist. There was, however, some discussion we've had in the past with regards to this 255.201(a)(5), which is outlined in this certification -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm trying to get at here is that with the -- this valid piece of paper, we now can go and proceed to pay the bill to the contractor; is that correct? MR. PIRES: Continue processing the payments in a typical normal pre-audit function by the clerk. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this is the only thing that was really missing in order to accomplish the task of continuing payments; is that correct? MR. PIRES: What was missing was the determination that criteria existed under the statutes -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the criteria. MR. PIRES: This is one of the criteria. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is one of the criteria. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, what else do we need? What else needs to be -- Page 6 February 28, 2003 MR. PIRES: No, this is one of their different criterion, different determinations that could be made. This is -- MR. BROCK: Mr. Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. MR. BROCK: Dwight Brock, Clerk of Courts. Let me see if I can answer your question. The way the statute reads is it requires a competitive bidding process for projects, and it sets out what you have to do in that competitive bidding process. And the statute says that there are certain contracts for which that bidding requirement does not exist. There are several of them. There's a multitude of them, two of which is the one that you addressed in the executive summary, and another one is that it only be for repair and maintenance of an existing public facility. This board had made the determination that one criteria was met. I presume that was what was intended. And we're saying that even though that one may not have been there, there's another one down here that if in fact the engineer that did the work in designing this will tell us that this is repair and maintenance, then it is exempt from that criteria. That determination has never been made by you or anyone else. And we're asking both you to make that determination, if you so choose, and for that engineer to tell us that that is a fact. This is one of the arguments that was made in the county attorney's argument from the 1 lth of February -- or 7th -- dated the 7th of February. But this has never been addressed before. Am I making it a little clearer? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, let me explain it. The Clerk of Court, the one who holds the county checkbook, if this is certified by the engineer, he's going to pay the bill. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. MR. BROCK: And this board says we agree -- Page 7 February 28, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. MR. BROCK: -- we're paying the bill. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which part more that you need for your comfort level? Is there any -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I -- I think I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I could use just a little more help. I don't want to, you know, rock the boat, be the wet blanket on this party, but it sounds to me like this engineering firm is speaking for (sic) behalf of the commission and doing our jobs. Have we delegated them to be able to do this? MR. BROCK: Okay, repair and maintenance is not defined in the statute. If you look at the common definition of repair or maintenance, it essentially means that you take it back to the same level that it was originally. If the engineer is willing to tell us that that is what happened, with the understanding that I'm cutting a check based upon that representation, I'm willing to cut the check. Because the statutory criteria have been met because of his representation to me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle's been waiting patiently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had one more question, but I can certainly wait my turn. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with Commissioner Coletta, I don't understand it. I don't think it's necessary. But that's a determination for the clerk to make. My only issue is to get this project going, because it will be disastrous if those payments are not made. If a certificate from the engineer is adequate to get you to pay the bills, I'm real happy. I'm only disappointed that it took so long to do it. Page 8 February 28, 2003 But in any event, this particular thing is not signed. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is not a signed document. MR. BROCK: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my real question is, what happens if they don't sign it? MR. BROCK: This tells me that this is not repair and maintenance -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. BROCK: -- and as a consequence then, you do not have an exemption from the statute. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, your opinion is we don't have an exemption. MR. PIRES: My opinion to my client is that there is no necessary appropriate determination. The appropriate predicate does not exist to waive the competitive bidding requirements. That is my guidance to my client, especially involving expenditure of public funds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's your advice. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think Commissioner Coletta is right, that maybe at that point then the board can make that determination and we can settle on other means. But that's fine, if this -- I agree that if this issue goes away, that's proper procedure to continue. And if it isn't, we'll address it at our next meeting. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm a little bit more concerned than just making a problem go away. I want to try to come up with a system that's going to be more proactive than reactive. I don't want to see this happen again. I mean, for all the resources of this county to be tied up in such a silly little thing that Page 9 February 28, 2003 we've already determined that we have to have an outside firm that's going to be issuing a check come back and say that it's for repair, God forgive me that we're going to have to take the word of every vendor out there to make a decision for the commission. I still have a problem with that. You can explain it all you'd like, but that's how I feel. I really do want to come up with a program that's going to be more proactive than reactive in the future so we can avoid these kind of blips. We should be taking care of these things when they happen, not months and months later. MR. BROCK: May I make a suggestion to you that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please. MR. BROCK: -- would take us great strides in solving that problem? Stop putting these types of issues on the consent agenda where there is a public debate of the issues and appropriate determinations made on board record. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, and I take exception with that for the simple fact that we were totally briefed on this, we had workshops, we had many meetings leading up to it. The consent agenda is exactly what it is. We go through it word for word. Each one of these commissioners read it in great detail. If we find anything that's objectionable, we pull it and we go through it even more detail. We have numerous meetings. Plus also, the clerk's office has access to these way in advance, and if they've got a problem, they come in here and say pull this from the consent agenda. That's what's called reactionary rather than -- being proactive rather than reactive. Taking care of it at the time and the source that it happens, not months later. Forgive me, but I'm not happy about this, how it's coming down. I don't want to go to court, but I'll tell you right now, this is only a temporary fix and I don't see it as a real fix, to be honest with you. We have to come up with something that's going to take care of this problem in the future. Page 10 February 28, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd, do you have anything to add to this before we move on to the next item? Unless there's any more questions -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: One simple one for Tony. Tony, if we have a spill or a leak or something and we run in to fix it so that we don't continue to have spills or leaks, what -- besides repair or maintenance, what other name could it be called that doesn't fit in the statute? I mean, being the statute says repair or maintenance and that's what we were doing, and we're kind of being criticized for spending the money, or wanting to spend the money to repair it, what other name does it not fit? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? MR. PIRES: Yes. And I guess to clarify it from my perspective and I believe in my client's perspective, it's not a criticism of wanting to spend the money to resolve an issue. The concerns are with regards to -- there's a very detailed statutory scheme to competitively bid, and the competitive bidding process is established to protect the taxpayers and citizenry and their funds in the State of Florida. There is a process to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're talking about emergency repair and maintenance. And I guess that's my confusion is, you know, if you -- the statute says that it's legal for repair and maintenance and that's what we did, and so we -- you know, I don't -- I only have a high school education. Repair and maintenance to me means to fix something, and so that's why I saw no reason to put across emergency funds to pay for that. MR. BROCK: Commissioner, you know, I don't want to get up here and the same stuff that happened Tuesday, okay? I want to read to you a letter. And I'm going to read to you and I'm going to leave and let you take care of your business. This is a letter dated March the 25th of 2002, written by Roy B. Anderson, professional engineer. It is copied to James Mudd, Page 11 February 28, 2003 Thomas Wides, Karl Boyer, Joe Cheatham, Keith Kleinmann, Albert Muniz, Gary Bors, Peter Schalt, Kurt Pieffer and Charles Davault. It is written to Richard W. Cantrell of the Department of Environmental Protection. It is the letter written in conjunction with the request for the amendment to the consent order. It says, initially the concept was to allow the present NCWRF 5-mgd expansion contractor to provide us a negotiated price proposal to do the work. This is the project that Mitchell and Stark did the work on. However, events have unfolded to lead us to believe that it is in the county's best interest to competitively procure the work; thus, the extension is needed because the original 14-month schedule assumed using the current NCRWF 5-mgd expansion contractor. The county currently is preparing additional cost proposal packages -- it's already been taken to project engineering -- to receive the final two of three price proposals from our annual fixed-term contractors. As you might know, this project has been submitted as a candidate for state revolving loans. Robert Ballard of FDEP in Tallahassee informed us typically the FDEP requires that these types of projects be competitively bid. However, three proposals would be more favorably viewed for eligibility for the SRF funding, as opposed to our original plan of negotiating a price with the current NCWRF 5-mgd expansion contractor. If you have time to bid it, where is the so-called emergency? You have all the documentation in hand, you've already given it to them. All the statute requires is 30 days of advertisement. Where is the emergency? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, what -- I don't know who's going to answer this, Mr. Brock or Mr. Pires, but the fact is, as I understand this time line, that bidding documents were put out to three contractors and they responded with sealed bids. And, in fact, when those bids were opened, we found one that was substantially Page 12 February 28, 2003 lower than the initial sole source bid. How -- what bearing does that have on this issue? I mean, first of all, we're saying that the emergency which permitted us to not observe the competitive procurement process was illegal, okay, because we didn't have justification for it. But then as time developed and FDEP took a lot of time in getting the permit to us, it appeared that time was available. It seems to me that the staff took action which was designed to get competing bids on this issue. What bearing does that fact have on all of this? MR. BROCK: The criteria -- you want to answer it, Tony? MR. PIRES: IfI could. The competitive bidding advertising and bid procurement process was not followed, according to the outline contained in the county attorney's memorandum. In the spring of '02 Hazen and Sawyer completed the design. This was about a year after the initial consent agenda to determination of emergency. Project Integration, who is the existing contractor on-site, gave a price proposal -- you know, the county staff went through the existing contractor only in the spring of'02, gave a price proposal, which was about a million dollars too high. Two months later, I guess, because in June of'02, there were three sealed proposals. In other words, the county only approached Project Integration, Mitchell and Stark and D.N. Higgins. They did not advertise, even though they had plenty of time between the spring of '02, which I assume was like March or April, until June of '02 to advertise. That's more than the 30 days required under the statute. They were just given to these three entities. And the contract wasn't awarded until July 18th, which was about a month and a half afterwards, by Mitchell and Stark. And then two weeks thereafter there was an extension to the consent decree as to the flow equalization tank to have that on line by 10-31-03, which is the date outlined in the March 25th, '02 letter from Roy Anderson to DEP. So I guess at the time the contracts were let, it does not appear Page 13 February 28, 2003 that there's factual predicate to show that there was the opportunity for an emergency to waive the competitive bidding process existed. In fact, there was approximately, it appears to me, about a three or four-month time frame in which it was just picked -- three contractors were picked to provide these proposals to solicit proposals from. MR. BROCK: All that having been said, however, if Mitchell and Stark-- because we have searched everywhere for a definition of repair and maintenance. In the statutes it gives us some guidance, and we have found nothing that would tell us that it won't fit in there if Mitchell and Stark will tell us -- MR. PIRES: Hazen and Sawyer. MR. BROCK: -- that it's repair -- I mean Hazen and Sawyer will tell us it's repair and maintenance. And we will take care of this issue and put it behind us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I -- Tony, I simply cannot understand how you can relate the decision made by a Board of County Commissioners in 2001, when they believed that there was an emergency and FDEP was preparing a consent order, and they had every reason to believe that this was an emergency. They declared the emergency. The fact that there was an additional time, which was unanticipated, was because FDEP took so much time in revising the plan. The reason the initial contract was issued was you cannot respond to an FDEP consent order without having a plan. And FDEP then reviewed the plan and FDEP said you have to make modifications to the plan. And then some time later FDEP gave us a permit. That provided time. I think the staff did exactly the right thing. First of all, they had all of the legal evidence, as far as they were concerned, from the board of directors, not to follow the competitive bid process. But instead, they took the additional effort of soliciting sealed bids. And the submission of sealed bids is a competitive procurement process. Page 14 February 28, 2003 And they did what they were supposed to do, they saved the taxpayers a million dollars or more, and they're on schedule to do the job. I simply cannot see the fault to the taxpayers here. But I do see a tremendous, tremendous cost to the taxpayers if you don't pay these bills and that contractor walks off the project. Or I can see an additional cost to the taxpayers, which should not be tremendous, if we go to court to try to settle it. I just think the interpretation is very narrow, but that is an issue that has to be determined by the lawyers, not me, okay, and I'm not going to try to determine it right now, Tony. The issue as I see it right now is if you pay it -- if you pay this thing, we're all going to be real happy. If you don't pay it, we're going to be real unhappy, and we're going to have to find another way to solve it. MR. PIRES: If I may address a number of issues that you've raised, Commissioner Coyle. First of all, with regards to the process of it's utilized (phonetic) did not comply with the statutory requirements for competitive bidding, the fact that it went through three different entities that were handpicked by the county staff does not comply with 255.20. Secondly, with regards to the determination made by the Board of County Commissioners in May 22nd, 2001 on the consent agenda, the staff asked, as a matter of consent just said subsection 255.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Florida Statutes gives the Board of County Commissioners discretion to waive this requirement under emergency circumstances. However, none of the criteria outlined within 255.20.1.A.B or C were even outlined or articulated in that staff report or in the record that particular day. There's no factual predicate for that. The statute says that that particular statutory provision provides for when a project is undertaken to repair, reconstruct or repair an Page 15 February 28, 2003 existing facility damaged or destroyed by a sudden unexpected mm of events such as an act of God, riot, fire, flood, accident or other urgent circumstances. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other urgent circumstances. MR. PIRES: Mr. Coyle, if I could, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please. MR. PIRES: The county knew for a long time this plant had problems. Be but be that as it may, there's nothing in the record to support that from a factual basis. We've been trying, working with the staff, your staff, to get these facts. The memorandum by the county attorney's office dated February 7th, apparently issued February 1 lth, even says additional facts have come to our attention of which the clerk is not aware. That gets back to the issue of was there factual predicate for that determination. Then you go forward to when the contract was let, was that achieved at that time. In my opinion, the answer is no. And that's my opinion and guidance I'm giving to my client. As to this other opportunity for the waiver of the competitive bidding requirements, in 255.20(1)(a)(5), we've had discussions with the county attorney's office for about a month. I raised the issue, get a certification from an engineer. At the time we talked about getting a certification from the project engineer as to damage or destruction from the existing facility. It now appears there might be the possibility of getting the certification from the engineer, be accepted by this board, to put this issue to rest, to not engage in any further debate or discussion or bandying about, to serve the taxpayers. The clerk has his role. He has a very detailed constitutional and statutory role to make sure that all the expenditures were authorized by law. My opinion to him at this present time, the way the record is established, the authorization does not exist. This certification, once accepted by the board, would provide a necessary predicate for the waiver of the competitive bidding requirements, and my advice to Page 16 February 28, 2003 my client would be he can comply with the statutes, disburse funds under normal disbursement process, and not suffer risk or exposure from an unauthorized disbursement of taxpayers funds. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you finished? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think the bottom line is that we'll probably disagree on your interpretation, and there's only one way we'll solve that, either you pay the bill or we go to court. MR. PIRES: If this board refuses to accept any certification by the engineer, or if the engineer does not certify that a constituted repair or maintenance on existing facility, or if the engineer does not certify that it was repair or an existing damage or destruction, then the statutory criteria have not been achieved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the consent order pretty much identifies what work has to be done and it classifies it. I think that is sufficient for the board, as far as I know, based upon our legal counsel. But I hope you get the signed certificate, I think that would be a great thing to do, and get on with this thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Clarification. You're saying that the engineer certifies it and the board recognizes the certification, correct? MR. PIRES: Or accepts the certification. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or accepts the certification. I thought it was the clerk that was going to accept it. MR. PIRES: Well, the former-- the certification is an appropriate forum in content that once executed and accepted by the board provide the appropriate basis for waiving the competitive bidding requirements at the time the contract was let that would allow the payment process to continue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective is the clerk is elected Page 17 February 28, 2003 by the public to sign the checks for, in this case, the capital improvements of the county's facilities. And the board, the commissioners are here to provide in this case infrastructure. And I don't think that we really need to agree, but I think to resolve this issue that we can go forward with this certification, and let's continue working together for the best interest of the public. That's my opinion. I don't know -- do I see a hand? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that pretty well covers how I feel. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this issue is done? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's not done, it's -- unless there's no further discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question. Is there a time frame here? When is done? MR. PIRES: As soon as the engineer certifies it and this board says we accept the signed certification. If they take that action today and say if he executes a certification, we would accept it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? MR. PIRES: From our perspective and my advice to my client. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. I'll let you go first. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you. Well, you know, our process in getting here today has been looking at statutes, consent orders, contracts, letter by letter, word by word. So I can't let it pass that if we're going to be talking about the statutes, the ones that are referred to today, then we must be accurate. And in regard to a certification by an architect or engineer of record, under the Statute 255.20, the one that's been bandied about so much, it ultimately talks about it being signed off on and presented to the governing board prior to the approval required in this paragraph. Page 18 February 28, 2003 So it's a presentation to the board. The board is already on record of indicating that they believe that there's an emergency. I also believe, and the attorney has to speak up at this point, that we've been begging the question for a long time because we all know that the North Water Treatment Facility is an existing public facility. We do know that the work that was required under the DEP consent order was in fact telling us that we had not maintained the facility to function as it was supposed to. How literal do we have to be to not understand the English written both in the statute and the consent order that we had an existing public facility that needed repair and maintenance, it was not functioning, an agency of higher authority at the state level had declared so and put us under significant hardship and responsibility to correct the facility. County attorney -- assistant county attorneys Bill Mountford and Ramiro Manalich were present at a meeting on January 31 st with Mr. Pires, Jim Mitchell, Steve Carnell of our purchasing department. At that time not merely in the dated February 7th, but delivered February 1 lth or 12th memo from Bill Mountford, but on January 31st, the subsection five, which have been discussed again today and I passed to you, which is an exception to the bidding requirement says, when the project is undertaken as repair or maintenance of an existing public facility. And the comments that came from the clerk's faction at that time was that doesn't apply, that's even worse than number one, meaning the emergency aspects of that same statute. So we felt a bit rebuffed in an ability to resolve and be problem-solving to what may have been ostensibly legitimate differences of opinion in interpretation. I believe even prior to that, but I can be corrected, if the record was, that Mr. Brock had required, had said he wouldn't write any checks unless there was a certificate from an engineer who was not on the county staff. And he wanted a seven million dollar indemnification. Now, I defined-- that's an insurance policy, in Page 19 February 28, 2003 essence, in case the checks that were ultimately written were illegal. Well, that's not required by statute. It in essence -- there are other terms that can be applied to trying to place that requirement on a staff or on an outside architect or engineer. Who would sign that? No one would sign that. That's part of what we've been dealing with as we look toward resolution. So we're getting there, yes. And in fact, in the last two days I checked with Jim on both Wednesday and Thursday, after our Tuesday board meeting, have you met with the clerk on this? And of course Jim had indicated and through Leo, they'd asked to see with the clerk contact, and there had been no contact with the clerk or his attorney with their office or with our office until this morning just prior to the meeting. They worked through Mr. Larry Farese, the attorney from Cummings and Lockwood, who is the on-line counsel for Mitchell and Stark. So the documents that I placed before you, and the clerk has talked about, Mr. Pires has talked about this morning, the engineer's sworn certificate, wasn't crafted by the county attorney. I saw it because out of courtesy Larry Farese called me up Wednesday afternoon to say he'd been pulled in by the clerk to apparently broker a solution, and he hoped that his client would get paid. And the -- and they required Larry to draft the certificate, although he asked if they would provide him one. So he drafted it. And then Tony -- he provided his draft to Mr. Pires and Tony provided handwritten comments back to him, and that's what has created the final document that you have before you. So yes, I became aware of this certificate in the offing, in the making, through the courtesy of Mr. Farese, but we were given -- I think all understood from Tuesday's board meeting that the clerk and the county attorney and the staff manager's office were to work together. And we've worked and we've worked very hard, but it's kind of an end-around as we get here. Page 20 February 28, 2003 I just want the record to be very clear about that, as I think we're all looking for solutions. And in fact a certificate may be presented to the board, and I think that the board will want to be prepared to receive a certificate. And it is talking about an approval pursuant to not an acceptance of a certificate, but that in essence achieves the approval of the board having worked outside the fixed statutory requirements for bidding through that subsection five, which reads, when the project is undertaken as repair or maintenance of an existing public facility, which I've never seen a fact more obvious than that from two years ago for this facility. Now, also working diligently in the meantime, my office has prepared a resolution for the Board of County Commissioners to consider, if in fact this stop gap measure of a certificate by the engineer is not signed or not signed timely. And this is a resolution of the board, and I'll read the title, if I may, into the record, and pass it out momentarily, if desired. A resolution of Collier County Board of County Commissioners reaffirming and declaring a valid public emergency relating to untreated wastewater spills, thereby necessitating the maintenance, repairs and improvements at the North County Water Reclamation Facility, a public facility, and approving and ratifying all prior actions of the board and staff in managing said emergency. And I want to take this time again to say that the Board of County Commissioners is the legislative and executive governing agency of the county. It's in their province, pursuant to 125.01, the powers and duties of the Board of County Commissioners, and in fact it's within their province under 255.20, the statute concerning local bids and contracts for public construction work. It says the county, not the county clerk, it's their province to make a declaration of emergency. And I truly believe that there were a plethora of facts that were before the board over a period of time. And if we're going to go literally within the confines and the Page 21 February 28, 2003 four comers of every executive summary that came before the board, I think that what we'll find, and I'd be happy to show the judge, is that we had an ongoing situation that was picked up on from time to time to continue to get us to the point that we needed to be to be in compliance with the DEP consent order. And it's tree that in some of these executive summaries, it didn't say and as the board declared back in March and May of 2001 we have an emergency, but the board said it, and they said it and it was factual and on the record at that point and it was a fact that it be part of the record, and the acts that were related to the fixing of that treatment plant thereafter. So there's my statement, and we do have a resolution. I'd be happy to have the board at least review it today. It doesn't have to be passed today. But if we find ourselves shortly in a position where we're not getting the release through this engineer's sworn certificate method, then I think we'll need to go to court. And I'd just as soon have this on the record before we go as well. Thank you. MR. BROCK: I have one comment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if we're -- anymore discussion on this, if we're going to come to resolution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think we have a game plan, and I want to thank you for getting that process going. And if it doesn't work out, we'll resolve it some way for the best interest of all. So Mr. Mudd, anything else? MR. MUDD: No, sir, I think we're fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Brock. MR. MUDD: It looks to me, based on maybe some things that maybe weren't unsaid, that we're coming back to the board on the 1 lth of March with hopefully a Hazen and Sawyer certified bid, a resolution, or some action on this particular case, hopefully to the very positive. Page 22 February 28, 2003 And I'd like to thank Dwight Brock for working with the staff. He's been trying to help us, and we've been trying to work as a team through this process. So my hat's off to him. And they've been trying to do their thing. And Dwight and I, when we first met, we said there were going to be times when we're going to be able to agree and there's going to be times when we're not going to be able to. And so we all knew that. And -- but it's still, it's a very open relationship with the clerk and it's much appreciated. So I'd like to thank you for that, too, because that is for many years -- and he's mentioned it before, for many years that hadn't been the case. And so it might look bad to the public out there, but I will tell you, this ain't bad. This is the way it's supposed to be. And we're supposed to be able to talk about issues and try to make it better for the future. And if anything, we learned from this particular item. We know where we need to be more careful in the future and we need to make sure that we have the clerk on board very early in that process to make sure I've got his expert opinion. Thanks, Dwight. MR. BROCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: ***Next item, B, road financing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. We're here to talk today about gas taxes and the road -- the long-term road financing plan. Before we launch into the specifics of the road financing plan, I would like to just give a basic overview of the gas taxes that we're talking about. I know at various times -- you have this in your package as well, as Page 1. Gas taxes, first and foremost, are an appropriate funding source for transportation expenses, because all users of the transportation system pay their respective shares for the use of that system. The board has made a policy decision to use gas taxes for the Page 23 February 28, 2003 road construction program. The various gas taxes that are in question, there are a number. The first is the constitutional gas tax, the 80 and 20 percent, which is two pennies. The second is a county gas tax, which is one penny. The third is a nine cent or voted gas tax, which is one additional penny. And then there are two, the ninth is a voted tax, it's also known as the voted tax; that is a local option that is not shared with municipalities. And then there are a five cent local option and a six cent local option that the board has opted to impose, and those are respectively five pennies and six pennies. So collectively you've got six and five, 11 -- 15 pennies of gas taxes. The last two, the five and six cent gas taxes, are shared with municipalities. The expiration dates are noted. The nine cent tax is set to expire in March, 2010. The five cent local option gas tax in August of 2023, and the six cent local option is set to expire in August, 2015. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry, you finished, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just about, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll wait till you finish. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I just want to talk about the municipal shares as well, the proportionate shares of the local option gas taxes. The various governmental entities, Collier County, the City of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. Collier County receives the lion's share of the gas taxes, just due to its broad unincorporated area population. But it's also important to note on the gas taxes themselves that are shared, they provide the cornerstone of the municipal road financing for maintenance and resurfacing programs at the city level. In your package, the city -- on Page 9, the City of Marco Island indicated approximately 43.3 percent of their streets program is funded by the shared -- by their pro rata share of the five and six cent local option gas taxes. And unfortunately I received it late yesterday Page 24 February 28, 2003 from the City of Naples, so it was not in your package. Gas taxes on average over the last five years comprised 71 -- approximately 72 percent of the total revenue of the City of Naples' streets fund, which is used for road resurfacing and bridge maintenance. And both municipalities as well, I talked with Mr. Mohlke, who's familiar with the Everglades City's budget as well. The importance of the locate option gas taxes to the municipalities cannot be understated. Obviously if there were no shared gas taxes, from their perspective, the revenue source that they would be required to use for their resurfacing programs and street maintenance efforts would be ad valorem taxes on the municipal level as well, so that's an important component. That kinds of completes the overview before we get into the specifics of the road financing plan. Commissioner Coyle, I understand you had some -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess I'm primarily the one who urged you to bring this back, because I was concerned that the -- about the expense of a 2025 plan and the necessary revenues to support it. I've reviewed the information you have given us, and I do understand, I think, and you can confirm this for me, that you need an extension of the gas taxes so that you can issue bonds, 20-year bonds. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that if you don't have the extension, you really cannot issue those bonds. At least at interest rates you'd like to issue them at, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, we have some limited capacity remaining. The constitutional gas tax was not pledged on the issue that was sold this past week, so we have about $26 million of capacity available remaining there. But without any extensions, we would-- our capacity, with the exception of the constitutional gas tax, is exhausted. Page 25 February 28, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, my point all along really was this: It's almost impossible, I think, to project out 25 years how much you're going to have to spend on capacity improvements. And if you cannot be precise about that, and you've already issued a bond, say in the year 2003-2004, what happens in 2018 when you find out you really don't have all those expenses associated with capacity increase? That's my concern. But we always have the capability, I hope, to terminate a gas tax early, if we wish to do so. Is that true? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe so. I'll turn to Mr. Weigel. I think there's sunset provisions that are available in the statute. They have to close statutorily I believe in August of a given year. But I think -- obviously the board I would think could issue a new order that would supersede the previously adopted ordinance that extended the gas tax. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I believe that that is exactly right, Mike. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we can do that, you solved my problem, okay? I was just concerned about a projection for 2025 that cannot in any way be verified. But as we move forward, we can evaluate, every five years or every 10 years, where we are with respect to expenditures and revenues, and we can make adjustments. If one of the those adjustments should be sometime along that path letting one of these gas taxes expire, as they were originally intended to, then we have the authority to do that and that solves my problem. MR. MUDD: Let me, if I can just clarify that one point. And Commissioner Halas, this is intended -- we're talking about strategy today, and we're talking out 20 years. That's the farthest I've had the commission out with me in a very long time. And that's a good thing to do, because we're looking out to the future. And it's a very dicey time, because you can't really do that with any kind of certainty. But I will tell you, if you don't have a focus -- and that's why I didn't mind putting it on the strategy workshop -- if you don't have a Page 26 February 28, 2003 focus of where you want to go, you're never going to get there either. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You better believe it. MR. MUDD: Or you'll end up someplace you never thought you were going to be. But Commissioners, I want to make sure that we talk about this a little bit. These bonding issues that we're talking about, this $192 million, okay, is the bonding piece of the road program that we're in arrears in, okay? That has nothing to do with impact fees, has every -- and it goes back to the half penny. And I don't even like going back there, because there's enough scars here and there and everybody else on that one. But one of the things, when that was defeated, it was you'll have to bond those dollars, okay, in order to do that. And one of the things that the board had talked about was using all gas taxes and a third of the sales tax. And that's what was pitched. And what I had Mike do is to lay down what we're going to use the rest of the sales tax for as far as bonding issues are concerned on Page 8, so that you know that, you know, if we don't have those extensions to the gas tax, okay, at least to the sunset of this second bond issue, then we're going to have to go with sales tax, and that means that we're going to have to do without a court annex expansion, a jail expansion, the regional park, the emergency op. center, the new fleet facility, and oh, by the way, we still have $66 million of that that I'm going to have to pull out for that -- you know, the rest of the sales tax in order to do that. And I had him lay those out for you on this process. And the real thing that I'm concerned about, we need to have at least some of our sales tax left in reserve so if we have an emergency -- if I could find real wood here I'd knock on it and say that it wouldn't come up -- but we need to have something there so if we have to do an emergency bond item to recover from a natural disaster, manmade or God-given, we're going to have to have Page 27 February 28, 2003 something there. And the bottom line is if you don't extend those local option gas taxes to the sunset of this next bond issue, then you're going to get your sales tax so burdened that you won't have that latitude. And I don't believe, as the county manager, in my due diligence and duty to you, that that is a good idea, okay? I would not suggest it, I would not recommend it, and I would recommend against it very strongly, that you get yourself so tight that you couldn't get out of an emergency if it came. And that's not good business. And it's one of the things that the tourist development council and the coastal advisory committee tried to come up with, some kind of reserve that doesn't exist in their 1 O-year plan. They're trying to put $500,000 a year off to the reserve in that emergency plan to build it up over a 1 O-year period of time. And that's only for the coast. God help us with what happens if we really get an Andrew type storm that hits here -- again, I'm going to knock on wood; I'm not saying this and I'm not trying to foresee it either, I'm praying that it never happens. We're going to do everything we can to make sure that we're as protected as we could possibly be. But you're going to need monies in order to do that. And I will tell you, FEMA is trying to divest themselves as much as they can out of their funds in that process, because they have budget issues too all over the country. So that's what we're trying to get to and talk about and to give you the whole sheet so that you get to see it all, so it isn't bits and pieces, that you get a holistic look. And that's kind of what I asked Michael to do. And I think the staff, at the time when they said we want to extend it 30 years, in that paragraph three, I think that recommendation from, may it be a financial consultant or whatever, was probably a little bit too pushy. And I don't think it -- it didn't have to go out that far, especially if you're only going to issue a Page 28 February 28, 2003 20-year bond in 2005. It doesn't have to go 30 years, it just needs to go to the end. And Mike knows when those are com -- when those issues are going. The next piece of this you have to understand is a local option gas tax. And I think Mike put in a piece from Marco Island about revenues. And local option gas taxes, they get a slice of that into the municipalities, and they use those monies to do their road work in. So if those gas taxes go away, those municipalities are going to have to look at other revenue sources in order to make up for the gap that they no longer have. And the last thing I'll say, what a wonderful nexus between road building, okay, and bonding and actual building the road by taxing. And I hope I don't make anybody mad, but the tax on gas that goes into the motor vehicle that uses the road is probably the closest nexus that you'll ever get between a tax that is collected and the actual benefit of that tax for a road or resurfacing or whatever. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The user's fee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The county manager answered my question, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I am in support of what you're suggesting. What you have moved from is a 30-day extension COMMISSIONER HALAS: 30-year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 30-year extension-- no, that's even wrong, it's not a 30-year extension, we're moving the expiration dates of three of the taxes from the existing date to 2025, which is not a 30-year extension. And I am supportive of that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. Page 29 February 28, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, we're on the same page. And here's a very simple summary that shows the gas tax bonds and sales tax combination needed to get to the 192.9. This was the initial road funding plan that the board adopted about a year and a half ago, 147 million in gas taxes, 45.9 in sales for the 192. The last couple of days we got about $100 million in project funds. With the constitutional gas tax extension, you would get another 26.3 million, that would get you to 126. So the residual to get to the 192 would be 66 million of sales tax. Obviously you get in the 150 to 160 range with the extension to 2025 of those three taxes, and obviously you see the corresponding reduction in the amount of sales tax required. One other thing that will work in our favor long-term as well, the sharing mechanism on the gas taxes, they are by formula and they are based. There is not an interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County, it is done based on the statutory formula which is the five years of actual transportation expenditures in the county relative to that in the municipality. Over time the county's shares should grow, obviously, with all the road construction we have underway relative to a city that's virtually built out. We're going to outspend them by massive amounts. And the shares that I showed you earlier should tilt in the favor -- when those are renegotiated, in the favor of Collier County. And that will also pick up some marginal capacity there as well, which again will further insulate our sales tax from need for the road program. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your question, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, question, it's more of a statement than a question. Thank you for recognizing me. I agree with Mr. Mudd, this is the fairest way in the world to ever tax our citizens to get something done. Once again, in Page 30 February 28, 2003 perspective, we've had previous commissions that pride themselves on the fact that they never borrowed a dime and they kept lowering the ad valorem every year. Of course nothing got done. And we came to a meltdown situation where we had to take immediate and drastic action. And that's where we are today. But there's one little thing I think we need to clarify is I don't want to lead anybody to the misconception this money is going to be used over the next 20 to 25 years. It's money that's going to be used to replace infrastructure that was supposed to have been done years ago, but it wasn't responsibly taken on. And would you please emphasize that, so we don't leave any misconceptions -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- out there what we're dealing with? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's absolutely true. The subtotal on these pages is a representation of the five-year shortfall in the road funding program, and you're having to bond and pledge these revenues to make up that shortfall, and that's why you see such a large volume of roadwork underway in the county at this moment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This bonding of transportation funds for transportation, this doesn't just leave the door closed to roads only, it -- does it open the opportunity that maybe down 10 years from now we can come up with other forms of transportation, other than road building? Would -- could you use this money for that type of-- MR. MUDD: No, sir. These bond issues that we're doing, the first one that you passed last meeting, and that was based on the gas taxes that were in place and sunsetted whenever they did the -- minus the two constitutional pennies, the first two, that was the first installment, it was about $104 million when you finally get to it. And we'll know that based on how many people buy them and what Page 31 February 28, 2003 our final tally is. That was your first installment of the 192 million that we basically said that we would need to bond in order to make up for the 257 thou-- 257 million. I'm getting in days and years and thousands and millions -- $257 million shortfall that we had with that backlog that we had before, as we addressed that to the public and whatever. And it still leaves us, the county, looking for 60 million pay-as-you-go money from whatever source that we can come up with. And that has everything to do with what I'm going to talk to you about as far as a budget policy for next year and for years to come, to try to make sure we hold down our cost and the increased assessments are enough so that we can find that $60 million in order to make up that last piece of the $257 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to -- let me clarify something. As Commissioner Coyle said, we're bonding these gas taxes way out to the future. If we don't need that for roads but we -- can we convert that to other forms of transportation? Say we want to go to some type of light rail or something to move our citizens from one area of the county to another county, do we -- is this taxed specifically for roads, or can it be used for other modes of transportation if we don't need it? MR. MUDD: What he's basically asking is the gas tax, what can you use it for. What are the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the item that we had on our last agenda identified the different projects. So that -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what he's asking is the legal uses of the gas tax, what the gas tax -- the one penny, the two pennies, the fifth penny, the seventh penny, the ninth penny, the five cent and the seven cent -- or the sixth cent, what can it be used for. Norman, I'm going to need your help on this one. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, the gas tax can be used in any form of transportation, and it can be used on maintenance, as well as Page 32 February 28, 2003 capacity expansion. These first issues here are specifically to catch up on road issues -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, I understand that. MR. FEDER: -- but gas taxes in the future can be used on any form of transportation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any action item? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, with the series of three nods, hopefully five nods, we will bring back that paragraph three from that item back to the board at the next meeting so that we can go out there and advertise it, and we have some kind of advertisement notices that we need to make on extending those gas taxes for the next bond issue. Michael? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. We would need-- the county attorney typically would require approval of the board to be noticed to prepare and advertise the ordinances to extend the respective gas taxes. They would be advertised and then we would bring forth the executive summary -- the respective executive summaries which would require ordinances to extend each of the respective gas taxes. I believe they would probably be separate ordinances as well, but -- MR. WEIGEL: He's doing a fine legal job, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think you have a consensus of at least the majority to proceed and put this item on our March 1 lth agenda. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. MUDD: Sir, we'll at least get paragraph three on the record with a vote the next meeting, and then we'll do all those other items for ordinances and whatnot in the coming weeks and months. The next thing Michael needs to announce to you is, hey Mike, how did our bond sale go? Page 33 February 28, 2003 MR. SMYKOWSKI: It went very well. The retail bond sales were held on Wednesday, and the institutional sales were on Thursday. Roughly $50 million were purchased by retail investors, which typically the belief is that you can typically get a lower interest rate from an individual investigator who's typically buying it in smaller lot sizes than an institutional or large investment firm may be. But the market was very favorable on Wednesday. It was a little softer yesterday. But it was overall a very successful sale. There was a lot of local sales as well. Collier County Paper, there was some other Florida paper in the market this week. The financial advisor, though, indicated that Collier County's paper, we would have probably overall the lowest interest rates of Florida paper that was in the market this week. So congratulations, and we have the first stage of our funding secured to construct the projects that some of which are underway and some of which will be forthcoming over the balance of the year. So we look forward to that as well. We'll be looking for the chairman to sign some -- the bond purchase agreements later on today. And closing is scheduled for I believe March 12th in which Collier County would actually get the approximately $100 million into our coffers at that point. MR. MUDD: Thanks, Mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- MR. MUDD: Commissioners, one other piece of business, and then we can break and go off to do strategy. I made a statement during the last meeting, and it had to do with items 8(A) and 8(B), and I-- Mr. Conrecode-- Mr. Ellis got up to speak, and Mr. Conrecode got up to speak, and Mr. Conrecode was talking about the road impact fee second phase being in with the water/sewer impact fees. And because the water/sewer impact fees are coming on-line on 1 April, I made a statement then the transportation phase II, the full transportation impact fee, would come on-line on 1 April. Page 34 February 28, 2003 I gave you bad information. That transition will transpire on 1 October, 2003, when the utility rate structure goes into effect. Because there are relocate costs in our utility fees right now. And I can't do -- we don't want to have a double payment for an issue. So I want to correct that for the record. The second phase road impact fee, the increased amount that's got relocates in it, will not go into effect until 1 October, 2003 when the new water/sewer utility rates go into effect. And that is in keeping with the prior resolution that you had in ordinance that you had passed, and it's also -- we've also looked at all the numbers to make sure, and that's the right thing to do. And I just wanted to clarify that particular point with you and not leave any misrepresentation out to the public. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With no further discussion, this is a -- it's not a recess, an adjournment, and then we're going to go into workshop. This is an official action that we took today, if needed. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are adjourned. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM THE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT WAS PROVIDED BY MANPOWER: -Mr. Mudd explained to the commissioners that he chose to have this meeting in Building "B" since it was more conducive to discussion. He went on to address a slide presentation that covered the strategic planning session. Included in the back of the packet was a section listed "objective tasks and details". Mr. Mudd explained that this section showed what tasks requested by the BCC have been worked Page 35 February 28, 2003 on or completed over the last year. He asked the BCC to keep in mind that strategy is a long term plan that covers a number of years. -Mr. Mudd took the BCC through the slide presentation. Below follows the content of the slide presentation and a summary of the commentary of Mr. Mudd. 1) Slide 1: Collier County Strategic Planning Workshop 2) Slide two: "The World is too big for us. There is too much dying, too many crimes, casualties, violence and excitements. Try as you will, you will get behind the race...in spite of yourself. It is an incessant strain to keep pace and we still lose ground. Science empties its discoveries on you so fast that you are out of breath trying to keep up with them. Everything is high pressure. Human nature cannot endure much more." -Atlantic Monthly, 1837 -Mr. Mudd explained that we are still trying to stay ahead and the way to do so is with a good plan and to stay focused. 3) Slide three' The Planning Cycle Citizen's Survey - Strategic Planning- Budget Policy- Budget Development- Budget Approval (Public Hearings) - Employee Action Plans - Citizen's Survey -Mr. Mudd explained that strategic planning is important because the next step is to figure out how to budget the money in order to reach the county goals. The list on the slide represents a yearly cycle for the county. Once the Citizen's survey is complete the county must come up with the strategies to meet the goals, then budget, etc.. 4) Slide four: Collier County Strategic Planning 2003 Review of 2002 Planning Session Review of Strategic Goals Stratification of program priorities -Mr. Mudd explained that these three items would be topics of discussion in the meeting. Page 36 February 28, 2003 5) Slide five: Our Mission To Deliver Services to our Residents and Visitors that Exceed Expectations. -Mr. Mudd explained that this was a lousy "mission" statement since it does not address who, what, when, where, or why. He argued that although it was lousy, it was a good mission statement as well because everyone in the county knew the mission statement. He added that they would work on this statement over time, but he wanted to keep it simple, so that everyone is aware of it. 6) Slide six: Our Vision We envision an organization that has the best employees; produces high quality results; is creative and proactive; is fiscally responsible; and is community driven. 7) Slides 7-11: Our Fy01 Goals A) Slide seven: Best Employees Objectives: Recruit and select qualified applicants · Develop our Employees Retain our Employees -Mr. Mudd stated that this was important, an example of why is that there is a 15% vacancy rate in EMS. The EMS shortage is increased because employees are going to other counties where they receive higher salaries. He added that development is important to avoid "stagnant employee", this would lead to nothing knew being brought into the process towards improvement. B) Slide eight: Produce high quality results Objectives: Establish expectations Deliver products and services that exceed those Page 37 February 28, 2003 expectations. C) Slide nine: Creative and proactive behavior Objectives: Encourage risk taking and innovation. Be aware of emerging technology Be aware of community change Establish long-term goals. -Mr. Mudd explained that county employees cannot be afraid to make decisions. If they are afraid to make a decision then managers find difficulties in taking charge of the people delegated to them and the accomplishment of the goal is hindered. He added that if the employees are following the law and making decisions that they are delegated for, then the hierarchy needs to back them on these decisions in order to encourage good decision making and proactive behavior in the future. D) Slide ten: Fiscal Responsibility Objectives: Achieve value in purchase and delivery of products and services Plan and execute sound budgets Plan long term fiscal impact -Mr. Mudd emphasized that getting a good and fair price is valuable in spending the tax dollars wisely and effectively. He explained that although the county is not always perfect with this, they must strive for the efficiencies. E) Slide eleven: Community Driven Objectives: Establish community and neighborhood partnerships Build relationships Respond to community needs and expectations Page 38 February 28, 2003 -Mr. Mudd reminded the commissioners that the reason county government is in position is because they are hired and elected by the community. They need to strive to reach the communities goals and make this top priority. Relationships are important to assist the county in better serving the community. 8) Slide twelve: Our Values Integrity, reliability, teamwork, caring, professionalism, responsiveness, customer focused, accountability, and ethical behavior -These values are the background atmosphere for the county and all decisions to be made should fall within these values. 9) Slide thirteen: Key Business Drivers Protect public health and safety Manage community growth Enhance quality of life requirements Demonstrate fiscal stewardship -Mr. Mudd referred to the county as a business and explained that like a business the county is driven by business needs. 10) Slide fourteen: Major Business Process Regulate land use Provide services Employ people (byproduct) -Mr. Mudd explained that this slide shows what the county "does". Hiring employees is a byproduct of regulating land use and providing services. 11) Slide Fifteen: Major Products and Services: Health, safety, and welfare Infrastructure management and development Recreational and cultural opportunities Code enforcement, permitting and education Land use planning and regulation Legislative development and review Page 39 February 28, 2003 Employment opportunities 12) Slide Sixteen: Strategic Planning Process Key customer requirements, key stakeholder requirements, employee requirements, and senior leader assessments - key strategic issues, identify strategic priorities, and allocation of resources -Mr. Mudd further explained that the county speaks with the citizens through the Annual citizen's survey, they meet with homeowner's associations, developers, employees and senior leaders to find what the requirements and needs of the county are. He added that the county desires to delight the customer and satisfy their employees. Through this process of communication the county is able to identify the key issues, prioritize, and allocate resources. Last year the key strategic issue was to establish and maintain trust in Collier County government. 13) Slide eighteen: Key Customers: Tax payer (residents, tourists, and visitors) Municipalities, special taxing districts and community associations Business community State and federal government agencies -Mr. Mudd explained that the business community is a customer because the residents look for help in diversifying the county and its businesses. On the same note, state and federal government agencies are customers because they hold land and authority in the county. 14) Slide nineteen: Key Customer Requirements This slide covered projects and or services that most need improvement, the information was gathered from the 2002 annual citizen's survey: Road/traffic matters, control/manage growth, county government performance, health care concerns, water, crime and safety concerns Page 40 February 28, 2003 -Mr. Mudd used health care concerns as an example of why it is important to address these issues. He explained that if the medical concerns are not addressed, if the residents cannot receive proper medical care in this county, then the people will move out of the county to where they have better performance and quality of life. He added that he believed water concerns should be at the top of the list, but it is listed in the location that the survey placed it on. 15) Slide twenty: Key Stakeholders: Constitutional officers, advisory boards and committees, municipalities, bond holders, school board, vendors, contractors, A/E firms, consultants, and employees -Mr. Mudd explained that these people or groups have a stake in the community because they use county facilities, are empowered to make decisions, are involved in bonds, interlocal agreements, etc... For example the schools have a stake in how the roads are developed since they need sidewalks for children and will be using county roads to bus the children to and from school. A/E Firms are concerned about they are going to be paid, just as employees, which gives them a stake or concern about what decisions are being made in the county. 16) Slide twenty-one: Key Stakeholder Requirements: Know we listen, reacted, and are sensitive to their concerns Provide timely competent responses Satisfied constituents, users, and customers Obvious benefit to community/county/state Improve communication Apply county resources against their concerns Provide consistent interpretation and execution of ordinances and statutes Stay within budget and deliver what's promised - on time Image improvement -Mr. Mudd explained the image improvement is important in Page 41 February 28, 2003 protecting people's and business' s interest in the county; if a contractor is to do work with the county or people volunteer time for committees, then they need to be assured that there image isn't "tarnished" or they will no longer want to do business with the county. 17) Slide Twenty-two: Employee Requirements: Competitive pay and benefits Enhanced career mobility and training Quality leadership and supervision Work standards and accountability Improve organizational efficiency Excellent internal customer service Safe work environments -Mr. Mudd stated that 72% of the employees of the county have salaries below market value. He emphasized that they need to work on this and it will be part of the budget proposal, but this cannot be fixed over night, it will take some time. He added that they are moving in the right direction. Mr. Mudd explained that these requirements are important because you need people who want to go to work in the morning. The employees in the county are also residents who want to leave a legacy and provide a valuable service to their neighbors. 18) Slide Twenty-three: Assumptions: Growth will continue at the present rate with a corresponding demand for county services Quality of life expectation will remain high Customer/taxpayer is willing to pay for certain delightful service Competition for qualified employees will increase -Mr. Mudd explained that in order to reach goals, one must make certain assumptions in order to begin. He added that Collier County will remain the fastest growing county in Florida. The growth rate Page 42 February 28, 2003 for Collier County is 18,000 - 20,000 new residents per year. In the year 2025, the county expects to have over 700,000 people in high season. The quality of life will remain high because they come to Collier County because it is "special". Mr. Mudd used residents paying for street lights as an example of people willing to pay for certain services. 19) Slide Twenty-four: Senior Leader Assessment: overhaul contract management, customer outreach plan, organizational/business management process, employee investment plan, e-government, de-centralized government, technology management, grant acquisition program, quality assurance-quality control plan, government facilities master plan, and capital funding plan. -Mr. Mudd informed the BCC of the areas of concern discussed by last years senior leaders. To improve overhaul contract management the staff has itemized projects, trained project managers, and created a task force to take on these projects. He stressed that they need to get out to the customer and find out what the requests, concerns, etc.. are. The staff response times from to the BCC has been better, because the county has been working on this goal. The staff' s goal is to provide an answer to the BCC in five days, or if the question warrants longer investigation, then to provide an interim response until an answer can be provided. Organizational/business management process has also been worked on. The staff has attempted to lay down ground-rules. He emphasized that good organizations do routine things routinely, which is why they are trying to have fewer exceptions to the rules. The county has begun using emails as notifications for shut-off, etc... They are working on a county facility on Orange Blossom in order to facilitate the decentralization process. Although the county cannot buy every knew piece of technology, they have formed a committee to look at the new technology needs and make sure that technology is being Page 43 February 28, 2003 shared through county facilities and not unnecessarily duplicated. The county has a masterplan for government facilities, but it is not followed and is constantly changing. They are currently working on establishing a team that will take in all the facility requests, organize them, work them out, and budget them appropriately. 20) Slide Twenty-five: BCC Action- External supported Affordable housing- Donna Fiala Health and Human Services- Jim Coletta Economic development and redevelopment- Frank Halas Growth management/Smart growth- Tom Henning Green/Open space- Fred Coyle Fire and EMS services Airport services -Mr. Mudd explained that these are the "horizon" committees. Currently all of these committees are still meeting and the commissioners are still working on these topics. The last two topics still needed assistance on the political end of their goals. Mr. Henning stated that he met with the fire officials last week, will continue working with them as a liaison, and they will be meeting with staff in the future. Mr. Coyle will be working with the airport authority in the near future. Mr. Coletta requested that the Ava Maria university be added to this list. Mr. Mudd had concerns that conflicts may arise since decisions regarding their development are decided in the county process, but stated that he saw no conflict with Mr. Coletta meeting with them as he has in the past. Mr. Feeder asked that a liaison be appointed to the school board. Mr. Shcmitt replied that it is regulatory to appoint a senior staff person and a new member is to be appointed to planning commission that will be appointed by the school board. 21) Slide Twenty-six: BCC Action- Staff supported Employee investment plan Decentralized government Page 44 February 28, 2003 Capital funding plan -Mr. Mudd explained that they are considering a new facility near Immokalee road. Mr. Deloney is looking into placement for utility facilities. Mr. Coletta suggested setting aside --- 5 acres for future use of a government facility. 22) Slide twenty-seven: Shadow Staff Action: E-government Grant acquisition plan. -Mr. Mudd explained that e-government is not in as much demand here as in other areas, but they are attempting to go online. 23) Slide twenty-eight: Essentials: EMS facility and construction, stormwater, utility upgrades, recruit, retain, and train employees, Jail construction, landfill, transportation improvement backlog, GIS, web strategy -Jim Deloney stated that they will present a plan to the commission on March 11, 2003 in regards to extend the landfill capacity for the next fifty years. 24) Slide Twenty-nine: Hot Key Business Drivers: Exceed customer expectations Invest in the future Political/Community support. 25) Slide Thirty: "It is Collier County's strategic goal to rebuild and maintain public trust by dedicating its resources and efforts to the following strategies:" Revise the GMP and LDC to improve the county's ability to manage and control the rate and quality of future development Develop reliable public infrastructure and resource management processes Improve the financial planning management and reporting processes -Mr. Mudd stated that the goals and strategies reviewed at this meeting were the goals and strategies that they came up with last Page 45 February 28, 2003 year. He invited suggestions, comments, changes, etc. He stated that there is approximately 1-2 years away from completing the first objective regarding the GMP and the LDC. He added that this is the goal that they are the furthest along on. Mr. Henning suggested that the LDC heading numbers be changed. Mr. Schmitt has a committee and a contractor are working on this and coming up with some ideas other than the number system. Mr. Mudd stated that in the end of 2005 they will have the reliable infrastructure in place. County is also working on resource management processes. He asked for the patience of the BCC in this process, but added that they will see yearly improvements in these areas. He added that the county is putting a system in place to compare itself to other counties in order to assist in how the financial planning management and reporting process is completed. Mr. Henning asked that the annual survey be reviewed. Mr. Mudd stated that they are attempting to come up with different survey forms and firms. The attempt is to get at the issues better and reach more people. Mr. Henning added that the survey should not only be sent to voters, but to all residents; there should not be politics in the survey. Mr. Mudd received nods from the BCC in agreement and stated that the county staff will work on this. 26) Slide Thirty-one: Strategic Objective #1: To adequately plan and manage the county's growth, redevelopment and preservation A) Revise and update the GMP and LDC as directed by the BCC B) Maintain the level of service standards (LOSS) established through the annual update and inventory report (AUIR) in the GMP C) Sustain short, intermediate and long-range transportation system planning efforts featuring the real time concurrency management system -Mr. Mudd explained that the slides concerning Strategies cover what Page 46 February 28, 2003 issues the BCC has stated that they want covered and the ways that the staff has been working on these issues. He added that some of these issues will be discussed further at later times and many plans will be coming before the BCC in the future in regards to these issues. 27) Slide Thirty-two: Continued D) Revise the Planned Unit Development approval and review processes E) Develop a comprehensive land acquisition and management plan for open space preservation/conservation and future public beach access as well as boat launch facilities 28) Slide Thirty-three: Strategic Objective #2 To develop Reliable public infrastructure and capital resource management processes A) Plan and construct public facilities that will promote the health, safety, welfare, and economic prosperity of all county residents and visitors B) Develop proposals to help stimulate desired business development and expanded workforce housing opportunities. 29) Slide Thirty-four: Continued C) Complete master plan updates Water, Wastewater and solid waste masterplans 25-year transportation plan D) Implement a major capital projects funding and financing plan Update impact and major user fees on a regular basis 30) Slide Thirty-five: Strategic Objective #3 To improve the financial and businesses operations planning, Page 47 February 28, 2003 management and reporting processes. A) Evaluate opportunities to diversify operating and capital revenue sources B) Improve contract management and contract administration systems C) Improve and expand communications with the public Develop an agency wide issue management system (AIMS) Continue community education and outreach -Mr. Mudd explained that they are working on AIMS; which is a central clearing house to handle calls concerning problems, issues, concerns with government related issues. 31) Slide Thirty-six: Continued D) Create/enhance operations management and reporting systems E) Revise the annual budget presentation format F) Implement activity based budgeting and evaluations G) Implement and enhance the GIS system H) Establish performance measure standards (OPS Track) I) Realign organizational structure for optimal efficiency J) Develop health benefit cost containment alternatives K) Improve capital projects management and reporting -Mr. Mudd added that GIS is in use, it still has some items to be finalized, but they will not be returning to the old paper system. OPS tracking is being used to do comparisons with other counties and create efficiency; they are working on enhancements to this. Mr. Mudd stated that the county benefits have been increased to 86% paid by the county and 14% by the employee. The goal is to be at 80% - 20%. The list of physicians has been increased, costs have been reduced, and the dental list has been increased. 32) Slide Thirty-Seven: Where Have We Been 2001 - Year of response (a nightmare) crisis management and red Page 48 February 28, 2003 rocket ship underpants We recognized the need for improvement Planning process Reporting systems Accountability Contract management LDC and GMP -Mr. Mudd described the year as a nightmare, because every time he picked up a "rock" there was another nightmare underneath. 33) Slide thirty-eight: Where we are going 2002- 2003 - 2004 Years of assessment, change and implementation Efficiency and streamlining Accountability Responsiveness Technology management -Mr. Mudd explained that implementation covered more than one year, because it is a "moving train". 34) Slide thirty-nine: Years of standardization 2004 - 2005 - 2006 High quality results Quality control/quality Assurance Establish expectations Quantification Deliver products and services that exceed those expectations Yearly comparisons -Mr. Mudd reiterated that the goal is "great organizations do routine things routinely". His goal is that this always occurs and surprises don't always arise. 35) Slide forty: Challenges Unfunded state mandates and cost shifts Increased security concerns Attracting and retaining qualified work force Page 49 February 28, 2003 Increases in non- discretionary operating expenses (utilities, insurance, gasoline) Diversification of revenue streams Diversification of local economy -Mr. Mudd stated that un-funded state mandates and cost shifts pose the problem of where to find the money. The county needs to ensure a quality workforce to keep residents calmed and happy. The county is also ready to go before the new revenue committee in order to receive help with the revenue streams. 36) Slide Forty-one: "Change is debilitating when done to us, but exhilarating when done by us." -Rosabeth Moss Kanter -Mr. Mudd explained that this statement is important to remember and the county must be a proactive player in their change. 37) Slide Forty-two: Any Additions -Mr. Mudd asked the commissioners if they would like to see anything added to the strategies and goals. -Mr. Coletta stated that they should move Immokalee Road (46 through Immokalee) up into the five year plan and asked Norm Feeder for an update. Mr. Feeder stated that they are beginning to set up the project development environment study, advancing any payback from the state, working on the agreement with the state, county has a design statement, and it is on the five year plan. Mr. Coletta then stated that they had $1.2 million in the budget for the cultural center at the fairgrounds. He asked if they could utilize the buy-out from Lely to put towards this project to meet the needs of all residents. He also wanted to see exposure for what he calls "Hellas highway" (82 - 75). He also asked that the four lane of Golden Gate boulevard (from Wilson to Desoto) be placed on the projects list for the future. Mr. Mudd stated that he is trying to get all items that deal with roads to the MPO committee. He added that he would have to Page 50 February 28, 2003 speak with John Donning in regards to the cultural center and that it would have to be brought back to the executive summary. Mr. Henning stated that they need to be financial responsible and may need to choose the most important projects. Mr. Coletta stated that the interchange is the most important project, but he does not feel that he needs to "pick and choose" since these are all projects that they must keep in mind and look at in the future. Mr. Mudd stated he would take all the ideas of the commissioners and work with staff before coming back to the BCC with responses on what can or can't be done at this time and why. -Donna Fiala stated that she hoped a library for the south county is in the five year plan if possible. -Mr. Halas stated that the county should reserve not 5 acres of land for future decentralization, but 10-15 acres. Mr. Mudd stated that they are considering four square miles. -Mr. Henning suggested to Mr. Coletta that Bruce Brock, or one of his representatives, be formally invited to the Contract Management Committee meetings. Mr. Coletta agreed that this was a good idea. The BCC gave direction to staff to invite Mr. Brock to the meetings. Mr. Mudd stated that he would have an invitational letter sent. Mr. Henning stated that coastal counties spend more money per resident than rural communities because the coastal taxes are spread out to the rural communities. He would like to see the annual survey ask about how the residents feel they compare to other counties with money spent per resident. He believes that the county needs to provide tools for the rural counties so they can provide to their citizen's rather than having the state do so. He believes they really need to prioritize what they provide to the citizens of the county. -Mr. Mudd stated that he had notice from 3 commissioners that they would like to attend other meetings during the week of March 25, 2003. He asked if they would like to adjust the time of their meeting to be scheduled from 8am- lpm in order to accommodate the Page 51 February 28, 2003 absences. Mr. Henning stated that in the past he has turned down other committees because meetings were held in conflict to BCC meetings. He felt that the BCC meetings should be first priority. Mr. Coletta stated that he could be in continuous contact through the phone conversation and Mr. Halas has a meeting that is of tremendous importance to the county. He believes that they need to accommodate other matters at times in order to better serve the community. The meeting was scheduled from 8am-lpm. -Mr. Mudd stated that the budget workshop is scheduled for two days this year. Mr. Henning and Mr. Halas stated that they would like to see a third day devoted to the budget. Mr. Mudd stated that they will place a third day on the schedule for the budget workshop. -Mr. Coyle stated that Florida Gulf Coast University has decided that their marine research laboratory would be a 25,000 square foot facility next to the Rookery Bay visitor's center. This would be used as the campus's primary research facility. He added that the campus will be requesting a traffic signal be placed at the primary entrance to handle the higher traffic volume. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM Ht~NNI~G, CH.~~AN Page 52 February 28, 2003 These'minutes ~proved by the Board on presented ~ or as co~ected Page 53