Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/26/2003 B (Budget Workshop)June 26, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 03/04 BUDGET WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, June 26, 2003 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 Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET WORKSHOP AGENDA June 26-27, 2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 June 26-27, 2003 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2004 BUDGET WORKSHOP THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003 e 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. GENERAL OVERVIEW COURTS & RELATED AGENCIES (STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEBT SERVICE MANAGEMENT OFFICES (PELICAN BAY) COUNTY ATTORNEY BCC AIRPORT AUTHORITY FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2003 Add On: PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CHILDREN'S LEMONADE STANDS AS A PART OF AMERICAN TRADITION -ADOPTED 4/0 (Commissioner Coyle absent) CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 2. 3. 4. PROPERTY APPRAISER SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CLERK OF COURTS SHERIFF MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003 WRAP-UP (if required) 2 June 26-27, 2003 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, '03-'04 budget hearings. Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance for me, please. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we have an agenda today. Today we're going to be talking about the general overview of the budget, and then courts and related agencies, administrative services, public services, transportation services, community development, public utilities, debt services, management offices of Pelican Bay, and the county attorney and the BCC. And we have a time certain of the airport authority at 11:30. Mr. County Manager Jim Mudd. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, good morning. It's a great day to be in Collier County, and it's probably the most important two days that you're going to spend in this 365-day year that you get to sit on the dais and make important decisions. Kady, could you please roll the tape? COMMISSIONER COYLE: There wasn't a rehearsal in this, was there? MR. MUDD: Yes, there was. It did pretty good when we pulled it out of my TV tape. But the real key is, Commissioners, they're basically saying pixie dust would solve all the problems, okay? And I've got my egg right here. And they also tried magic beans. And Commissioners, I've taken this pixie dust, and I've sprayed it all over the place, okay, and I've tried to work it. And I've taken these beans, and I planted these beans over by the sheriff's annex to try to get the building to grow. By the parking garage, the new parking garage. Over by Joe Schmitt's to get the water and sewer permits. These beans don't work either. And so I'm going to tell you, Commissioners, what we really need to do is work hard on this budget. Page 2 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great. That's great. MR. MUDD: Could I have the overhead, please, Kady? Commissioner, you mentioned the agenda for today. And for the viewing audience, here it is. It's a two-day -- it's a two-day budget workshop. We'll do most of the county manager's and the airport authority and the clerk of courts, and we'll get all those done today and we'll do the constitutionals tomorrow. Some people will know in the budget, there's a couple of pages about unfinanced requirements. Those particular unfinanced requirements we'll discuss in detail tomorrow after the constitutional officers, because we'll know what the budget is looking like, based on your discussions and directions as we go through the next day and a half. So for those people that want to speak on those unfinanced requirements, I would suggest that they come to the board meeting after 10:00 tomorrow, so that they don't have to sit through today's agenda. And if they -- if anyone has a discussion about a particular item on today's agenda -- for instance, we have two speakers that want to talk on the court related items -- that they bring those forward and we'll get those speakers in after that particular element is done. Commissioner, this is a very different kind of budget. And last year when you did this, you were a little disappointed. You were disappointed a year prior, past that time as far as what we came forward with. And it is a change. Because in previous years, the staff would come forward with a budget, we'd use every dollar and say gee, isn't it magnificent that we used every one, and you don't have any room to move. This year we -- and oh, by the way, you had to figure out where the cuts were, because nobody was volunteering that, okay, and that's Page 3 June 26, 2003 not very nice and it's discourteous to the board and to the public. This year we took a different perspective. We decided on 25 March -- and I've got to move my magic beans -- and you decided on 25 March to do a budget policy guidance that really was guidance. And you gave that and signed it on the 25th. It's public record. This is stamped the 25th and it was on Item 10. And it was very specific guidance. And it was very specific guidance and it had a three-year projection to it. And I want to talk about those items just a little bit today, to let you know what we did and if we accomplished that guidance for you. You asked that the millage rate remain neutral. In the general fund, millage neutral is 3.8772. We've kept it at 3.8772. We found $10,282,200 in reserve as the capital outlay, and we'll talk about that against the unfinanced requirement. And last year there was $4,201,200 that you put in reserve for road construction, and that still remains in this budget. In the MSTD general fund millage, which we finally call Fund 111, millage neutral was .8069. We kept it at .8069. And there is $1,337,800 in reserve from this budget that you can use for unfinanced requirements. Again, we'll talk about that. The general fund capital millage, you set it at one-third of a mil, and we used .3173 mils in order to do those capital projects as far as government buildings and whatnot. You limited it in the budget guidance to not more than 25 new positions net. And we basically came in in the county manager's agencies with 16 new positions, and that's -- so we're underneath that target. And this is a very important milestone, because it's new positions that really cost you the money. And it is a gift that keeps on giving year after year in salaries, raises, along with medical, dental payments and everything else that goes along with that. So that is a critical element to being able to hold things down and keep your millage neutral. Page 4 June 26, 2003 Fund consolidation, we -- you told us to try to get those 132 funds out there that used to drive you crazy, and at least take 10 percent off. We did that. We found 14 funds. As soon as you did the guidance, Mike started working, he found 11 that he could collapse during the remainder of this year and three the remainder of next year. And I don't think your guidance is going to be much different than the staff next year, except maybe a COLA percent difference, depending on what the economy does. And so Mike's going to be out there trimming those funds again to try to get it down. Why is this important? Because you don't get so trapped in the fund and you get some flexibility by moving people to different jobs. And you will notice today, when you talk about the body count and what moved and the fact that the division, administrators, department directors did move people around, and they moved them from low priority projects to high priority projects. And this gives them additional flexibility in order to do that. And the other thing I'd like to bring to your attention is the salary adjustment. Merit savings lump sum bonus total. The guidance was 4.55 percent, of which 2.8 was COLA, 1.5 was merit, an award program. And then .25 percent was for pay scale maintenance. This was your budget guidance, and your budget guidance said on total personnel services, 4.55. If we would have done that on total personnel services, the allocation would have been $4,438,200. There were some discrepancies between the way the County Manager and some of the constitutionals were doing their merit and their COLA adjustments. We all got together and we decided that it should be done on salary instead of total personnel services. With that decision, the total amount on 4.55 drops to 2.957 -- excuse me, $2.957 million. We also went at the way we were doing merit, and the way the Page 5 June 26, 2003 decision -- and that's being advertised and talked and discussed with the staff. But my recommendation is anybody that's 110 percent above their market value and any director or administrator would receive merit as a lump sum bonus and not be added to their pay. Anybody below 110 percent of their merit, excluding directors and administrators, because they're all there, and some of them are below market, they would receive merit as part of their pay. Now, what does that do? That finds us a savings of $370,250 that doesn't come on the payroll next year as part of this $2.9 million. So that's a savings, just by changing the way we award that budget program. It also cuts down your cost for retirement. It also slows down folks butting up against the max in their range. Max in their range two years ago were about 30 some odd employees. Max in the range last year was in the seventies to eighties. So it's obvious to me there was some folks getting to the max of their range too quickly, and so we did some adjustments. And I think the things that we did to this pay scale adjustment and the way we award merit will slow -- will get people quicker to market but will slow them getting to their max in their range and hold it more on the market value for everyone. So we've done a lot of research on that. We spent a lot of time working on this year. And there are some signature savings to the board as far as that program. So what does that do based on your guidance which was 4.4? We've trimmed it back, and what we're basically bringing in is about a $2.5 million for personnel, which was a savings of about $1.8 million. Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So basically what we're trying to accomplish here is to hold down the pay scale so that everybody's in the third quarter of their pay scale? Is that -- Page 6 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: No, sir, what we're trying to do is right now 72 percent of the employees in Collier County are below market. What we're trying to do is move that range so that we can say that that figure isn't any greater than 60 percent, nor smaller than 50 percent. So we're trying to even the scales above market and below market. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're going to be somewheres between mid-scale and three-quarter mid-scale of the pay scales is what we're trying to average to as far as the employees, would you say? MR. MUDD: No, sir, I'd say we'd like to be in the second and the third quadrant, okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: You know what I'm talking about? If you're talking about the first and second quadrant being below market and the third and fourth quadrant -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Above. MR. MUDD: -- being above, we'd like the employees to be in the second and third quadrant. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, gotcha. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many employees do you have in your upper limit pay scale? MR. MUDD: When you say upper limit -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's say 75 percent of-- within the range. If they're at 75 percent or above of the range of pay scale, how many employees would you -- MR. MUDD: I'll have to get you that information, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: I know that there's 28 percent that are above market. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And -- Page 7 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: But you want to know what 75 percent and above CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll get back to that, because I've got another question on that one. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- is (sic) all employees receiving a 5.55 percent range -- raise? MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No? MR. MUDD: No, sir, COLA is 2.8 percent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2.8. MR. MUDD: All employees will receive a 2.8 percent COLA range (sic) to keep their salaries competitive with what the market's doing right now in Southwest Florida. The only exception to that is anybody that's at max of their pay range right now, they will not receive COLA, because they are at the max of their range. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay? And that's where they stop, so it doesn't exceed that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You answered that question. Now, as far as merit, people at 100 or 110 percent, are they going to receive merit? MR. MUDD: Let me describe how merit works a little bit, because it's a little complicated, but I think I can visually get it for you. Merit-- COLA is basically done on the person's salary, so whatever you make, that 2.8 percent is applied to that salary. Merit is applied to the market value. So if you're below market, okay, and you're one of the folks that are in that 72 percent range, what happens is that whatever your merit increase is going to be, based on your yearly performance last year, okay -- and right now Page 8 June 26, 2003 we're looking at one, two and three percent. One meets, two exceeds and three is outstanding. That percentage would be applied to the market value. So if you're below market, that percentage will help you speed up and get closer to the market to get us in the second and third quadrants, like I described to Commissioner Halas. If you're above 100 percent, that merit applies to market. It's not your salary, which is above. So it's going to slow you down a little bit, okay, until you get to that 110 percent range sometime in the future. When you get there, your merit will be an award lump sum, and it won't be added to your salary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Did I get your answer? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure if I agree with -- on the upper limits of the 110 percent. You're getting -- if your range is -- of pay, for example, is 50,000 to 100,000, people that are receiving 110,000 in pay, what I heard is, they're going to still receive a merit. MR. MUDD: No, if your pay range is 50,000 -- if your pay range is 50,000 to 100,000, let's say your market, which is pretty close, this is -- the mid-range would be $75,000. Ten percent of that means that at $82,500, this person would no longer be getting merit added to their pay, but they would get that money in lump sum. So it wouldn't go in their retirement. And remember, their max in that range is $100,000. So they wouldn't get to the $110,000 ever in that particular item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, gotcha. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are rewarding the good performers, based on a merit raise program? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Page 9 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm just slowing it up at the upper end and I'm trying to get the folks that are down below to catch up a little bit quicker so that we can get this discrepancy that we have in our pay scale fixed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So when we're looking at people putting out 110 percent and are getting outstanding performance reviews and they really earn the outstanding performance review, they are compensated accordingly; people that just exceed their values, then of course their merit raise is not as high as somebody else. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great. MR. MUDD: And that's that one, two and three percent that I talked -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rewarding good performance. Okay. MR. MUDD: One of the things, if you take a look, and I think we've discussed this, so the staff has kept your budget guidance and has exceeded what you asked for in that particular case, and I think they've done a very, very good job. And I hope after you get your presentation, that you indeed feel the same way. I'd like to bring your attention to Page 1 and 2 of your budget books. For the audience, that 1 and 2 should have been in your read-ahead on the outside, and you pretty much have the summary sheets that were attached. You might not have the small details, but we're on Page 1 and 2, which is basically the Collier County FY '04 budget summary. Commissioners, on two pages you can pretty much see the entire budget, and it's done functionally. And we basically kept it so that you could peel back into any division or any department, based on that first sheet. The presentations that you will get today, they Page 10 June 26, 2003 will start from this first sheet and then they will peel it back for you as far as you would like to go. On the operating budget -- and I'm at the very top of the first page -- Board of County Commission's operations, other general administration-- the Board of County Commission's operations is yours, and we'll discuss that on the agenda, not right this second. It's a 6.3 percent increase. Other general administration (001), and other general administration (111) go into the following categories, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, that's a centralized cost pool for things like unemployment compensation, allocated insurance premiums, the annual audit that the clerk does with our external audit and the like. They're just aggregated there, rather than budgeting component pieces across every department and cost center. And when we get into the Board of County Commissioners' budget, we can talk about the gory details that make up those respective budgets. MR. MUDD: From those two particular items, one went down by 9.8 percent, and one went up by 43 percent. The county attorney's budget went up 7.8 percent. The airport authority operations, which you'll hear more about today at 11:30, went up .8 percent. The total Board of County Commissioners at 5.8 percent. Brings you to the county manager's agency, and you'll get a blow-by-blow on each one. The bottom line on that one is we're at 7.7 percent. And I'll give you my details too as you go. But then you've got constitutional officers, you get an idea, at 11.1 percent. The tax collector's budget we don't get until August, and that's why you see it with zeros on it, so that you know that's when we get it. When we get it, we'll put it in there. Grand total operating is a 5.6 percent increase. Debt service. Our debt service, first line, majority of that is basically road, new road payments as far as debt service is Page 11 June 26, 2003 concerned. And the public utilities debt service will be described when Mr. DeLony and crew get up. But our debt service is down by five percent. There's been a lot of rebonding to catch the lower rates in order to save some dollars, and you've seen some of those come through across the dais this spring. The capital budgets are down about $40 million total. And if you bring the total budget line in at the bottom, we were at $977 million last year. We're at 957 net this year. It was basically a 2.1 percent decrease. Your revenues are on Page 2, as you get a summary on this. And then you get your '04 position count summary. And that's where I can show you the net of 16. It's over on the right-hand column, bottom line, total county manager, 16. Our expanded are 17.5, but because we've had some efficiencies by moving people around, we were able to net a 1.5 person or full-time equivalent savings this year to bring us in at net. And then the constitutional add-ons, and then their final net. Now, before you used to see expanded and now you're seeing expanded and net. I found that some of the county manager's staff, as much as we tried to hold them back, you'd get a budgeted amount for 0 -- let's say for '03, you'd get a budgeted amount and it would be a certain number of FTE in a certain position. And as the year went on, something came up where you needed to fund this because there was a grant or something else. For instance, let's use the one where Mr. DeLony came forward with a grant for a code person to make sure that the irrigation ordinance was being implemented correctly, okay? Well, that was an opportunity that came upon itself. The board made a smart decision in order to bring that person on. But it wasn't budgeted in '03, nor would you have seen it expanded in '04. It was one of those that just kind of came in the middle. Page 12 June 26, 2003 So I've basically taken that confusion out during the year. So it's -- whatever you had for '03 and whatever you have after expanded, and then we take the difference and that's the net. So if you added one or you decreased one, you get to see that value on the right-hand side. So you get the total picture now and there's no room to -- I won't say sneak, but there's no room to put one past you, okay, where you didn't see it or we didn't catch it in full accounting. So now you get to see the whole piece. If you turn to Page 3 and 4, you'll notice that I talked about on the chart before about $10,228,200. If you look, available funds at the top in the shaded area on top of Page 3, you'll see that same amount. Okay, you will also see at the shaded where it says MSTD general fund, where I basically said you have $1,337,800 reserved there, and that's in that shaded amount. That is money that isn't budgeted that right now is in a reserve account. And these, I call them unfinanced cut requirements, or unfunded requirements, whatever you'd like. We now have a new acronym in Collier County, it's called a UFR. And those are the things that during the year or during the budget presentation, things that I cut that are on this list, okay, and you have them before you. I will ask you today, before the day is out, I will ask you to take this same list home with you, okay, and if you think any of these particular items should be funded from that reserve amount, I'm going to ask you to fill in the amount that you think that should go against that particular item. And if you don't think the item should be funded for whatever reason, you just don't put anything there. And then tomorrow we'll bring them together for everyone, you'll have anybody's kind of vote on the dollars, and then we can start our discussion, after we hear public hearing, because there's probably going to be some people that are going to want to talk about these Page 13 June 26, 2003 particular items. And then we'll have an idea what the Commissioners are thinking, and we'll have a good way to start the discussion, and if we don't get any public speakers and you don't think it's a high priority and everybody puts zero on there, it will move that discussion on that item pretty quick. The next thing I'd like you to think about while we're sitting on the unfinanced requirement is what we did on our budget proposal or on our policy guidance. We basically put in these assessed values into the budget proposal in March. We put those in, and this is what we extracted after we looked at all the known -- all the known requirements that we have for the next years, and we came across a '05 increase of .3 mils to the general fund. And again, in '06, another around three mil increase. What I had Michael do is we sat down and we talked a little bit, and plus the assessed values changed a bit, but I also talked to him about the road funding plan. And I said -- and I asked Michael, Mike Smykowski, who's the office of management and budget director, who's sitting to my right, I said there needs to be a better way that we tackle the way we want to fund our road program. First thing Michael instituted, he said, I think I can smooth out here, before the budget guidance, with commercial paper to get out some of the peaks. Because this used to go up to $34 million. And I'm talking about how we fund the bonding issues for our road program to make up for that $257 million that we've all talked about for a number of years now. And we've all seen the charts, where in '02 we had--'03 we put away $5.9 million against our bonding criteria in paying back the loans that we have. This year, 13.474 is in your budget. It's there. And then 21 next year. It was going to be 27, 31, 28, 27, 27, 25-9, and then 22. I said Mike, at this particular juncture, we're going to be -- anytime you get the assessed value, wherever it comes in at, if there's Page 14 June 26, 2003 any additional monies that come in, you've pretty much eaten a big chunk of it out of the way already, just because of the increase that is programmed. Is there a way that we could start smoothing -- even more to smooth out the top-cap fees instead of having it go up to 31, and try to curtail the major increases that we would have in the '05-'06 years so we wouldn't be talking about a millage increase during an election year. That's always a hard pill to swallow, and I know that the board is astutely aware of that. So remember I said in my other slide that we still had the $4.2 million. And I'd like you to turn to Page 11, and I'd like you to focus in on the shaded area in the middle of the page that says -- that basically says capital outlays, and it's that $10.2 million. And if you go two lines directly below it, you'll see the $4.2 million that you have in the reserve for roads from last year that we're carrying forward as a reserve amount. Commissioner, in that-- if you-- and in that unfinanced requirement of $10 million, $6 million is reoccurring dollars, $4 million is a -- is earnings that exceeded our expectations that the clerk turned back on interest. And the clerk turned that interest back over an 18-month period of time. So it was above what his expectations were that he basically gave us. So that $4 million is a one-time windfall that we have here. So that's a one-time expense. But you have $6 million that's a reoccurring process. If the board chooses to take $6 million out of that $10.2 million that's reoccurring, and that money will stretch across each year because it's reoccurring, and take the $6 million this year as a windfall, with the $4.2 million that's sitting in the road construction reserve from last year that we're carrying forward, we can further smooth the top peaks off of our payment program. If we did this smoothing, we'd need $9.7 million. If you take the 6 and the 4.2, you have 10.2, you still have a half a million dollars that you're holding in that reserve account at that particular time. Page 15 June 26, 2003 That $6 million would significantly cut the increases that we would need out of future budgets, and would pretty much take this road program funding process and make it a thing of the past. Not a big deal. We have that opportunity to do it this year. I don't know if we'll have that opportunity next year. I'd ask the board to consider that as they go through their discussions. Now, what does that do for us? Well, I had Michael take that piece, put it back in the three-year projection with this year's 16.3 assessed value, making '05 12 instead of 10, and then '06, instead of 8, making it 10, because it seems like it's dropping slower. The assessed increases are dropping slower. But we are on a decrease as far as percentage assessed value increases are. And this is what it does -- this is what it does to your millage rates, along with the funding of the road program with that $6 million. It pretty much makes the changes to the millage rate and the two out-years, and I call that within noise. We pretty much could bring it in at millage neutral for both of those years, and we'd be successful to do that. I just thought I'd show that to you, because we have pushed it out. You saw a three-year projection when we did the policy guidance. I wanted to hone a little bit so that you got an idea of what that looks in the out-years, so that you have a better forecast as we go into the budget. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mudd, I would like to address that in a little more detail, to make sure there's no misunderstanding. The first slide you put up showed a millage increase for FY '05 and '06. I'd like to make sure there's no misunderstanding: We have not made a decision to do that? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was just an example of what would happen if we -- Page 16 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: No, that was a projection based on the best information we had at the time, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But whether it's an election year or not, I'm not going to support a millage increase, you know, this year, next year or the year after that, quite frankly. I think we can live on what we're getting. There are a lot of people who feel that we have the lowest millage rate or among the lowest millage rate of any county in the State of Florida. And they argue that that's a reason why we should have a tax increase. And what they fail to understand is we also have some of the highest property values in the State of Florida. And our property values have been going up dramatically, and residents have been feeling the impact of these increased taxes, even at a millage neutral position. So I would encourage the board, as we go through this budget analysis, to take a look at what we're doing this year, with a view toward eliminating any millage rate increase requirement for FY '05 or '06. So that's where I'd like to go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think what the County Manager is asking us at this time is to give him direction to put money into the bank so that doesn't happen. And I'm -- I totally agree with that. To expand on your comments, Commissioner Coyle, millage rates versus assessed values. But I can tell you how we compare with other counties. We spend a heck of a lot of money providing service to our residents here in Collier County. Not just so much county government, school -- we also have some special districts, we have fire districts, we have a water management district, and the list goes on and on. So the people are taxed enough. And I feel that, my opinion is, is to take the $6 million, bank it, because we don't know what the taxes are going to bring in at the outer years. And that way we can pay some of that debt down in '05 Page 17 June 26, 2003 and '06. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I concur with that, but I'd like to see us use that as probably some of it for funding the roads and getting that debt taken care of. I think it's important. Since we've got that money, I think we need to look at the aspect of trying to pay down that debt. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what you're asking. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things I am concerned with, and I think we'll get into this tomorrow, is the stormwater management. We are having some flooding problems, and we keep putting off throwing any dollars into that area. But as we continue to improve our roads, that's going to be an issue that must be addressed in order to move forward with the road construction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to recognize the Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock for enabling us to get to this point. Monies that he comes up with to be able to turn back in make a big difference, and we thank you very much for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, the question is do you want to take $6 million so we don't have to raise the millage rate in '04 and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, Commissioner Henning. If I was in opposition to it, I'd be sure to mention it. I think it's an excellent idea and I commend our County Manager for putting this together in the way he has. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, if I may add -- Page 18 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I think we're all pretty well dedicated to keeping millage neutral, not only this year but next year and the following year. And like Commissioner Coyle said, we don't care if it's an election year or not. The point is what we want to do, how we want to move forward. Our growth continues to move forward and our property values continue to rise. There's no reason to raise that millage rate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, you've got direction. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The next item on our agenda, we pretty much talked about the general overview. We will talk about the unfinanced requirements again at great length tomorrow after we're done with all the presentations from the constitutional officers, and get some more direction on where you want me to change the budget with those particular items. Just as a correction piece, what you just basically told me in direction, I'm on Page 3, your available funds at the top are now $4,282,200, instead of $10,282,200. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you give that to us again so we can write that down, please? MR. MUDD: Sir, that number, the available funds has been decreased by $6 million. So it will be $4,228,200 (sic). You just need to scratch the 10 and put 4. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 282,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 282. MR. MUDD: 282,000, excuse me, 200. Two corrections on your page. The museum shortfall at the bottom of the page, before the total general fund, it's above the starred line, that -- you saw in the paper yesterday that Mr. Ward has been able to find some almost a million dollars that was obligated, encumbered in a contract that was pretty much defunct. There's a Page 19 June 26, 2003 reallocation of $600,000 that are going into the museum. And that will bring the museum's budget, with their carryforward for next year. About $100,000 more than they had last year. So I'd like you to cross that line through (sic) on the $300,000. That was a stopgap measure to try to kind of make them hold, to make sure that the bathrooms in Roberts Ranch would get built this year instead of the Port-a-Potties again. And the other piece that I would like to bring to your attention is on Page 4, top line, under the City of Naples, Lowdermilk Park reconstruction restoration. That is a recommendation coming forward from the Tourist Development Council that it be totally funded out of TDC dollars. So I'd like you to line through that particular item. With that, Commissioners, I think we're pretty much ready to go. And I think courts and related agencies are next. And state attorney, public defender and Mr. Middlebrook will present. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Good morning. I'm Mark Middlebrook, I'm the senior deputy court administrator for the 20th Circuit. Along with me today, we have Judge Ellis, who will be the administrative judge for Collier County, effective July 1 st. Karen Jeffries who is our new court administrator; she has replaced Doug Wilkinson, who retired after 28 years; and Chuck Rice, who is our director of probation. I'm going to be presenting just the courts -- court administration, court related services, not the state attorney or the public defender. Their representatives are here. In essence, this year we have maintained our same number of personnel. We did not go up any numbers there. Our requests for transfer from the board is going to be $5,867,800. As the third branch of government, we are only .6 percent, roughly, of the total budget for this county. We have done our best Page 20 June 26, 2003 to hold our expenses down. We have dissolved one division, moved those personnel to areas where we need help. The Article 5, Amendment 7 issue, it's very difficult this year for us to do our budget, because we really don't know how many positions we're actually going to have come July 1st. We don't know what the decrease of costs are going to be to the county. That is still up in the air in a fluid event. We have worked very closely with Colonel Mudd and with Leo, and especially with Mike and his staff. They have provided us tremendous assistance throughout this process, and we are still going forward with the process till we can determine exactly what expenses are going to be borne by Collier County, in that any positions that are going to be absorbed -- we are working with Dwight right now in a couple of positions. We will be decreasing our numbers by those positions. However, we have two positions that we weren't able to fund this year that we will be seeking permission from the board and the manager with the decreases to at least fill those two positions we're looking to do, and then reduce our budget by the remaining positions available. Any questions, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to address the revenues issue. I like user fees, as you already know. What can be done with respect to increasing revenues by changing the fees charged by people who use the court system? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, unfortunately we're not sure we're going to be able to charge any fees come July 1st. That's one of the issues that's up in the air. However, our understanding is that we will still be able to charge probation fees, which generates about one to $1.2 million a Page 21 June 26, 2003 year in revenue to the county. We are under the direction of both the chiefjudge and the Supreme Court chief justice to try and return as much money to the county as possible. So any area that we're going to be able to charge, we will. Right now probation is it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why are we not going to be able to charge for things like court fees and fines and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Filing fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- court counseling fees and filing fees and things like that? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, we are, and we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Those are assessed at the time of judgment in court. You are collecting those fees right now. We just don't know what's going to happen July 1st with those fees, whether the state's going to seize that money, or a portion of that money, or it will remain with the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if the state seizes the money, they're also going to seize the expenses. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: A good majority of it, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: A full majority of it, as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, is there anything that can be done with respect to increasing those fees? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. We can study -- as far as court related, it's the probation fees. We're one of the highest in the state at $60 a month. We are almost -- I believe we're $30 higher than what the state charges for felons. We could look at increasing. The problem is, if we get too high, we're setting the people up to fail because they can't afford to pay the payment anyway. And then it's going to be more expense to the county to place them in jail. Page 22 June 26, 2003 As far as the fine and forfeitures, many of those are set by the state, with limits. But we can certainly work with the clerk in seeing if there's any way we can increase any of that revenue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you do that, please? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? Thank you. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you, sir. MR. MUDD: Mr. Middlebrook will be followed by administrative services. Commissioner, the way we have it set up today is there'll be a short presentation, and then basically get at your questions. If you would like to change that format in any way, that we can do that too and just basically go to your questions. But I think it's important, because you don't get to see some of these directors during the year, and in some particular cases you might not even know who they are or what they do, because they don't get in front of that podium during a board meeting sometimes. So at least this way you get to put a face against the department and see if they've grown anything on their faces since the last time you saw them. Right, Chuck? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if this is a time for meet and greet, or is -- the board just want a brief overview and then go to questions? Is that what we want to do this morning? Or do you want a full-blown budget review? You want the short version or the long version? MR. MUDD: I've told each division to keep it short, no longer than 30 minutes to the board, and then basically go for whatever questions you have. So whatever the board would like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Page 23 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: Oh, excuse me, Commissioner, while these guys are setting up. I'm sorry, things are going on. Leo's collecting slips and I'm collecting slips. We have two speakers on courts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great, please call them up. MR. MUDD: Okay. First one is Natalie Quintero. MS. QUINTERO: Actually, I will be speaking with Kathy Herrmann, and she just stepped into the hall. MR. MUDD: Okay. Followed by Kathy Herrmann. Come on, Kathy. MS. HERRMANN: Thank you, Commissioners. You'll be happy to know I'm not here to ask you for any money. Even though this is the only county that doesn't fund their local domestic violence center, I'm not here to ask you for money. I hope I can save you a little bit of money. I'm here to talk to you -- I'm Kathy Herrmann, the CEO of the Shelter for Abused Women. We are the only other program, the only people that are in the Collier County domestic violence civil courtroom every time they have court. Judges aren't always there. The court administration folks are there and the bailiffs are there, and we are there. We have been observing the process in Collier County for years and years, and it's a process that we have a lot of problems with. According to the budget office, Collier County is providing $305,000 to the domestic violence unit of court administration. First of all, your funding, in the opinion of the Shelter for Abused Women, the Florida Coalition against Domestic Violence and some of the folks from the Supreme Court division of domestic violence is a bad process. It's a bad investment. I'd be happy to spend time with each of you individually to share with you why. We've been working on this since 1998 on the problems. Second of all, it's an inefficient process. We used to have almost 1,000 injunctions for protection through the clerk of courts' Page 24 June 26, 2003 office in 1996, before it went over to court administration. Last year we had something like 700. Even though our population is going up, the numbers are going down. They have six or seven folks over there to process 700 injunctions for protection. Do the math, 52 weeks a year, it's about two per person per week. Not very efficient. But that's not the punch line. Here's the punch line for you: Court administration is no longer going to be doing injunctions for protection. They're not going to be processing them any longer. By the time this budget goes into effect, clerk of courts office will be handling all the injunctions for protection. So victims will be going to the clerk of court's office, the clerk of court's staff will be bringing them to the judges. That whole process is going to be taken over by the clerk. So there should be a reduction in the cost for the domestic violence unit. A significant reduction. In my opinion, the money should go away completely. I have with me a colleague, Natalie Quintero, who's observed the domestic violence court. I cannot stress to you enough, this is my final -- we have gone to the Supreme Court, we've work on legislation changes. The system in Collier County is a bad system. I urge you to investigate it further. And I'll be happy to share with you our research why you should not fund that domestic violence unit. Save our taxpayers $300,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for Ms. Hermannson (sic)? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a question. MS. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much money is there in court administration for the domestic violence unit? MS. HERRMANN: We were told by the budget department $305,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 305,000. Page 25 June 26, 2003 MS. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're saying the clerk is going to take over these duties? MS. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he already has 15 people added to his budget this year, so that should do it. MS. HERRMANN: I'm not here to advocate what you do with that 300, I'm saying I don't think it should go to court administration. I don't think they need that $300,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: God bless you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. MS. HERRMANN: It's a bad process. Shouldn't be funded in the first place. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't see that particular item on the budget summary. MS. HERRMANN: No, it's not pulled out. It took the budget office a day and a half to be able to pull it out of all the different places. It was in court administration budget. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to speak to you, and I'll have my assistant talk to you. Maybe we could meet today, later on today, if time permitting. MS. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too, Kathy. MS. HERRMANN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I would, too. MS. HERRMANN: Yes, sir. Thank you. MS. QUINTERO: I really don't have a lot more to add except that, you know, I'd like to be part of that meeting, and I could address with you directly specifics of some of the inefficiencies and actually dangerous practice for victims of domestic violence in this county. Thank you. Page 26 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: My opinion, jerk it. Let's pull it out and discuss it at a later time. Or if anybody wants to put it back in, any commissioner wants to put it back in, they can do so. MR. MUDD: I've got two nods, do I have a third? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Admin. services. MR. CAMP: Good morning. For the record, Skip Camp, your interim, for the next week, administrator for administrative services. The division, the overall division, with the exception of some insurance issues, is actually under budget this year by 6.6 percent division-wide. The division is asking for four expanded services. The overall -- with insurance, the overall increases 12.3. We can go to the individual department directors, if you'd like, unless you have any questions. MR. MUDD: What page are you on? MR. CAMP: First page. CHAIRMAN HENNING: B-1. COMMISSIONER HALAS: B-1. MR. CAMP: B-1. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what line item does 12.3 show up on? MR. CAMP: The bottom of the page. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question, Skip. The clerk of court, you have their IT department, you're going to renovate it? MR. CAMP: That's I think the clerk's project. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. It's not under your budget? Page 27 June 26, 2003 MR. CAMP: No, that's correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll get to the capital projects shortly, Mr. Chairman. But that is a capital request, in your 301 budget, to renovate the clerk's MIS functions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You are showing a fairly large increase in the fuel distribution line item. Does that include the cost of the fuel or just the distribution of the fuel? MR. CAMP: Dan? MR. CROFT: That is the cost of the fuel. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CROFT: For the record, my name is Dan Croft, fleet management director. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And it's increased for what reasons, other than just the price of the fuel? MR. CROFT: The amount of fuel that we used and the price, mainly. Last year we budgeted I believe $1.30 for fuel. That has been very inadequate this year. We came to you with a budget increase this year of $350,000. I'm projecting next year at $1.45 a gallon, we'd use about 1.2 million gallons. That comes about $1.8 million. So that's about $183,000 more than the projections for this year. Where fuel's going to go, I don't know. It's bouncing all around right now. But we expect it to -- at all projections, it's going to be high and it's going to stay high for the next year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a question on the line item in regards to the GIS systems support. All of a sudden we see an increase here of about $362,400. Can you explain what this is for? MR. AXELROD: Yes. I'm Barry Axelrod, the IT director. Page 28 June 26, 2003 The GIS function last year was funded as part of a capital project that ends in this fiscal year. And as part of guidance we've gotten from other jurisdictions, we're pulling the GIS function out as a separate cost center. So its costs last year were rolled into the client services function. So you're seeing an incremental gain, but you're also seeing a corresponding decrease in the client services function as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is everybody going to have access to this, all the citizens, along with the government entities? MR. AXELROD: That's what's happening right now, yes. It's agency-wide and county-wide. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Question on the funding sources, general funds, surplus sales. Why such a difference from last year? MR. TURNELL: Steve Turnell (phonetic), purchasing director. The -- this is a function of a number of variables, and it's basically a -- comes down to what the portion of the revenue the general fund ends up keeping. And it just fluctuates year to year. The revenue sales from the auction are generally between 3 and $400,000. Most of that goes to other funds. And so what I do year to year is I guesstimate the portion general funds are going to keep. And based on what we've been tracking the last couple years, I thought it appropriate to adjust the number down a little bit for the revenue for the coming year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the actual amount that you collected from the auction? MR. TURNELL: In round numbers, about $350,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a difference in the accounting, the way we're doing it this year as compared to last year? MR. TURNELL: No, sir. Page 29 June 26, 2003 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, it's pretty much a function of the source of the assets. In other words, if utilities is selling surplus equipment, the revenue from the surplus sale does not accrue to the general fund, because the general fund did not purchase that asset at the initial acquisition point. It is a utilities piece of equipment, therefore, the revenue from the sale goes back to utilities. So it's solely a function of the availability of surplus equipment that was actually purchased initially in the general fund. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe we should look at that next year during our strategic plans. My opinion, if it's surplus, you know, why do they need those funds to go back into the department? I think it's worthy of discussion. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Surplus -- for instance, if we did car surplus, you understand how that normally goes, we're on a seven-year. Dan, you can describe that a little bit about 100,000 miles, seven-year replacement, and then we put those things out to auction. MR. CROFT: Right now for small vehicles, we're on six years, 90,000 miles, plus the maintenance. So it's a three-point program. So it just depends. But generally around six years we replace the small vehicles. Larger vehicles, it just depends on how -- it runs anywhere from eight to 10 years, up to 200, 250,000 miles. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The point that I was trying to get at, it's a surplus item, it's an item that the department doesn't need anymore. Whatever it is, a computer, a vehicle, you know, a tractor or whatever. It's not needed anymore. So you sell that item off, and now we're putting that monies (sic) that we sell it from back into the department. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you've basically written off Page 30 June 26, 2003 the whole item that's a seven-year -- MR. MUDD: No, what the Commissioner's basically saying is for instance, utilities, which is an enterprise fund, if it purchased the equipment with water user rates, whatever, and it's an excess piece, the Commissioner is asking well, why can't that surplus dollar go back into the general fund versus the enterprise fund that was purchased. And we'll take a look at that and take a look at the nexus and legal ramifications of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have another question before I go to Commissioner Coyle. The two expanded, can you explain what they're for. MR. CAMP: Actually, there are four expanded in the division. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MR. CAMP: There are four in the division. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. CAMP: Division-wide. One is for purchasing, one is for fleet management, one is for security, government security, and the other is for real property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You answered my question, thank yOU. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't say anything. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, but you asked the right question. MR. MUDD: now, Skip? MR. CAMP: MR. MUDD: MR. CAMP: MR. MUDD: You want to talk about the capital program right Absolutely. Which page? That's on my Page 3. If you go -- if you go into the same tab, administrative services, and look for the blue carbon paper that says admin, services, division's capital, and it's Page 3 right underneath Page 31 June 26, 2003 MR. CAMP: It should say fleet management on the top as the first department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. CAMP: The first one is a County Barn Road facility. That's a joint facility. We're real proud of that. That's with the sheriffs office and our fleet management -- your fleet department. That's 8.2 million. The next seven line items under facilities management, you have 660 government facilities county-wide, from jails to courthouses to health buildings. Those are replacement issues for the major capital components: New roofs, new air conditioners. That's the top seven items. The next one that is being recommended for funding is the courthouse annex. That's a three-story facility attached to the current courthouse for the clerk of the courts. The next one is a -- MR. MUDD: And it's part of the master plan? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. The next one that's being recommended is the EOC, the proposed EOC, the emergency operations center, which is a joint effort between the sheriffs office and the board. And that's for the design, 1.5 million. And then the last one in that section is the parking deck that's being proposed, along with some associated traffic improvements at -- for the design is $900,000, and that's part of the master plan too that you've reviewed a number of times. IT. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I don't want to confuse this with the parking garage that we're doing for the sheriff, okay, that we're constructing. This is the other parking garage that's on the other side of the supervisor of elections old building, which is toward 41. One of the things -- you know, every time I talk to these people Page 32 June 26, 2003 about a master plan they say well, I can't build it because I've got to expand the parking area. And I said, well, when are you going to build the parking garage? Well. And then the next time we talk about we need more room and somebody's moving across the street in rental space. Well, why can't we expand the building? Well, we need parking space. They say well, you know, if we don't get designing this parking garage, okay, which everybody needs, we are never going to be able to get everybody out of rental space into county-owned facilities. And we're in a vicious doo-loop. So I basically told the staff, start designing that parking garage, and let's get off of this dime and start doing the smart things, instead of just palming it off all the time. Keep going, Dan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask you a question before you leave that particular category? Under general building repairs, you're requesting 1.184 million. There are $409,000 for an unfunded requirement for roofing repairs of a building that are an unfunded requirement. Now, can you tell me why that particular project is unfunded? MR. CAMP: Part of that project was unfunded, actually. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Part of it. MR. CAMP: Yeah. What we try to do is, roofs in South Florida have a very short shelf life. And we'll ask for, say, a million dollars worth of roofs. We know, though, we can get by -- if we're very, very careful, we can get by with maybe two-thirds of that. Now, that means that there's a slight possibility that we'll have to do one or two things. We'll either make an adjustment in one of these other operating budgets, because a roof's very, very important, obviously. And air conditioning. We'll either make an adjustment to where we'll not replace an air conditioner that still can go one more year and do that Page 33 June 26, 2003 roof, or we'll come back to you mid-year. And this year so far we've been able to hold the line. By working with this kind of philosophy, we've not come back to you for the first time in five years for a mid-year adjustment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would presume then that the 409,000 that's included under the unfunded requirements is not a high priority item; otherwise, you would have allocated funds for it. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. We think we can get one more year out of those roofs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. MR. MUDD: And that's why I put it there and cut it up. MR. AXELROD: Okay, the IT capital plan that starts at the top line item is IT network upgrades. This is sort of the second year of the capital project to upgrade the network and to continue to keep up with the growth and decentralization of government, and make sure that they have good data services out in the remote locations and high speed connectivity. We've got an air conditioning upgrade that needs to happen in one of our equipment rooms. The equipment's generating too much heat. Nothing scientific about that. Electronic agenda. We have a request to automate the way staff assembles and presents agendas to the county manager's office. There's an awful lot of we call it sneaker net labor, people running around to get signatures on things. This is going to be a win-win for the staff and the county manager's office and to the commission to get still paper if you want agendas, but also electronic for the presentation on the Internet. Application integration infrastructure. We are starting to do a lot of work with connecting our various systems in different divisions and even across agencies so that we can pass information more reliably between different parties. We have an awful lot of work to do with respect to error recovery right now from miscommunications Page 34 June 26, 2003 between systems. So we're going to improve that infrastructure. There's a good payback there. Project management. One of our clients -- actually a few of our clients are asking for some automation in the area of managing projects, associating financial documents with project tasks, and managing task levels for more efficient project management in the future. GIS. We are -- we have $550,000 to continue the land survey work that needs to be put into the GIS system for ground reference, as well as work for clients with respect to address validation, which is -- you know, we provide addresses to all the county agencies and validating those is a continual problem. Also, our property management, easements and right-of-ways for future utilities and transportation projects. The next line item, legacy application integration, has to do with GIS as well. All of the existing applications that we have have address-based data that needs to be integrated into the GIS for presentation. Business continuity. We're looking at doing an outside study next year, sort of like what we're doing this year with respect to network security, with respect to business continuity in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist event, to make sure that we can keep the county running. Installation of conduit during road construction. We pay an awful lot of money for leased circuits, because we don't have connectivity of our own for connecting various locations, especially between here and Horseshoe and now Mercantile and a lot of the remote sites. So what we're going to do is fund the installation of conduit as roadwork or utility work is being done, because the expense is really in opening the ground. Once the ground is opened, the installation of the conduit is fairly inexpensive. And then at later points in time we could pull fiber through there and eliminate costs Page 35 June 26, 2003 for connectivity, and it also provides a revenue opportunity for space net conduit for other people who want to pull their own fiber through it. Next one, radio system microwave upgrade. We have -- the architecture of our network, we now bottleneck between the campus and County Barn. County Barn is kind of the main distribution site for the radio network. We have good width band to it, and we are now bottlenecked getting back here, so this is for improving the band width between here and County Barn Road. Network performance improvements. This is some new technology for the county for what we call gashing, content gashing, which basically alleviates network traffic, based on past history. The request is a little complicated, but it does -- it will serve the purpose of allowing us to defer future network upgrades by reducing the utilization on the network. And network test equipment. This is an item where we have in the past brought the network down by implementing new features on the network during business hours. We don't want to do that anymore, we need to have equipment where we can work during business hours not on the live network. We do not want to become a two- or three-shift operation. The costs involved in doing that are high. And we feel that we can extend our current HR strategy by having some more equipment to do up-line work. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any questions for Mr. Axlerod? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, the list that you just brought forth here, are these prioritized in importance, or are they all have (sic) the same weighted value of importance in what needs to be accomplished here? MR. AXELROD: They're pretty much a priority order. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're listed in the priority order Page 36 June 26, 2003 MR. AXELROD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that you feel that they -- of need? MR. AXELROD: Yes. MR. MUDD: And the one that I cut, Commissioner Halas, was a redundancy, and that's on your unfinanced requirement list, because I didn't feel that it had high enough priority in order to stay on the funded list. The other thing I will tell you, in the IT side of the house, it's a fee for service. So this is a blending of funds. You get money from utilities, you know, out of their operational funds. You get stuff out of Joe Schmitt's operation in order to fund in here. So this isn't a true -- this isn't all general fund dollars in the IT side of the house. It's a blending of those dollars. It's one of the things you lose when you come out of the fund structure and you look at it in a functional piece, you lose all the visibility on all the funds' contributions. But if you go down those budgets, you'll see IT, I'm giving them a quarter of a million dollars, okay, out of public utilities or whatever it is for a particular item, or out of transportation, from -- and all of those funds together basically fund the IT department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: To what extent are you comfortable with your existing capability to protect the system and data from disasters? MR. AXELROD: You're talking about a disaster, not a virus or something like that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct, yeah. MR. AXELROD: Okay. Not-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fire or explosion or something like that. MR. AXELROD: We are doing the basics right now. We do Page 37 June 26, 2003 extensive backups of our data, and we do put those tapes off-site and we can restore the data. What I'm asking for in business continuity next year is to do a more comprehensive look at it. Because we aren't covered with respect to timely replacement of equipment, for instance. And, you know, restoring the far-flung infrastructure, we're very dependent upon the local telecommunications infrastructure as well. So right now what I would say is we're doing the basics. The request is in there, because I'm not comfortable with our current status. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There of course are some elements of the services you provide that are not critical to the proper functioning government. Have you been able to identify those that are critical to the functioning of the government and separate the actions and costs associated with those from those that are just good efficient services to provide to the public? MR. AXELROD: Commissioner, there's two types of requests that we make. We make an infrastructure request that we do need to do in order to run the network and to provide the services that people are counting on us for. The other requests that are in here are on behalf of our customers. There's nothing in here that's not either requested by a customer or is in our judgment, you know, critical to our primary mission. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in some cases the customers could be requesting something that would provide the public with easier access to certain things. And under disaster circumstances, it probably is more important that the government continue to function rather than provide open access to a lot of the data systems that are currently available. Has there been any determination concerning that? I'm just looking for a priority list in this, I guess. MR. AXELROD: Well, what I can tell you is a year and a half ago when I came onboard, there was a more aggressive move into Page 38 June 26, 2003 Internet services. And we have slowed that down quite a bit just 'because of what you're saying right now, we did not view those things to be the high priorities to sustain the services and make our customers more productive and provide -- have them provide better services to the public. We are still doing that, but, you know, perfectly on target to what you're saying, we did make some judgments already to reallocate our focus and our funds to make sure that we're concentrating on critical efforts or efforts that support the county manager's efforts here not to have head count growth. We're doing a lot of things that are -- for efficiencies that eliminate repetitive work, hours of work per month in various departments so that they could reallocate those heads to, you know, more productive deals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Commissioner Coyle, ifI may. It's Leo over here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, hi, Leo. How are you? MR. OCHS: I'm good, sir. How are you? I just wanted to add, when you talked about preparing for disasters from an IT standpoint, one of the other things we're doing from a planning perspective is Barry is working with our new emergency management director, Dan Summers, and with Skip and his capital projects team as we design the new emergency operations center next year and we have some money appropriated in that design. Barry is looking to perhaps relocate the core data center for your data systems into that new facility, which will obviously be a hardened structure, have all the backup power, all the current state-of-the-art, if you will, communications capability. So that's an additional physical move that we're looking to make that will secure your critical government information data system. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's fantastic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions for Mr. Page 39 June 26, 2003 Axlerod? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Skip? MR. MUDD: Purchasing. MR. CROFT: We have a capital request -- I -- really, it's on behalf of the entire board agency to continue to support the SAP system. We have a -- essentially I think you all know, the system is up and live and has been functioning effectively since January. We have a couple of loose ends on some things that we want to bring into function next year that were originally slotted to come up in January, but we postponed them for the sake of getting the core essential functions fully operational and properly supported. We specifically have a function for maintaining the inventory of non-assets, if you will, consumable goods in the different departments, where they'll actually be able to automate and track the receiving, storage and distribution, the consumption of those items. And that functionality requires some programming, some training and planning and configuration of the system. Most of that work is done, but there's still some loose ends that have to be pulled together. And that's most of the $42,000 is to bring that functionality up next fiscal year. We also have some additional work we're doing to automate the approval of transactions in the finance area and in the Human Resources area. Most of this work is going to be done by your staff internally, but we are going to need a little bit of help potentially from some outside support. So that's what your $42,000 entails. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Brings us to sheriff. MR. CAMP: The next three items are part of your master plan. The first one is to consolidate a number of sheriff's operations into Page 40 June 26, 2003 one facility located at the airport. The next one is the design of the Orangetree proposed substation for the sheriff's office. And then the last one is the one that you're very familiar with, and that's the Naples jail expansion. And that sums up my capital. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question, Skip, or Mr. Camp. The -- on your side of the house, you naturally take care of all the -- the buildings. MR. CAMP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And construction of the buildings for all the constitutional officers. What kind of debt service do you have? MR. CAMP: I'm going to have to ask Mike to respond as far as the debt service. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have little to no debt. Just a portion-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I like to hear. You've answered my question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Camp, as always, you did a great job. It's a pleasure working with you. MR. MUDD: If you turn the page real quick, we still have one more piece on Page 4. We have a reconfiguration of the clerk's MIS area for $400,000. You see it right there. And we have somebody from the clerk's office, if you'd like to talk about what that's all about. And that pretty much ends our capital piece that Skip oversees. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Honorable Dwight Brock, thank you for being here. MR. BROCK: My name -- for the record, my name's Dwight Brock, I'm the clerk of court. Let me explain to you what this $400,000 is for. On the fifth floor of this building, we have MIS and IT that is located right next Page 41 June 26, 2003 to one another. They work integrally together with each other. And the $400,000 is what we're asking for to rebuild and reconfigure the MIS department to put in place a community conference area and to create additional office space there. When I say community, I mean one that's usable by both IT and MIS in that particular area on the fifth floor of this building. As I understand it, there are some plans in the works for creating an annex building to the courthouse for a lot of the clerk's operations. When we evaluated what we were going to move from the various and sundry locations around the county in which we now are housed into that particular building, and working with the architects and the engineers, it became very apparent to us that it would not be economically feasible or justifiable to move that particular component, especially since essentially the MIS department and the IT department is one department as it exists today for purposes of working together. For example, your MIS people or IT people and my MIS or IT people work integrally together with SAP, and all of the other functions are so integrated that our objective is to maintain that symbiotic relationship that exists there and to work in close proximity to one another. And one of the things that it does do is it gives us additional office space for future expansion down the road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you explain what MIS is? I'm sorry, I -- MR. BROCK: Management information systems. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question I guess for everybody. Anybody interested in looking at as possible taking all these IT departments for the constitutional officers and the Board of Commissioners under one roof and having one director? I mean, there are some things like the sheriff's department that does have to Page 42 June 26, 2003 be confidential, and the clerk of court has things that needs to be confidential. And naturally the supervisor of elections. But what I see is we've got about six directors for information technology. MR. BROCK: Can I comment -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MR. BROCK: -- about it? I mean, it hasn't been that long. I mean, it was during my tenure as clerk of court in which they were all, the board and the county -- the board and the clerk was one department. And the county decided that they did not like that arrangement and separated them. You know, when that happened, I happen to think that at that point in time that that was probably not a very good idea to do that. But believe you me, if it reduced my responsibility in dealing with those people, I was more than happy to let it go. But in the course of events, and as this county has progressed, one of the things that I have discovered is that I don't think you have non-working supervisors in the IT functions, and I know I don't have non-working supervisors in the IT function, so I'm not really sure what you are gaining by doing that. What you have gained by having the independent control of the constitutional officers is control of their own destiny. You now have control of your own destiny, Mr. Mudd has control of his own destiny, and I don't think that Jim or I either one have a problem with looking at that. Now, I'm certainly not going to speak for the other constitutional officers, and I suspect you will get a lot of hue and cry when that occurs. If there was some attempt to try to take control of that management information system on behalf of the board, I can see some problems that that would create because of the independence of the office. But that is definitely something that we need to look at. But we're not going to be able to do that in a short period of time. Page 43 June 26, 2003 The problems that I see in trying to make that happen is you've got the State of Florida that is wrapped up into all of the other constitutional officers, as well as the clerk. And I thought it was bad before. But when I read the bill that came out of Article 5 and the way that that has now been structured, it is an absolute nightmare. That is something that's going to take a lot of time to try to accomplish, and it's not going to be an easy task. And I think when it's all said and done, that if Jim and I have an opportunity to go through that, it will take a lot of resources to accomplish that. There are a lot of legal hurdles that would be accomplished -- we would have to accomplish and a lot of political issues that would have to be addressed. You need to think about that task before you do that. One of the things that you're going to be confronted with is a statutory provision that says that custody and control of personal equipment rests in that constitutional officer and cannot be taken away from that constitutional officer without a constitutional officer's agreement. That was the -- what we ran into when the board tried to do this the last time. You all take it for what it was worth. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coyle, my only intent is to see if we could save the taxpayer some money. MR. BROCK: And I think that should be looked at. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just as a director, that's what I was thinking. One figurehead to direct all the different problems that you have the IT (sic). Even though you have the supervision in each of the areas, you'd have a director that would -- they'd answer to. MR. BROCK: I think that ultimately the person that they answer to is the constitutional officer, not to that division head. And I think that the reality of the scenario is that my IT department and your IT department, or MIS, whatever you want to call it, work so well together right now that I'm not really interested in upsetting the apple cart, to be honest with you. But I'm willing to look at it, and if Page 44 June 26, 2003 there are some economies of scale that can be gained by combining departments, we certainly need to address it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think this is an issue that holds the promise for both rewards and pitfalls, and I don't have enough information right now to make the decision on it. I think the idea is a good one. We won't be able to resolve it for this budget cycle, but perhaps it would be a good thing for the next fiscal year to have the productivity committee look at it. I think it goes beyond just a position, just a director. I think that with the complications of Article 5, and we don't know how that's going to shake out, and some of the other things that are likely to occur over the next year, it might be a good idea just to look at the interrelationships of all the constitutional officers and the Board of County Commissioners and our IT department and just see if there are efficiencies that can be achieved without removing responsibilities. And so maybe that's something the productivity committee could take a look at for the next fiscal year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd go along with that one. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Coyle I think's on -- has got the right idea, but I am very reluctant to take on the responsibility of the records for the elections office. You're talking about-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be good for an election year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I say it's their baby, you know, and I think the responsibility for how that's run. And also the clerk of courts, I mean, with the privacy of his records. If anything went wrong and we were directly involved in it, now all of a sudden the Page 45 June 26, 2003 constitutional officer can come back and say it was due to the meddling of the commission. So we have to walk into this with our eyes wide open. And if anything, we might be sharing resources, people, but as far as responsibility goes, I think it's very important that it stays where it is for the constitutional officers who have been duly elected to assume that responsibility. MR. BROCK: You know, I can't speak for the relationship that exists between the other constitutional officers and your IT department today, but I can speak for the relationship that exists between my office and your IT department. And we have a very good working relationship with them as a consequence of a lot of work, both on Jim and his staffs part and my IT department and working together with this SAP. I think you will find that the problems in implementation of the SAP software for the financial modules and all of its component parts that we put in place in the time period that we did, with the limited number of problems that we had, is saying a lot for the interrelationship that exists between those two departments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions on the clerk of courts' MIS rehab? (No response.) MR. BROCK: You know, one more statement about the cooperation of the two departments. I think the two departments actually got together and talked about this conference room that they were building that would be a multi-use conference room. So I mean, that's the type of cooperation that exists there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got to put an end to that. MR. BROCK: With little effort, I bet we could. MR. MUDD: No, sir. Leo, do we have any speakers? MR. OCHS: Not on this item, no, sir. Page 46 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. MR. CAMP: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Why don't we take a 1 O-minute break for our court reporter. MR. MUDD: And public services will be next. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. MR. MUDD: The next division to present, Mr. Chairman, is public services. If you take a look at the overview on Page 1, it's the third line down under the county manager's agency. And Mr. Dunnuck and his directors will brief you on their $50,897,000 budget, which is a 5.7 percent increase. Mr. Dunnuck? MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator. I just want to give a quick, you know, brief overview and answer any questions that you may have and see if you'd like to have a department-by-department overview specifically. Quickly, I wanted to point out that we are the largest division in the county. If you look down at the bottom, we have 540 FTE's, which in-- MR. OCHS: John, where are you? What page? MR. DUNNUCK: C-1. MR. OCHS: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: C-1 under the public services tab in your notebooks. MR. DUNNUCK: outstanding, once again. We brought in a budget that I think is We looked at areas where we could be more efficient. We looked at areas where we could look at fee increases throughout the year, and we've done that. Page 47 June 26, 2003 Our overall general fund increase is 2.9 percent. But when you look at it from a personnel side, and the reason I pointed out the FTE's, is the fact that we have a large number of personnel, and so we are impacted by when you have increases to health insurance and so forth, more significantly from that standpoint. So we brought in a very flat operational budget because we did take a look at those things. On the expanded side, we're asking for four and a half additional positions. But if you look from our standpoint, we actually reduced positions throughout the year. So from a net standpoint, I think we're in pretty good shape as well. Those are directly correlated to expanded services with the library system on Sunday hours and also better communications with the public on the library side and parks and recreation as well. With that, I can turn it over to the individual departments, I can give you a department-by-department summary, and we can go through it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck. Any questions for Mr. Dunnuck on his administration? (No response.) MR. DUNNUCK: One thing I would specifically like to point out, if we decide to go straight into capital before we do that, one of the things we have in here is a fee increase. And I know this is a board discussion item, pretty much on an annual basis and staff puts it in on an annual basis, is a beach parking permit fee for the sticker. We added that back into the budget this year. It offsets the expense of having an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples that we've upped per the direction we've gotten through workshops with the Board of County Commissioners and the city. It's an offsetting cost. But that's in there for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective is you need to take that out, that increase. Page 48 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'm in agreement with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would disagree, but-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I disagree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I disagree also. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you want to increase the fees? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not increase, keep it. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, this is a new-- this would be a new sticker fee. It's a $12.00 fee for the sticker, the annual pass, so to speak. Right now we provide it for free. And this offsets the administrative costs, but also offsets our operational costs, you know, that is increasing with beach. And we throw that out there because we think this, similar to boat launch fees, is something that the board should consider. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coyle stated that he'd like to keep this fee in. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to keep the fee in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle has a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: About fees, I just wanted to verify that your fee increase schedule is included in this budget. Or is there some concern that it hasn't been approved yet? MR. DUNNUCK: It hasn't -- well, we're going to be taking several fee increases to the board later this summer. We typically annually bring the parks and rec. fee increase in adjustments in September. That is incorporated into this budget. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're assuming that they will be approved in this particular budget. MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. MR. DUNNUCK: The only one that's conservative that we Page 49 June 26, 2003 haven't included in this budget is EMS. We're taking a look at those fees as well, and we're probably going to be bringing something back to the board, maybe even at the July 29th meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And with respect to boat launch fees, you mentioned that, but those are not included in this budget; am I correct in stating that? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You will be bringing that back for future consideration, perhaps? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck, can you tell me what the expanded positions are for? MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly. In the library system, we're looking to expand the hours of the -- to Sunday hours at, I believe it's the headquarters library to provide additional services. And I think we also have a position in there to work on information referral services for the community. It's been something that's very popular. We're looking at consolidating information for the whole community, and this will be a centralized location where people can go and get information on everything, you know, anywhere from what's going on at the Philharmonic to what recreation services are available, not just at the county parks and rec., city and so forth. And that's what we're working for. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifteen years ago I was on a committee, a blue ribbon committee from the County Commissioners, trying to put together an INR. I'm so glad that after all of these years it's finally coming to fruition. We needed to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Henning, Page 50 June 26, 2003 I couldn't quite follow it from this end. On the beach sticker, did we have three commissioners opposed to it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you have three commissioners that wants to charge the residents in the unincorporated area a fee, a new fee to go to the beach. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to confirm that from here. I know I was opposed, I know you were opposed to it, I know Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it was just you and I. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now wait just a minute. Tell me again what you just said. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Beach stickers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, presently we don't charge -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- residents to go to the beaches in the unincorporated area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what we did was increase it and have a beach sticker of $12.00 per year per vehicle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No -- MR. DUNNUCK: I believe it's actually $12.00 for two years is what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two years, $6.00 a year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to remember that right now there's a fee incorporated that we the taxpayers are picking up on this because of administrative fees and everything else on this. And hopefully maybe this will put some money into the coffers so that we can look for beach access and boat access in the future. So it's basically a user fee that we're charging here. And I think we're using it to the benefit of helping to maybe get more parking for people who want to park their trailers and boats and things of this Page 51 June 26, 2003 nature. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me, Mr. Dunnuck, who is eligible to get a parking sticker? MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, Marla can give you the specific details on it. MR. RAMSEY: Anyone who is a resident of Collier County or who owns property in Collier County. That would include renters in that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we find that most of the increase in population and the requests for beach parking stickers occur during the peak tourist season, do we not? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. We see that especially during the fall it seems that we give out a lot more during that period of time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the issue here is that it's not something that's just confined to year-round residents, it's something that is confined to -- or it's something that is highly impacted by tourists who actually come here and rent places, and they in fact wind up getting a beach sticker. I know many who do. And I think they do that by providing some documentation with respect to utilities, which in many cases they're obligated to pay if they rent a place for several months. So it's not like we're increasing a fee just for our permanent residents here. And the other thing is that we have placed an emphasis on user fees. We -- and it costs us money to print and issue stickers, it costs us salaries to provide the stickers to people. I think we have every right to recover the cost of administration of the program. And $6.00 a year for free parking at a beach is a bargain in anybody's budget. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, and then I'm going to have a couple words. Then Commissioner Halas. Page 52 June 26, 2003 Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can't keep my C's straight, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I just want to point out, I agree, Commissioner Coyle is right in his assumptions right down the line, except for one thing, that we don't also charge for people to use the libraries, we don't charge them to use the other parks to be able to go there and use it. There's certain things that have been accepted for a long time by our citizenry as a right to be able to do it. And the beaches and the access to the beach is one of those things that we provided as a service. The same as the libraries, same as the parks. I don't think it's warranted at this time. But I am still not clear, I get mixed signals from Commissioner Fiala on how she stands on it. I really didn't -- I heard both ways on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you know what, you're right. I was just going to ask the chairman if I -- you know, are we making a final decision now? Because I have some mixed feelings about it also. And I'm thinking that maybe we should continue on the way we are going right now by not charging these people, because there are so few things that people actually have a right to do here. And so I was just wondering if this is a final decision process right now? You know, I'm wavering. MR. MUDD: Well, let me help just a little bit, because I'm a dollar and cents kind of guy, and this is the budget. If you look at page -- in your booklet on C, you'll find out that that $12.00 per sticker is estimated to bring in a revenue of $480,000. And Mike's working on the page right now. MR. OCHS: C-47. COMMISSIONER FIALA: C-47. MR. MUDD: What was it? Page 53 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: C-47. MR. MUDD: C-477 COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the very bottom. MR. MUDD: At the very bottom of the page you'll see where it says a $12.00 service fee is recommended for beach parking stickers to help offset the actual cost of the stickers and the administrative costs. The fee would generate $480,000 in the FY, and it's a two-year sticker. So that's $240,000 a year. Right now out of the general fund you pay the City of Naples how much on a contract that hopefully they'll review under a year? John, what was the old contract amount? MR. DUNNUCK: I believe the old contract amount was about 250,000. MR. MUDD: 250,000. And they would like to have it around $400,000 a year for the county to pay for the privilege of using their parking spaces for the City of Naples. So this $12.00 fee, which would be $6.00 a year equivalent, doesn't even cover the cost that the City of Naples asks the county to be reimbursed for, as Commissioner Coletta would say, a privilege to use a park, a beach. And I'm just giving you the financials and the fiscal impact of that process so you get an idea, not only is it sticker printing, but it's also some other fees that are coming out of the general fund in order to use the beach. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm going to take my turn, and then Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle. And to answer Commissioner Fiala's question, no, we're -- this is not the final budget hearing. We're going to pick this back up in September and October. So this is probably going to be another discussion time that we can bring it up. And I can tell you, I will contact the East Naples Civic Association, the Golden Gate Civic Association, the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, North Naples Property Owners Page 54 June 26, 2003 Association to get their input on this, because the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island does not charge their residents to go to their beach. So we can -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- continue thiS discussion, or we can finalize it up in September/October. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just made an excellent point, an excellent point. Why should we charge county residents when the two cities do not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the County Manager made a very strong point here, that most of the beach access that we have in the community basically is in Naples and, therefore, Naples is charging our citizens, charging us, to use their beach. Now, if we decide not to pay them that fund, that's great. But then that limits our access here to beach access that's available in the county area. So I guess there's a couple of other ways of looking at this. And it's all on how you perceive how important access to the beaches are. And of course we have other problems here, too, in regards to boat access. So that's -- that also enters into the picture here, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, question, then a comment. Tell me how the beach permits are issued and what's the difference between the city and the county? MR. RAMSEY: Currently all of the community centers in the county issue a parking sticker to residents of Collier County and to property owners. They also issue them at the City of Naples, with the same criteria attached to that. And Marco Island/Mackle Park provides stickers to residents as well, using county stickers for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is there a difference between the county sticker and the city sticker? Page 55 June 26, 2003 MR..RAMSEY: Yes, there is. The city sticker is a different logo than the county sticker. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let me address the issue about charging people to go to the beach. That's not what this does. It has nothing to do with the ability of people to go to the beach. People continue to go to the beach free. There's no charge to go to the beach. This is a parking reduction. If you don't have the sticker, you go to the beach and you park in a metered space, you've got to pay money for the meter. If you've got a sticker that you pay $12.00 for two years for, you can park there as long as you'd like and you don't have to pay money for the parking meter. Now, the issue is that it does cost money to maintain that beach, to clean it, to take the garbage off of it, to pick up the trash and the bottles that are discarded by people on the beach when they come there, to clean up the restrooms, particularly at the pier. It costs money to do that. And the county isn't paying -- no, no, the county isn't doing that, the City of Naples is doing it. And they are asking for some reimbursement to cover the cost of the many crowds of people that come to the beach to use the beach. They try to get their revenue from parking meters. So if you're going to issue stickers that let people park free, they don't get revenue from their parking meters. So what is the solution? We pay the money out of the general fund, it's coming out of our pockets anyway. Our residents are paying it. Or we charge the users for a ticket to park free. And that's all it is, it's a reduced parking fee. Just like if we are charging people a dollar a ride on the bus and we can get you a monthly pass for 50 cents, or for half the price, that's all you're doing here is that you are permitting people to buy a parking pass that keeps them from having to feed the meter. The alternative is for the City of Naples to say wait a minute, there's not going to be any more parking passes. Everybody's got to feed the meter. And then our people will pay more that way. That's Page 56 June 26, 2003 one of the problems. We've got to look at this thing from a standpoint of the way it operates, not from the standpoint of trying to keep people from using the beach. That's not what it is. The beach is free. But if you want to park in one of the parking meters at the beach, you either have to pay the fee or you have to pay for a sticker, which pays for the fee at a discounted rate. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Coyle, you make some very good points. Would you pass the pixie dust, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not sharing my pixie dust. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I'll wing it without the pixie dust. You -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll scatter it as you speak. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A little bit, if you would, please. Actually, I was going to bring some holy water, but I don't know if that would work either. Some concerns. As you know, beach access has been one of my driving compelling issues for me to try to come up with some sort of solution to it. And beach access is based upon the same reasoning that Commissioner Coyle is using. The beaches are public but you can't get to it because of the fact you can't park, you can't access through public land. But it gets down to a very basic. The people that moved here to Collier County in the recent past and in the distant past also have enjoyed the use of the beaches as one of the amenities they moved down here for. I mean, I would no more want to charge the people that want to use the beaches than I would the people that ride the bikes on the bike paths or use the tennis courts in the evening with the lights going, and it's very expensive to do it, or for the maintenance of the library over and above what's already being Page 57 June 26, 2003 spent. We don't charge a user fee to get into it. But also, it's not fair, the fact that if you live close to the beach you have an access to the beach just by the fact that you're there. If you can ride a bike to it or you can walk to an access that doesn't have parking, or if you live on Marco Island, they have accesses for the residents there that are just for the residents. This helps to bring a balance and a fairness to the whole issue. The dollars and cents that we're going to be taking from our citizenry is pretty minor, and I'm pretty sure we can find it on other ends of the budget. Also, too, we do cover the cost of the Naples beaches to a large degree with the tourist development dollars that we receive. And we find other means to do it. But I think we need to protect the beaches, the setup the way it is at this point in time so that it doesn't become an access issue for what is it, $240,000 a year? It's all of a sudden going to be a -- it's going to be one of those issues that people are going to really feel put out on. It's not the $6.00, it's not the fact that they have to go through to get the permit, it's just the fact that they have to do it at all. And I'd like to keep the status quo where it is now until we can hear back from our citizenry. I'm sure this is not going to be a popular item when we start to go back to our civic associations, as Commissioner Henning mentioned earlier. And so I am very much opposed to instituting this new tax -- or fee, excuse me. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, before you make your final deliberations, you just need to understand, the budget, as proposed, includes 480,000 in revenue. If you opt not to implement the fee, in essence you're spending the first half million dollars of your available UFR money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's not quite correct, it's over a two-year period. MR. RAMSEY: No, that's not correct. Page 58 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No? MR. RAMSEY: It would be -- it's $480,000 per year. We do give out over 40,000 stickers annually that are good for two years. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So the full 480 is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- currently. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is one of the items that's not comfortable. But in this case here I feel very strongly in favor of the public use of this beach without new restrictions. I really do. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I understand. I just want you to fully understand the-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I fully understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- financial implications before you make a decision. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, you still want to debate this? We're going to have plenty of time to debate it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really do. Because it's important that we debate it with the facts. This has nothing to do with access to the beach. There are hundreds of unmetered spaces within a block of the beach in Naples that anybody can park at, with or without a sticker and not paY a thing. The only thing this does is, it says if you want to park in a metered slot, you get a beach permit that gives you a discounted price on it and we charge you a little money for that. Because it's a user fee. Now, let's suppose we don't assess a fee, Guess what? You're paying it out of your ad valorem taxes now. And so everybody pays for it, including the people who are not going to the beach or using the beach. Now, what's fair, to have everybody who's a taxpayer subsidize a person who wants to use a metered space to park at the beach, or do Page 59 June 26, 2003 you want the person who uses the metered space to pay for the metered space? I would prefer to have the user fee. So whichever way it goes, I want to make sure that the facts are right. It has nothing to do with the beach access, it has everything to do with using a metered space free of charge. That's all it is. And it doesn't -- it's not an additional charge. You're essentially transferring money that you would have to pay out of the general fund to money that is being paid by a user to use that metered space. There's no difference in cost. Zero. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to move on, but I just have one clarification. Presently a beach sticker, can you park -- that beach sticker, can you park in a metered space? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a get out of jail free card to put coins in the meter? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. But the way it currently would work is if you don't have a sticker on your car, and there are a lot of residents who don't, when they go to one of the county beaches, they will pay $4.00 per day to park there. If they go to the City of Naples, they will put in quarters for as long as they are there. Up to, I don't know, 60 or 75 cents an hour. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: A quarter is worth how long? MR. RAMSEY: About 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions on Mr. Dunnuck's division? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to move into capital improvements for '047 MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just so I'm clear, okay, because I'm not so clear on this last one, okay, do you want me to add beach parking as an unfinanced requirement and get the commissioners' Page 60 June 26, 2003 vote overnight and then come back tomorrow to see how they want to do it? And I think we can get that resolved without having to wait through September or whatever. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My personal feeling, it's going to be on my UFR list anyway. MR. MUDD: I'll put it on there, Commissioner, and let them know what the cost is. And then tonight when they take -- when everybody takes their piece home and marks it up, then we'll be in good shape. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you passing that out, by the way? MR. MUDD: Oh, I will, ma'am, at the end of the day. You're changing it as we speak, so I'm crossing and adding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The final vote on the allocation of the budget doesn't come up until the end of the -- in September and October. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So everything is a moving target until then. The only thing that we're going to nail down in July is the millage rate, okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Capital improvements, Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: If I could get you to turn to Page 3 of the capital improvements, following the purplish page in my book. Just a quick overview. We've got a little over $65 million worth of capital projects budgeted for this next year. Of that, the main highlight is the park, the regional park off of Livingston Road, between Vanderbilt and Immokalee Road. We can take you through all these capital projects, all the new ones that we've added, or I can just sit back and we can answer any questions that you may have. Page 61 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know this doesn't have much to do with capital improvements, but I understand the museums just started opening on Saturdays, is that true, to be more user friendly? MR. JAMRO: Yes, ma'am, we started early May we implemented that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted our audience to know that now we have museums open on Saturday, which is I think a benefit, and I appreciate you doing that. Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. JAMRO: I'm sorry, for the record, Ron Jamro, your museum director. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you know, on Page 3 after that blue sheet, if you just kind of turn to Page 4, and you'll have EMS impact fees on 350, and you'll have an idea by project number in the middle of the page, that's where everything's in there with those boxes there in the center. It gives you an idea of EMS and what they're used for. And then if you flip over to Page 7, it gives you an idea of the capital and what it's being used for in the library side of the house. And then the big one is Marla Ramsey, okay, on Page 10, and her capital improvement program for parks and recs and what they're being used for. And it's basically -- hers is consistent with the AUIR presentation that you received in December, and she's in keeping with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have some people here that want to talk about the museum. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we have three -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And just say that what we have presently, the TDC is going to fund around a million dollars for the museums. And Mr. Wharton has found some extra monies. Page 62 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: $600,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is going into the museums' budget, too. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that basically, after you look at everything that they have on the museum, that brings the museums' budget to be about $100,000 more than it was last year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it -- I have to ask my colleagues at this point, is that allocation okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if somebody wants to change our mind, please call them up. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Louis Stickles is the first speaker, followed by Connie Carter. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see anybody standing. They must have left. Anybody else? MR. MUDD: And then we have Pat England. And sir, if you could just state your name for the record. MR. LEE: I guess I'm invited. I put a chip in some time ago. My name is Arthur Lee, and I'm a 26-year resident of Naples. And for 17 of those years, I've been director of the archeological laboratory at -- located on the museum grounds. We are -- our work is trying to help develop more details about the history of this area's -- this area's history, which goes back 7,000 years. And in doing this, we are meshing our work, and have been for many years, with the museum. We help them with exhibits, we help them with seminars, with public speakers, with events such as our Archeology Day. We help with their big fall event. And in this regard, we're well incorporated with them. So one other item while I'm here. I want to congratulate the Commission on allocating the money to repair the museum in the last year or so. It got in pretty bad shape, roofs falling down and so on. Page 63 June 26, 2003 Now it shines and sparkles. Things are repaired, the lawns are green, the buildings are painted, and you have my congratulations for them. Now, I'd like to step outside my -- not business, whatever relationship I have -- have had with you for these years. I'm going to stress a point now and recommend very, very strongly that something be done to augment the staff of the museum. You're now on a seven-day week. They are using volunteer help to the maximum. But I'm concerned because I don't see the capacity there for generating new and improved exhibits and extending their current programs. Again, I apologize for getting out of my field, but I feel -- as a citizen, I feel very, very strongly about this. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Ochs, do you have any speakers on the museum side? MR. OCHS: No, sir. MR. MUDD: I had those three before. They were Pat England, Louis Stickles and Connie Carter. MS. CARTER: I'm Connie Carter and I just would like to say that I -- these three museums, the museum in Naples, the one that is in Everglades City and the one that is being developed in Immokalee I feel gives intellectual opportunities re: Florida's history, culture, the development of scientific awareness in archeology, astronomy, et cetera, not otherwise available to citizens and tourists of Collier County. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Last, but not least. MS. ENGLAND: My name is Pat England, I'm a volunteer at the museum. It seems to me that the museum needs a more stable funding source. How can it plan ahead to fulfill its obligations, such as opening on Saturdays and opening the Roberts Ranch with seven and Page 64 June 26, 2003 a half people to cover three museums? Two museums are running with only one person. It really needs more employees. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And we're all done with the capital improvements? MR. MUDD: Pending the board's questions, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: you much very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Dunnuck, thank Close to 11:30. We have 11:30 time certain. I do see the airport authority here. If we're ready, we can go ahead and move on with that item. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, while they're moving up, if I could get you to turn to tab Board of County Commissioners, and it's under Page 1-9. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Trying to get there. My book keeps on falling apart. MR. MUDD: Some of that dust up there, Commissioner, really works. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He'd like to appropriate more money for the budget books. MR. MUDD: More beans. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Page I-? And I'll turn this over to Mr. Gene Schmitt, who's the interim airport director. Sir? MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. And I have two other members are the vice-chairman of the airport authority, and our finance officer, Mr. Titus with me as well. The first thing that I would like to say to you is, is that we have, Page 65 June 26, 2003 as I'm sure all of you know, have been going through a series of manager changes, starting with the departure of the executive director, the interim executive director and the airport manager. It's my feeling that the most recent business plan prepared by the outgoing interim director needed to be readdressed and would not be ready for presentation until a carefully prepared strategic plan was completed. The -- this delay in being able to provide you with a meaningful business plan has been disturbing to me, but we must take the time and make sure that it's done correctly. As to the question when will we be able to provide a reasonably accurate plan, I must refer to my board for advice on that in that area. That's about all that I have to say, but of course I'm standing by to try to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the members of the board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do have one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking about your strategic plan, your five-year plan. When do you feel that that will be prepared? I understand that you want to make it comprehensive and do a very good job at it, but when do you expect that to be completed? MR. VASEY: Dennis Vasey, vice-chairman, and also resident of Collier County. It's interesting, Commissioner, that you would ask that question, since the airport authority is a retail activity. And it might also be interesting to note that the only business plan that was ever prepared was one that was contracted out and developed by a commercial firm at a cost of about $50,000. Imagine our dilemma when we looked at updating it last year, and we did update it last year, at the prospects in a budget climate that was not conducive to adding more money to Page 66 June 26, 2003 services that didn't actually benefit citizens of Collier County. Now, you may wonder why I make that kind of a statement, but it's important to recognize that a business plan is a guess. I guess that this is going to happen. Well, in reality you already have an airport system, you have three airports, you have pretty well a public service-driven operation that was severely impacted by 9-11. In fact, there is no airport authority in America that didn't nearly face bankruptcy. And had it not been for the federal government, in all likelihood airports like Cleveland, New Orleans, Hartsfield Field in Atlanta and even in the nation's capital were facing serious dilemmas, simply because revenue has to come through the door. If it's not in the concession fee, if it's not in the purchase of fuel or if it's not in some type of rental agreement, there basically is no revenue that comes into the county. Sale of gas is so unpredictable. You heard earlier in budget testimony from the clerk's office that he needed almost a half a million dollars more just to put fuel in his vehicles. Well, you can imagine trying to sell fuel in a climate like that, especially where an airplane can come into Collier County and fly over to Miami-Dade and refuel if the prices are better. So you have to kind of put things in a context. And with that, our chairman has been attempting to work with a strategy that will allow us to better market the facilities that we have in Collier County. You have Everglades Air Park that at one time served as the airfield for the county. That was it. It was the only way in and the only way out. And of course as things changed, we moved further to the west and we find ourselves with Immokalee, we find ourselves with Marco Island. What we really find ourselves with, responsibilities to the general aviation population, based on federal aviation regulations, and we also find ourselves serving a Collier County public, much like a regional park, much like a library, much like any other activity in the county, EMS, it really doesn't Page 67 June 26, 2003 matter, we are in the same boat. However, the benefit of the airport system is in what it provides in those things that we don't see daily, and that's reconstitution of the government after an emergency situation. That's a place to deploy forces in the event of a natural disaster. That's a place for the forestry and the departments and the divisions and all of the agencies of the government to assemble. These are not the kinds of things that we really have access to every day, nor do we think about or plan for. So when you look at a business plan for retail operation, we basically give you a business plan every year when we ask for budget money. We think that based on fuel sales and based on analytical models and based on information in the industry, and based on a lot of variables that no one can understand, we think that we are going to have to this year ask for less money than we did last year. Now, we're not even increasing personnel at the airport authority, since we were basically forbidden to employ a leader. Fortunately we have a volunteer. And let me go in and talk to the decision by the board not to let us hire an executive director. What it did was it took away the brains of the outfit. And it said okay, existing employees have to do two, three or four times more work while we try to figure out how we overcome this resistance to be able to organize. So we're in a catch-22. Basically you've told us we can't hire anyone to do the jobs that you're asking us to do, and now you're asking me to tell you when we're going to do them. And what you're faced with is you're faced with a group of very dedicated volunteers who have very strong staff support and who have very extensive backgrounds in business befuddled, simply because there are two things that are missing from this ingredient. The first one is we hear in the paper, and if you can rely on that as a source of information, that there are some who would like to privatize the aviation system. Well, that's easy. You have to go ask Page 68 June 26, 2003 permission from the FAA. You have to meet the FAA criteria. The second part of that thing is well, can't we become a more efficient operating airport? In most of the budgets that you've seen -- although I have to compliment the county administrator in keeping your revenue neutral; he's also kept the personnel growth down -- we haven't had personnel growth of the airport in the last 10 years. In fact, we've had to borrow. We've had to take John Kirchner to manage three airports. We've had to do a lot of things with our personnel that normally wouldn't be accommodated. And then the cost of doing business with Collier County is very expensive. We don't control how much we pay employees, we don't control how much we pay for our insurance, we don't control how much we pay for the services that you charge us for. And in essence, we get $100, you charge us 73 and said we borrowed 100, and we have to pay you that back. Now, if that's not a catch-22, I don't know what is. So what we've done is we've realistically given you, after everybody in the world has squeezed it just as hard as they can squeeze it, and after Mr. Schmidt has gone in there and squeezed it some more, and Mr. Titus has squeezed it some more, we've given you our best approximation of what the aviation industry is going to do in the coming year. And it's less money than you spent last year, but it turns out to be more money because of the cost of services that we're charged by the county. So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. And I really do want you to know that you've got seven volunteer board members who spend an awful lot of time assisting some very professional employees, who quite frankly, as the ladies that came up and said you need more people to run the museum, can you imagine trying to run a large public service facility safely, complying with FAA guidelines, complying with State DOT guidelines and complying with all the county guidelines with no increases in people? And then Page 69 June 26, 2003 to be constantly in the limelight for a business plan. As I said this morning, we could put a cover on the Naples Daily News, send it up, you'd have a sports section, a classified section, you'd have the local section and you'd have national news. And that's not what you want. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate your explanation on things. What concerns me about the Immokalee Airport -- I think it's a diamond in the rough, and I think you probably realize that also. And for years we've been talking about bringing in trade in this area. It's a free foreign trade zone, we've got a custom (sic) service there. We're not utilizing that. And I really think that we need to be more visionary and sit down with a real good plan, five-year plan, and get back to core business and really decide what we're going to do with that airport out there and get back in the aviation portion of it. I know there's been a lot of talk in the past that we'd like to expand that airport, we'd like to bring in freight into that airport, but I don't really see that happening. I mean, there's a lot of talk. And I think we need somebody to really drive that area, that nail in that direction. MR. VASEY: Commissioner, that's a wonderful point. Two points, though -- actually three. The first is that we do have an aviation system responsibility. And we're meeting that. The second is kind of the intangible one that the Board of County Commissioners launched us on and that's make money. So as you know, we lease out part of the facility for race activities, which is totally and wholly inconsistent with aviation operations. And the third is the industrial park. And what we've said for years on the board is we need someone in the county who retails -- Page 70 June 26, 2003 who handles commercial property resale and lease, simply because that's a full-time occupation. And I don't know how you handle leases in the county for county-leased facilities, but at Immokalee, if we had a commercial lease manager who was responsible for managing that space, it is a diamond in the rough. Now, when we went out and we looked -- to show you just exactly the emphasis that the federal government is placing on airports, they are the ones that came forward with the grants so that we could fund these visionary thoughts. Are they realistic? Unless this board takes a look vision-wise and is willing to give us our runway extension to a minimum of 10,500 feet -- we would like to see 15,000. The 5,000 feet we've got are never going to be satisfactory for any type of commercial activity. So there's an issue much like the fee for beach access that really needs to be discussed. And that is we've done the studies, we need funding for a runway alignment study to ensure that we have the best direction and that we're avoiding most of the proposed growth out there. But the reality of it is, is that the Board of County Commissioners, in whatever plan that's designed, has to determine the necessity for public service aviation, and exactly how they want to see Immokalee developed. And it would seem to me that the big factor in any development in Immokalee is going to be that community, its residents and also a lot of other factors play in, such as road access, egress, ingress, all of the emergency preparedness information and other things. And we've tried to stay-- we've tried to maintain the fidelity of safe aviation practices and as an economic engine, attempt to bring in an industrial zone to complement that with a foreign trade zone to have a space for inspectors from the customs department and to overall complement what's going on in the county. Page 71 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you come up with a detailed plan of exactly what it's going to take and what the -- what your projected costs are for coming up to -- coming up with a plan in regards to what we're going to do with that airport? Is that possible, to come up with a detail -- with the people that you have presently on board? MR. VASEY: No. Commissioner, I respectfully will tell you that the volunteer board you have can do something. The staff is hard pressed to do day-to-day activities, but if anyone wanted to really look at the potential of Immokalee, it would take the action that we have ongoing with EDC right now for brand recognition and trademarking. Couple that with a comprehensive plan for the City of Immokalee, or for Immokalee and its -- that regional area, and it's going to take a lot of contributions from more than just a group of people. And I think it would necessarily be -- we'd need to serve that with a contract so that we could actually lay out a scope of work that was agreed on, and then have that go forward and come back. And it would take some time to do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any air carriers that are interested in using Immokalee Airport, if we make the improvements necessary? MR. VASEY: Commissioner, we've always been told that Miami and Fort Lauderdale are saturated, and that if we had a runway and if we had the facilities, Immokalee would be a usable area. But as soon as we tell them we've got 5,600 feet, they kind of say, well, sorry, that's just not enough space. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I guess that's where I was leading before. I'm sorry if I led you astray, but that's what I was looking at is to come up with a detailed business plan in regards to what really needs to be done out there to Immokalee Airport to entice business so that we can get something for our money spent. MR. VASEY: We've already done that, sir and we're in the -- Page 72 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. MR. VASEY: -- I think we have the beginning stages of the EDC activity done, and we're expecting a report. It is not going to be immediately, but we have taken those steps. And I think it would be appropriate to bring jointly to you EDC and the airport authority, and to go through the effort to stabilize and to recognize Immokalee as a destination for air freight carriers, freight forwarders and freight consolidators. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vasey, before I go over to Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta, what I heard you say, and no offense, is we have a retail operation. And I heard you say that -- comparing it with the library, the clerk of courts. You know, I view this as a service to users out there. No different than -- I'm not finished -- other things that is (sic) provided here in Collier County. I'll tell you that our administrators do have a business plan that go beyond one year. Our administrators do have plans. They have transportation that goes out to 25 years. We have a capital improvement plan for our parks and rec, and it goes on and on. And what I'm hearing you say is we don't have the experience to do that. And that's a little concerning to me. I really would like a business plan, because what I see is we're ramping up from two years ago of asking for more general dollars to run the airport. And I would like to know when you're going to become self-sufficient. MR. VASEY: Where are those magic pills you've got out there? Just flip a couple. And I say that respectfully. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll tell you, years and years ago, I mean, all -- every year the airport authority says okay, '03 was -- we are going to become self-supporting. No more general funds. And now what I hear is that's going to be thrown out the window. MR. VASEY: First of all, I want to contradict you just a little Page 73 June 26, 2003 bit. Nobody in my short 12-year history, other than the initial board, felt that we could be self sufficient. What we said was that planning for self-sufficiency is important, and to get there we offered our first business plan. Now, that's a little different than the way you've cited the second. When you cite roads and your CIP plan, those are basically state driven, federal driven. You're getting to a lot of federal money, a lot of state money in there. You're not getting that same kind of money in the airport authority, although we are applying for grants and we have executed grants. And we have increased the real property and the potential of those airports, and we're going in a good business. When I say we're a retail operation, what I'm really saying is that we set user fees and we hope that the use of those airports will be consistent with the user fees we've assessed. And we hope at the end of the year, when we look back at the year for the measurable accounting that we can do, that our model was correct, that our forecasting was correct, and that we did the best we could. Simply you can't plan on fuel sales at purchases of $1.05 and end up paying $1.55. You're automatically way in the hole. And that's the issue that most of us find. That's certainly the issue that faces all airport authorities. And secondly, with regard to retail operations, it's very important to recognize that self-sufficiency has to have a plant that can actually generate the revenue for a certain budget legal. So if I'm citizen Vasey and I get FAA approval to run an airport and I begin to run that airport, the model that I set out to use is the one that says look, we estimated we're going to need a million a year in funds, and I hope that I'm going to generate a million two or a million three in revenue the first year. I hope that in the second year that's going to increase. And I'm doing things to make that happen. Unfortunately, with a public service, and with catastrophes, and Page 74 June 26, 2003 with other people being able to dictate exactly how you manage your resources, that doesn't lend itself to any business plan I've ever seen, simply because if we had had a business plan, we would have hired an executive director and we would have had a leader and we would have had a lot of things. But we were precluded from doing that. What that did was it put a lot of stress on the system in other places, and that had to take its toll on other activities. One of them was being no director to lead the development of the business plan. And I understand that it's a chit, we owe you a chit. You're going to get a business plan. We as a board, though, want to make sure what we're giving you is not just a cover sheet and a lot of baloney. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vasey, two things: One thing is you haven't reduced $100,000 that was allocated to the position of the airport director. The second thing is, you stated that transportation received state and federal monies to build those roads. I've got to remind you that your grants come from local, state and federal. Commissioner Coyle? MR. VASEY: Point well taken. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of questions, then I'd like to make some observations. There's a $1.1 million carryforward for revenue under the capital fund. What is that a carryforward from? Is it a prior grant, or is it carryforward from general fund allocation? MR. TITUS: Those are normally monies that are left on capital grants that we've gotten in the past that we have not spent the money. So it's money that will be spent in the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, you're not planning on spending in FY '04 then? Because it's not indicated -- it's an FY '03 forecast of $1.1 million carryforward. I'm trying to figure out what happens in FY '04. Page 75 June 26, 2003 MR. TITUS: We don't have that piece of paper that you're looking at. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 3 of the airport authority capital fund, Fund No. 496. You don't-- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioner, they're forecast to spend their full amount. If you'd look in the forecast column, the total forecasted appropriations are $1,970,000. The total forecast revenue is $1,970,000. So they are projecting to spend that available carryforward balance down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's in FY '03. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And there would be no carryforward into '04. And then there's just the one request for a project. MR. MUDD: The slope mower, Commissioners, is the only added-- slope mower. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay. MR. MUDD: They got to get to the sides by Everglades City in order to get those weeds close to the water's edge. And that slope mower, when it's idle, can help us in the roads and bridge, to help us with certain slopes, too. So it's multi-purpose. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, there are no substantial grants for 4,000 -- or year '04, except for the $60,000 that is, I guess, anticipated, or has a grant request already been submitted? MR. TITUS: The '04 -- the only capital that we're going after in '04 is something from FDOT for $60,000 for the purchase of the slope mower. That's the only capital grant from FDOT. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about for the rehab of the runway lights, has that been completed, was that completed or will it be completed in FY '03? MR. TITUS: That's -- we're shooting for it. That's an '03 item. Page 76 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was just wondering if the $125,000 you have allocated-- this is a safety item, I presume. And if there's any opportunity to get a grant, it ought to be for safety items at the airport. Has consideration been given for a grant, if additional money is necessary for that project, or do you think it's going to be covered pretty well with what you've got back there? MR. TITUS: 80 percent of that item is from a grant. We're only paying $25,000 from our-- from the county match. So $100,000 is coming from FDOT. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the $750,000, the grant for the powder coating facility, and -- well, actually the jobs that were supposed to be provided there, we declared that company in default. We're going to have to pay $750,000 to refund that grant if we don't find them jobs. MR. MUDD: $35,000 per -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Employee. MR. MUDD: -- individual job, and there was 21 jobs that were promised. So we're on the limb for $750,000 if we can't get a firm to come in and take that over before March of 2004. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's not included in this budget; that obligation is not included? MR. MUDD: No, sir, it's not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I -- I'm working with the County Manager, trying to get those jobs, okay? I hope we can do that. I don't know if we can. But I've only been here for a short period of time, two years, Mr. Vasey. I'm not going to take responsibility for the fact that somebody, an airport manager and an airport board, approved a grant for a company and a contract for a company for jobs that didn't materialize. That wasn't the Collier County Commissioners' responsibility. We are left holding the bag. You had a staff then. Page 77 June 26, 2003 There was no excuse. It was a bad decision. And I think it was a bad decision because it wasn't a plan. I don't have the information necessary to say to you that I'm going to give you $743,000 out of the general fund. I'd be happy to defer that decision until such time as we get a plan. And I do agree with you that under the current circumstances, you are spreading very thinly. And I do agree with you, that it's very difficult to administer an airport under those kinds of circumstances. But what I would have expected is perhaps we give some consideration to reducing emphasis on drag strips and start working on airports. And if the time is limited, that's the kind of plan I would have expected. So I'm not going to accept responsibility for this failure. I don't know how the other commissioners feel about it. I know you feel responsible for it. But I'm not buying it. You know, we can either get together and work together to solve this thing or we can keep taking shots at each other. But this is one jet engine that's not going to quit screaming until we get an issue resolved, okay? So I'm trying to help you. I'm not getting a lot of help from the other side. And I traveled to another airport just this week to talk with a company who might be interested in coming here and setting up shop here in Immokalee. And I am -- and the staff is going to be coordinating with those people to see what kinds of economic incentives are appropriate to get them here. And I'm going to do my best to do that. But I'm not going to keep throwing money into a black hole. Somebody's got to tell me where it's going and how it's going to benefit us. I understand your argument about it benefits the community. Naples Community -- Naples Municipal Airport is a good example of -- it is self-sustaining, fortunately, but it's got a lot of businesses in its prime location. So the arguments about the sustainability of an Page 78 June 26, 2003 airport and the willingness to make sure it exists to create benefits for a community are very, very valid for an operation like that. We have to prove that there's an opportunity for that in Immokalee, and I don't think we have proven that. Although like Commissioner Halas, I think the time might very well be right over the next few years, but we have to develop a plan to get there. And I'm happy to try to help, but I don't have sufficient information at the present time to even approve a budget. So if we'd like to postpone this until such time as we have the necessary information, I'd be happy to reconsider it sometime in September or October. MR. VASEY: Well, I'd like to comment a little bit. I like the whining comment, quite frankly, and I also like the assistance of bringing jobs in. But I've got to tell you that in the presentation we gave to the Chairman, he's aware of the fact that we have been actively trying. And I think you also know that that really isn't our contract for the 23 jobs. I think you'll recognize that that's in the Collier County government's bailiwick. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ooh. MR. VASEY: Now, what happens when you have two activities, one that gets the grant and the one that has the airport? You can't automatically say okay, you're it. And that's what happened. Somebody said you're it. And of course we got global in there, and if I went back and looked at all the decisions I've ever made in my life, I'm sure half of them wouldn't be the same. But that's the benefit we have of experience. We already know that because we didn't coordinate a contract within the government, among different governmental agencies, that there is a problem with it. And there is a potential that we may have $30,000 or $20,000 to pay back. However, I was told at the last meeting that we had that the agency responsible for the grant already had a prospective Page 79 June 26, 2003 employer. So this is working, it's working, but to put the tail out there and say okay, Vasey, because you made a bad comment in the paper and I'm angry about it -- this isn't a power trip with the airport authority. What this is, is this is an effort on the part of a lot of volunteers and a lot of very dedicated staff to operate a public facility within a market that isn't very predictable. And while I appreciate wanting a business plan as a retail operation, a business plan is designed to set up a capital program that allows you to move out, and we don't have and haven't been given the permission to at least comply with the ordinance and hire an executive director. Now, you mentioned that the money for the executive director was still in the budget. It is. Well, your comment implied that you still had money in the budget for an executive director. And until we're told by the Board of County Commissioners as an activity that we don't need an executive director, we continue to budget for the possibility of having to employ one. But the level of work that you've given a group of employees and the responsibility that by implication that we're spending too much time on a racetrack when in fact was the Board of County Commissioners that said we want you to generate revenue. And that unactive runway right now is not productive to aviation, because it's too short and it's in the middle of areas that you wouldn't want to put aviation in. And the use as a temporary facility is one that generates revenue back to the county. It doesn't come to the airport authority, it goes back to the general fund. So all in all, what we tried to do is we tried to make sure that we could have a logically managed and efficiently operating aviation system within the county. And you're right, we really shouldn't keep taking shots at one another. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to take any shots, Page 80 June 26, 2003 but I'll make an observation that I have made in the past. I have never in my life seen anyone so intent on self-destruction as I have this airport authority board. Never. And I'm trying to keep you from going there. Now, you can help or you can not help. But I think that what I'm going to do is I'm not going to vote on this budget. I don't have the information. But I'll get actively involved to see what I can do to help. And if-- I don't know that we've ever told the airport authority they can't hire an executive director. Have we done that? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you have. You basically told the airport authority to hold up on hiring an executive director, pending some resolution of what we want to do, based on the board's direction of what you want to do with the airport authority in the future. What I have done over the last 30 days, based on your direction and with you, Commissioner Coyle, is to talk to quite a few people. We had one person that said that they'd like to come in and take over Marco, and they dropped off the face of the earth with that one, okay, when we said come on in and tell us about it. We had another person come in and said he has an economic development plan that he would like to do if he purchased Everglades City Airport. And I asked that person to please give his proposal to us by the end of July. I've also talked to Conservation Collier and said would Conservation Collier, if the county was a willing seller, would they be interested in some portion of Everglades City Airport to be put into that program, because it does butt up against that water area, it has a tower that can be used for bird watching or whatever. We also talked to Mr. Dunnuck and said Mr. Dunnuck, are you interested in putting ramps there and have some kind of boat launch facility in that particular juncture. So there's some options. I think the airport authority and the interim director will tell you that Everglades City Airport is problematic. It's a rather small airport, put in years ago, and Mr. Vasey mentioned that it was there Page 81 June 26, 2003 for Collier County government when it was in that process, and it only has a couple of airplanes and it basically does not make a profit and hasn't probably since the turn of time. And Everglades City used to have it and turned it over to the county because it was a loser when they had it. Mr. Schmidt, in his wisdom, has decided to cancel the tower movement to fit in with the FAA specifications of the seven-to-one slope from the runway increment, and even with the consultant's recommendation, the new tower would still violate that seven-to-one slope regulation requirement that FAA has. So my hat's off to him, because he's been digging and he's been peeling the onion back within that operation in order to do that in the short time that he's been there. Also talked to Mr. Soliday at the Naples Airport Authority about some kind of a merger in that process, and more to come on that one. And I've also talked to Mr. Ball, who has the Lee County Port Authority. Mr. Ball was -- went through the history of Page Field. Page Field was a loser too, until they started building T hangars and bringing in -- and setting certain pieces of that property aside, turning it over-- we finally got sound back, maybe they'll play my opening. They've also looked at ways to divest some of the land around Page Field so it could be in an economic development zone and turned over to a real estate firm in order to build that. I've had staff look at all the airfields. We only have -- we have one airfield that's land grant and that's Immokalee. But there are some strings attached to the Marco area airport. There was an agreement made with the board of trustees and the State of Florida for an exchange of 83 acres back in '76. And if we -- if that ever stops being an airport, we have to give that land back to them. So there's a string attached to the Marco Island Airport. I've also had staff take a look at ways where we could ask the Page 82 June 26, 2003 FAA to -- and Mr. Vasey mentions, you know, the incubator facility and was it the right match for an airport. It should be operating airports and not trying to do economic development. I don't think the EDC will argue that argument with anyone. Maybe there's ways to divest some of that land that's not going to be needed for airport authority out in Immokalee. Even though it's land grant, there are precedents that are out there with FAA where they're willing to do that. And we're going to bring all of those ideas back, I'm going to run them across Mr. Schmidt, bring them back to the board here over the summertime. But I will tell you, Commissioners, that I don't think we're going to have a solution to this one, because some of it's going to be a political thing, and we're going to have to talk to the City of Naples, if that's an alternative that you want to go to. And it's going to take some time. And I think truthfully that we're at least a year away for having a solution, plus we don't have the five-year business plan. So that also gives us -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I was going to suggest to you is that since the money is there already, I guess in the budget for the executive director, and it's going to be a year before we come up with any solutions, is there anything wrong with them to try to hire an executive director? We're going to be making some very difficult decisions over the next year. And I can understand Mr. Schmidt's concerns, you know, he's trying to fill in here temporarily to make sure things don't collapse. But what would be the downside with respect to that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we answer that question, the individual board members, I'd like to go to Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning, I do appreciate that. Of course I've got a vested interest in two of the airports. And I Page 83 June 26, 2003 think it's important that we put everything in perspective of where we were, where we are now and where we're going. This airport authority was originally created with the belief that if you put private enterprise out there, they'd be much -- they'd be able to operate in an atmosphere that would be able to assure success over and above what it would be with government controls placed upon them. It's been marginally successful, but less so than I would like to see. The problem being is, that unlike the constitutional officers who assume control from beginning to end, we are responsible for everything that this airport authority does. And the only time we get a chance to address it is when the budget comes to us, we make suggestions to them. And I appreciate the fact you haven't hired an executive director. And I am totally opposed to you hiring one in the future until we might be able to resolve this problem. I think that we're going to have to look very seriously at this thing in several different elements. One, Marco Island Airport serves a function that is -- and it pays its own way, it's a money-generating airport. If you ran it and produced so much in profits, that would be great. If we leased it out and they could guarantee us profits, that would be wonderful also. I don't care who runs it, just so the darn thing doesn't become a burden to the taxpayers. And I totally agree with the concept that Jim Mudd brought up about Everglades City Airport. I mean, we have an airport there that's a drain of 70 some thousand dollars, and the taxpayers of this county to subsidize it for a very select few people that are out there. It serves no purpose to the general public, it's a tremendous valuable resources, and I suggest that in due course, in very short due course, that you find a way to turn that back over so that we can use it in parks and recs. for boat launching facilities, that we can turn some of it into conservational land and possibly keep a small presence there Page 84 June 26, 2003 in the way of a helicopter pad for emergency use. That's the way I'd like to see that one handled. I mean, there's no way on God's earth you're ever going to turn the corner on that one, so it's better to bite the bullet early than to wait any longer. When you get to Immokalee, you start in the right direction with EDC. Your board, and ! give them a lot of credit, they worked awful hard on this and you got beat up a lot. For good reasons, too, in some cases. We are responsible for the taxpayers' money. We are the ultimate responsible people. And we have to make sure we get a dollar value for what we're spending the money for. When it comes to the EDC, they're just getting involved now, they need absolute authority to be able to operate without having to go back to the airport authority and say pretty please, can we do this, pretty please, can we do that. We have to respect the fact that these people are the experts. And maybe they have to bring in someone. Not opposed to us spending money to hire someone to be able to make that effort go forward. But I think we can find it in the private sector without spending money. Maybe in the form of a lease with guaranteed performance down the road. Immokalee Airport by itself has got a future, I'm sure it does. As far as the expansion of the runway, let's be practical: I don't know at what point in time you're going to come to this commission and get $30,000 plus whatever it would be for the expansion of the runway and the other facilities that would be required there. Possibly a private investor might be out there. And I'm not too sure how that would shape up, but I'd like to see these things happen sooner than later. Either it's a doable deal and it's going to work, then if it's going to work and it's going to be an economic engine, obviously there's going to be a profit involved. And if there's a profit involved, private enterprise should step in. But we've got to move this thing forward. And I agree, we don't have enough to be able to work with at this Page 85 June 26, 2003 point in time. I think you're getting the drift from this particular commission that they are not totally endorsing what has happened in the past. They want to see a brighter future, but they want to see it in the form of a plan that they can act to. And I know it's very uncomfortable. Your board members are not getting paid for what they're doing, and your meetings have got to be less than comfortable, and I feel sorry about that. But in the meantime, I think if you take some of these ideas back and try to work them into the system and see what we can do to move it forward. Also too, don't forget one other thing that I mentioned to you before, you owe this county about $10 million. In Immokalee, you have an airport there that has some lands that could be traded back and forth with parks and rec. And I'm really very upset with the airport board that they will not bring this to resolution. They're dragging their feet on this, when there is an absolute need for that land. And when it comes down to value, we can credit you back for the value received against the $10 million debt. Please, gentlemen, go back to your board and make this a priority to get this done, make it a priority to come to the solution with Everglades City Airport. Let's get this down to a concise package you can deal with. The revenue you lose from Everglades City Airport will probably end up in Marco or Immokalee. Let's do it now, not wait another year or two. This has gone on too long. Thank you. MR. VASEY: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Commissioner Halas, is -- right after the airport authority, we are going to take a lunch break, so if anybody would like to go back to their duties or grab some lunch, that would be fine with me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I just wanted to say is that I think you pretty much heard what the board feels. And what I think Page 86 June 26, 2003 we need to do is throw down a challenge to the airport authority to come up with a strong five-year business plan. And I think it's up to the County Commissioners then to provide you with the resources and the tools to carry through on that business plan. I myself maybe differ a little bit different than the other board members, but this is not going to be something that's going to be turned around overnight. In order to make money out at the airport, we've got to spend money. And I'm sure that a runway extension is not going to be $30,000, it's probably going to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- be like $30 million. But in order to spend that money -- and we have to come up with a good strong business plan to show that maybe 20 years from now this airport is going to pay its way. And private enterprise, yeah, the private enterprise part of it is if we have those accommodations, then maybe we can get somebody like UPS or FedEx or some large corporation like that to come in here and use that airport. That would be beneficial to them to -- I have a vision that this could be used as a central point so that air freight is transferred from here and then goes to South America or beyond. And with the runway alignment and also with an extension of the runway, we can bring heavy aircraft in here. We can't think small, we've got to think big. And I think we'll have a return for our profit in the long run, but it may take a few years. It won't be something overnight. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I can make one comment to Commissioner Halas. And I heard what you had to say. There's another school of thought out there, though, and I want to make sure that you're aware of it. Because I'm not an expert in any of this. But another school of thought is, you have a 767 right now. And the reason the 767 is out there is because it's a wide body, plus it's got a big cargo bay. And you know the airline industry, and I'm Page 87 June 26, 2003 not too sure about FedEx and UPS, whatever, but they're going through some flux post 9-11 on how they're -- you know, reduced flying and things like that. Large cargo bay. 767 carries more cargo in its base, along with passengers -- and take the passenger part out, just in the cargo bays -- than a 707. And so the wave of the future may be air traffic is -- you know, you as a passenger are up there on the top decks going, that's part of-- deferring part of the cost of the operation of that airline. And then a large cargo carrying capacity underneath that's substituting for those 707's so that they're being able to make a profit by flying the friendly skies of whomever. And so that's another thought pattern that's out there. So, you know, the cargo piece for Immokalee, based on that argument, is unless it has a passenger terminal, it's never in the future going to be able to turn a profit. And you're going to have problems with RSW (sic), as far as that competition is concerned. That's why I went to go see Mr. Ball. And if you take a look and, you know, again, a novice out there asking questions about, you know, where's the impact. And you also mentioned about a custom operation. I will tell you, that custom operation out there is an on-call ad hoc. Because the folks have to come from Fort Myers, and they're not willing to dedicate permanent staff there until people can give them dedicated flights coming into that process -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. MUDD: -- and then they say well, why can't we get it at RSW instead of Immokalee so I don't have the people to drive for 35 miles. I will tell you, there is a demand out there. And it's a demand for T hangars. And you have a waiting list. Naples has a waiting list. Page Field has a waiting list. RSW has a waiting list. And they're large, okay? And that's the way Page Field pulled out of this, Page 88 June 26, 2003 they started building T hangars for the private folks to go in there to store their planes. And folks didn't mind driving a little way out of the way in order to get there to get their airplane stored up. And I will just throw that out there as where the pent-up demand is and where supply is not meeting it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're almost getting into a workshop on different things. But anyways, there was two questions that was proposed, is do we want to give the airport authority to fund a director? And the second question is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- from Commissioner Coyle is do we want to hold the funding of the airport authority until we get a work plan? And I can say that I agree with Commissioner Coletta at this time, it's not wise to hire an airport director because things that commissioner -- I'm sorry, County Manager Jim Mudd brought up is, you know, talking to the Naples Airport Authority and South Florida Regional Authority (sic) out there, why would somebody want to be an airport director in Collier County if that's a potential going away. It doesn't make sense. And I do want a plan before I fund it. So that's my aspect, but Commissioner Fiala has waited very patiently and God bless you, you're-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I disagree, and I think you need to have somebody guiding the process in order to put together a five-year plan. And in order to make it successful, you mentioned T hangars. This airport authority -- or rather the executive would be able to guide that. And Commissioner Halas, you mentioned something about sometimes it takes money to make money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You better believe it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree with that as well. I mean, if you want to build T hangars to make the money to -- Page 89 June 26, 2003 as you said, Ft. Myers Airport pulled its way out. I think that that's something to be looking at. But without an executive director, who's going to look at it? And I wanted also to add another little thing into the pot and that is on Marco Island, they've needed a taxiway for years and years, and before the mangroves come in there and completely inundate the place, you've got to put that into their plan, too. So as long as we're adding things, let me throw T hangars and a taxiway out there. MR. VASEY: I sincerely appreciate all the comments, and I do need to-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vasey, why don't we just get to the question about the funding and the allocation? Commissioner Coyle, the answer to your question about funding an airport director and holding the budget until we get a work plan, do you want to fund the airport director? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think in view of the fact that it's going to take us a while to come up with some kind of plan, I'm willing to see the airport authority have an airport director, if it will facilitate them coming up with a sound business plan over the short term. And very briefly, I would expect him to evaluate just exactly the kinds of things that have been said here. T hangars are a great idea. Why not? I'll tell you what, I called out to the airports and asked about getting on a hangar list. You know what I was told? No point, we'll just take your $200 and you'll never get a hangar, because we don't have any plans to build one. Why not? You've got a list. You've got people that want them. Go ahead, build T hangars. MR. TITUS: You know, we have plans to build T hangars. But you've got to realize that Marco Island, because of the mitigation requirements -- we are currently working with the FAA of getting a proper funding to do all of the mitigation requirements. Page 90 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but-- MR. TITUS: But there's a million dollars worth of infrastructure that we'd have to do before we put one spade in the ground. But people realize the profitability of T hangars and I think this board is working very, very much on trying to get T hangars out there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's something that could have been done anytime over the last five years, but that's okay. I'm willing to say to you, look, use what money you've got, if you want to hire an executive director, do that, if it's going to help you. But I would really like to see some good suggestions come out of it, like, you know, are you going to concentrate on aviation or economic development? Let's see if we can't split that out. But yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now let me just tell you, if the board is going to go ahead and allow that funding, you just killed two things about Naples Airport potentially taking over the authority, or South Florida Regional. So we don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think they're mutually exclusive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, why would you come to Collier County to be the airport director, only for another entity to take it over? Maybe the proper thing to do is to fund -- to get the five-year work plan and then from there -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you get the five-year work plan for the same amount of money? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You should be able to get it for a hell of a lot less. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you can, I'd buy that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I think that's an idea I'd go along with. My concern over the executive director is one, like Page 91 June 26, 2003 you say, who's going to come out here for possibly a short term; and two, what kind of contract would we be locked into that we'd be paying the guy off at the end of maybe six months, if we couldn't come to some sort of agreement? So I think possibly just coming up with a five-year work plan where we maybe pick up some of the ideas we talked about, some of the interests that are out there, like the Everglades City Airport, the Immokalee Airport Park and EDC and how it all fits into it, and then you people can maybe go back to being in the airport business rather than trying to be so diversified and running basically a soup kitchen for pilots, you know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess what I need to do -- have explained to me is when we say that we're going to have Naples Airport Authority take over, are they going to take over the burden also? Is this what the plan is? MR. MUDD: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not even there yet. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there isn't a plan. There's conversations that are going on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. MR. MUDD: And remember I mentioned that it needs to be a political solution, and so you're going to have -- probably have a commissioner on your dais that I'm looking at that sits next to Commissioner Coletta that will probably have to go out there and talk to many people, okay, in the process. And that is a negotiation that needs to be worked out, Commissioner. And so it's premature to even speculate upon burden or anything else. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that kind of makes it difficult for these people, because they have to come up with a work plan, five-year work plan. And if they don't have anybody to give them direction, that's going to be very difficult. So, I mean, I guess Page 92 June 26, 2003 we have to address all these-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that work plan has nothing to do with that airport authority's existence or not. That work plan is how are they going to run their three airports, and how are they -- and what's their plans for the future, and what kind of capital, what kind of operating costs do they need in the future, okay? They have to do that within the authority that you've given them by an ordinance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay? All these other things are avenues that you -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pie in the sky. MR. MUDD: No, that you've asked myself and Commissioner Coyle to go out and investigate to try to find a way -- and if that business plan, okay, is too steep, costs too much, doesn't fit, doesn't seem to pass the rationale test as far as this board is concerned, and you want us to go into a different alternative, we'll go there. And I've mentioned this to Gene before, I said man, if I had a five-year plan and you guys were -- and had the comfort of the Board of County Commissioners, I wouldn't be out there looking at taking visits to Mr. Ball. I've got to tell you, you know, Mr. Ball's a great guy, but I never envisioned that was the county manager's commitment when I took this job. And I'll do whatever the board wants to do, but -- I'm out there talking to people, trying to give them ideas and get ideas back and to try to get us out of the box a little bit to try to come up with a good plan for Collier County, with the help of the airport authority, to bring back to the board with all the options and say where do you want to go and let's see if we can't come up with something for Collier County that makes sense for everybody, saves taxpayers dollars and still provides that benefit. And I will tell you, there was nothing in my conversation that you heard today that had anything to do with saying close down the Page 93 June 26, 2003 airports, okay? We talked about one airfield of three that we need to take a look at because the prospects for it are not good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think without hiring an executive director we're programming them for failure. I mean if you have -- if I were hired, if I had any expertise at all in that field, I would love to take on this challenge of making them successful. And you've heard a lot of things up here right now as far as maybe land swapping, in some instances, for whatever to reduce the debt, and building T hangars and extending a runway and putting together a plan. You have a great leader. I mean, who in the heck is the airport authority going to direct if they don't have an executive director? So I really feel that we need to program them for success. MR. VASEY: May I just comment? What I'd like to say just briefly is that we've had in the last -- since John Drury left us unexpectedly we've had very -- we've had excellent support from Mr. Mudd and his staff. And it really shows what can happen when there is a communication taking place. And I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle, that you feel that we're working on obsolescence, but the simple truth of the matter is that everything we work on takes five or six or seven years. And for a one-year budget, that's not a very good answer, we understand that. But we have a tremendous amount of information on runway extension, commercial potential, we have done the noise studies. We are in a very good position. And what I'd like to tell you is that in 1994, or when the ordinance was created, the Board of County Commissioners envisioned one direction. And like any ordinance, over time the ordinance needs to be reviewed, because things change. The composition of the county has changed, your membership has changed, and it will change in the future. And what I'd like to say is that it's very important for the Board Page 94 June 26, 2003 of County Commissioners not necessarily to appoint an executive director or give us the permissk2n to do that, but it's very important for the Board of County Commissioners~ with our assistance, to determine what should be done with the aviation system in Collier County. And our board has contended all along that aviation facilities in Collier County are a public service function, and as a public service function, they are open to all, all year long, and we do that with the staff that we have. And what we've done with this budget presentation, even if the airport employees, the system employees, were assigned to any of the commissioners individually or collectively, it would cost you the same amount to run the airport for the next year, as we've estimated, based on the information that we have. So we're not asking for pie in the sky. And I understand that what you want to see is where are we going to be next year, the year after, the year after. And as any manager, you want to see us make progress towards these manageable goals. And the only thing we can report today, after working on this since our last workshop is that we now understand the problems that we had with budgeting and forecasting, and through Mr. Mudd's assistance we now understand how much benefit you get when you work with the county and when you have the authority to work with all of the county employees and the staff who are so gracious with their time. And then when you have the good fortune in the community to take someone who is not in government and are given permission to bring him on as an interim director with the skills that Mr. Schmidt has, it's a very unusual situation. And I might add that our budget officer comes out of a business background. And most of all, Gene with his aviation background and Mr. Titus with his extensive financial background, we are making this work, but it's not fast enough. And none of us thinks that it's fast Page 95 June 26, 2003 enough. But yet to comply with all of the ordinances and the requirements and the contracting provisions and every other thing that can be put out there is a sequential process. Unfortunately you can't do -- as one of my favorite admirals said, if it was up to me solve it, I'd put a computer over every part of it and solve it immediately. It doesn't work that way. And you know that yourselves. One problem begets another one. Solving that causes two more problems. And this is not an alibi, but it's more an explanation of the dynamics of general aviation and the dynamics of service in a community, especially where there are, in our case, people who go to breakfast at airports. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, may I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're -- you got three votes to give you enough money to develop a plan at this point. MR. SCHMITT: May I just make a short comment, please? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MR. SCHMITT: I wouldn't want to leave the public with the impression that we don't have an executive director. If it turned out that we didn't have an executive director, I'd be wondering what I've been doing for the last year and a half. And we've been working very hard. As a matter of fact, one of my first missions was to make sure that we could cut back on some of our expenses and to make a significant dent in our budget requirements. And you'll be interested in knowing that as of this morning, I've advised the FAA that we've decommissioned our localizer, which has been a tremendous expense, an unnecessary expense. And we've done some other things just in the last month and a half to reduce many of our costs, and we intend to continue with that. And I still believe that the most important mission that I can perform for you is a -- along with the board, is to come up with a strategic plan. The strategic plan comes before the budget. Thank Page 96 June 26, 2003 yOU. until CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Great. I'm very sorry. Do we have any other speakers on this topic? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're going to take a break 1:00 for lunch. You want to make it 1:30? MR. MUDD: Are you done with the airport budget? That's the question I have -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- or are we going to continue this after lunch? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I think we're -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- what I understand is there's no budget for the airport for '04 until we have a plan in September. MR. MUDD: Do I have -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's suspended. And that's what I got from three commissioners; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1:15, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, 1:30. (Luncheon recess.) MR. MUDD: Continuing with the budget, the next presenter is transportation division, and that will be by Mr. Norman Feder. MR. FEDER: Jim, thank you. Commissioners, appreciate the opportunity to be here. First of all, I want to tell you how much the division supports -- appreciates your continued support of transportation. I think we've made some significant progress, with your help, both in meeting the backlog and in trying to make sure we have facilities concurrent with the impacts of development. We'll continue in that vein. What I'm going to do is try to give you a quick overview, starting on D-1 and D-2. Page 97 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: That's at the transportation tab, D-1 and D-2. MR. FEDER: D-1, D-2, transportation tab. And what I will -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: David-l, David-2. MR. FEDER: -- do is -- excuse me? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that David-1 and David-2? MR. FEDER: Correct, sir. And then I will try and give you that quick overview. The directors are all here, and I'll just do a quick introduction of them, but then I'll open up to questions. And if you want to get into specifics on any of the departments, we'll do that. With that in mind, what I'll point to you is on the bottom of Page D-1 is the bottom line issue of budget change. As you see there, as was on the initial sheet that Jim went through with you, 5.3 percent modification from last year's budget to the proposed budget for fiscal year '03-'04. But when you take out the MSTU, municipal service taxing units, which set their own millage rate, and we're working on their projects, we're really at 2.2 percent change from the prior budget. Even in that, that $433,000 and change in that 2.2 percent, most of that is electricity, rent, insurance, indirect and fuel, basically items that we didn't control. The only thing that we have added to this budget as an expanded service request is for the transportation portion of the GIS for basically our item to move forward on that. And that is $200,000 that you see up here under division administration. That's the only expanded request within the budget. Additionally, I bring to your attention on the bottom of Page D-2, while we did add two positions, Diane Flagg, director of alternate transportation modes and her secretary that came out of EMS during the year in fiscal year '02-'03, we didn't request any added positions and we're maintaining 272 positions in transportation. Page 98 June 26, 2003 In division administration, probably the biggest part of your percentage increase there are those fixed items which are being handled division-wide. What I will bring to your attention, as you see some plus percentages and minus percentages, is while we didn't change anything in the number of positions, we have moved some around within the departments to meet demands, new issues that we have to address, as well as to enhance our customer service delivery. So in some cases you'll see what looks to be significant reductions, that's because people have moved out into another division that was previously in their staffing, or some increase where people have moved in. So that's -- cover that. Other than that type of change, the predominant thing we're experiencing, if you go down to maintenance, you see where maintenance operations 111 appears to have gone down significantly. A big part of that was 2 million that you provided us at the end of the budget last year. That was a one-time item on availability of funds for us to do some resurfacing, traffic count, stations, and we're adding 10 to the system in addition to the four that we have as permanent stations now, along with our traffic operations department, as well as looking at expanding our efforts through the new computerized signal system. But that 2 million is not shown, and that's why that reduction is there, because that was a one-time item. On the MPO long-range transportation planning, you see 50.9 percent, that looks like a significant increase. Really, that represents the roll forward. Those are the funds that we've accumulated, the federal PL funds, getting ready for the long-range plan update. Working right now with the Florida DOT and with Lee County to initiate the joint bi-county model to start that process. The rest of it's fairly straightforward. Again, I do want to introduce Diane Flagg, obviously of our alternative transportation Page 99 June 26, 2003 modes. She is also taking on traffic operations, within the changes that we've done. Greg Strakaluse, our director of engineering and construction management. He will be taking on the design that was in operations for the small signals to go with his major capital design program. Sharon Newman, who is our budget coordinator for the division, fiscal officer. Ed Kant to my far left, who is over now development review, as well as our right-of-way permitting. Mike Etelamaki, who's our director of maintenance. And his superintendent of road and bridge, John Vliet, that many of you have probably seen all the good work from, but I don't know if you've seen him. And he does clean up extremely well in a suit, and so I wanted to get a chance to introduce him. The only other thing that I'll present before I open it to questions is ask you to flip to the back of the transportation section to the numbered pages for the capital program. MR. MUDD: Hey, Norm, let's see if they have any questions on operations first before we go to capital. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And before you do that, will you introduce your stormwater management? MR. FEDER: By all means. Robert Wiley is right behind me here as well on stormwater. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the Board of Commissioners at this point? Seeing none, we can move on to capital. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I would bring one item to your attention. You, at a previous workshop that Diane Flagg had given, talked about a policy for landscaping arterials and collectors. And on Page 3 in the front, you will notice there's $2,900,000 there that is entered in the MSTD general fund unfinanced requirement. $300,000 of that is pretty much a commitment that you have to take and, because of that policy, take over the maintenance of Radio Road, because that's one of the -- that was a commitment when you Page 100 June 26, 2003 made the policy, we had to take over that road, because it was below the county's standards. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. That policy change that you had is not in the alternative modes budget. It is on the unfinanced requirement. I just wanted to bring that to your attention before we go to -- MR. FEDER: And that's a very significant item for us, and thank you for bringing that up, Jim. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page is that? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you go -- MR. FEDER: That is on Page 3 in the front of the book. MR. MUDD: If you go to the orange transportation piece, as we go to capital, it's in the packet, go to the orange sheet. Is that where we're going Norman? MR. FEDER: Yes, now. But if I understood the Commissioner's question, very front of the book, Page 3 under, as Jim has now called them, UFR's, unfunded list. Does represent that portion of the landscaping that we're hoping we can address with you beyond the budget here today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to talk nice to us. MR. FEDER: I'm trying, sir. I'll call your attention now to the capital portions at the back of the transportation section. It should be right after, Jim pointed out, the orange section here. And I'll call your attention in particular obviously to Pages 6 and 7. You got staffing shown here on Page 5, out of the gas tax. You do fund a good portion of Greg Strakaluse's staff that are directly involved in the design, the right-of-way acquisition and the construction inspection of the major capital projects. But on Pages 6 and 7, you've got the capital projects. Again, this is consistent with the five-year transportation work program and the annual update and inventory report that we provided to you. We Page 101 June 26, 2003 have pulled back a little bit to make sure we're consistent within our bonding capabilities. But generally, as I told you previously, the first two years were exactly as promised and on time. We're getting close to that one. I am very, very optimistic that Mr. Beaver, who takes two -- excuse me, is it Beaver? MR. MUDD: Bergman. MR. FEDER: Bergman. Mr. Bergman, who is going to take two weeks to actually write the permit, now that he acknowledges he has everything, is hopefully going to find that he can sign his name even faster than that so he can move on one that is in this year's budget and won't have to roll as much next year. MR. MUDD: That's Immokalee Road-- MR. FEDER: Immokalee Road-- MR. MUDD: -- am I correct? MR. FEDER: -- yes. The rest of the program I think is fairly straightforward here. And I'll open it to any questions you might have on the capital program itself. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions about transportation? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. With respect to the unfinanced requirements under stormwater, the Gateway mini-triangle improvements are listed as $4,771,000. That's a cost for FY '05 through '08, but the FY '04 cost is $530,000. Why are we putting in the unfinanced requirements the entire cost of the capital improvements through FY '08? MR. WILEY: Robert Wiley, with stormwater management. What you're looking at there is numbers that are put in off of our forms where we show a five-year projection, and so they're showing basically the bulk of work in subsequent years being unfunded. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to look at unfunded Page 102 June 26, 2003 requirements, though, for FY '04, we would be talking about $530,000, not $4,771,000, is that a fair statement? MR. WILEY: For '04? COMMISSIONER COYLE: For '04, fiscal '04. MR. WILEY: For '04 you have -- MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes. MR. WILEY: The '04's in the budget. It's the other stuff that's not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I guess that's my problem. I don't -- we're going to be making decisions on the unfunded requirements, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the unfunded requirements, at least for some of them, extend beyond the upcoming fiscal year, okay? MR. FEDER: And possibly even beyond general fund to possibly MSTU TD funding, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So what I don't want to do is get confused between what is available this fiscal year for an unfunded project and what is required this next fiscal year for an unfunded requirement. And just as an example, if we were looking at the Gateway mini-triangle stormwater improvements, looking at an unfunded requirement there for the next fiscal year, we would -- well, you've already got it budgeted, $530,000. So there's no problem for the next fiscal year. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, your point is very well taken. We need to provide and will have for you before you go through the UFR's list tomorrow an idea of the total cost, which is what you're seeing here, as well as how that breaks out for what the need would be in '04, so you can look at both ends of that equation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, now, I also have on the Page 103 June 26, 2003 stormwater capital projects other things, like 1.2 million for Haldeman Creek permitting, dredging, so forth. That also appears on the unfunded requirements. Does the fact that it is listed in your FY '04 total indicate you really don't have that money budgeted, or has it been pulled out of that? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you do not have the $1.2 million that you need to have to construct the Haldeman Creek project in the budget. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: You have $100,000 in the budget to cover Robert Wiley's cost for permitting, coming up with if we're going to go out to MSTU or whatever it's going to be in order to do that to cover those staff costs and finish up the design work on that project in the budget. But actual construction, when we go to February 4th right now, we do not have those dollars. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Also, on Page 9, some of the things that are listed as the FY '04 total budget have been withdrawn and have been placed on the unfinanced requirements list. MR. OCHS: No. Jim? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we have is we don't have a firm commitment from the South Florida Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin. The hope -- and hope is not a method, okay. There's been some preliminary conversations where they might be willing to come forward with $400,000 this year, $400,000 next year, and there is a private cost share partner that has said that he would be forthcoming with the remainder, okay? All of which is up in the air as far as staff is concerned. So if there's dollars that are sitting in the budget, okay, that's based on a hope that we're going to get some money out of the Big Cypress Basin. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So the 1.2 million for Haldeman Creek is in the budget, but it's subject to, you know, a firm commitment from South Florida Water Management that they will actually give us that Page 104 June 26, 2003 money and the developers contribution as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I won't belabor this much further. But we also have $200,000 budgeted for the removal of Australian pine trees from the canal banks. Now, if I were trying to set priorities, I would remove from the budget $200,000 for removing Australian pine trees before I would remove money from the budget for improving drainage and eliminating stormwater. So I just want you to keep those things in mind when we come to unfunded requirements considerations, okay? Because I'm going to be looking at some of the things that apparently you have left in the budget, while you've actually pulled certain things out of the budget and put them on the unfunded requirements list, okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I'm going to agree with your priorities there, okay, but that's something we can discuss. MR. MUDD: And the reason for the Australian pine removal is Australian pines left untaken (sic) out beget more Australian pines. And it's one of those if you don't get them, then you get to get them three or four times later because you didn't nip it in the bud. And Robert Wiley can talk about that more than I can, but -- Robert? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, the basic purpose for Australian pine removal is in a high wind they cause flooding because they topple right in the canals. Massivb blockage. So this is a multi-year program to start and systematically remove them from along all our canal banks of the county. They are a risk factor we have to face. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is one of the lessons learned from post Hurricane Andrew. MR. WILEY: Hurricane Andrew basically shut the canal system down on the East Coast there were so many Australian pines went into it. And it was a massive effort to get them back out of the canals. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'd like to expand on Page 105 June 26, 2003 Commissioner Coyle's topic of the triangle's improvements of draining -- drainage, and this half a million dollar request. Participation from the CRA is 50,000, correct? MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's 10 percent? MR. FEDER: As it stands right now. With a broader cost later, but for right now, 10 percent, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The concern that I have is in the CRA's, and this CRA has been there for a while, the increased assessed values have stayed within that CRA, therefore, creating much disparity between the general fund and the CRA. And yet we're asking to do an improvement in there where we have a stormwater MSTU set up on the north side of the county for that community to improve theirs. They paid for it. They paid for their drainage. Forest Lakes pays for their drainage. But yet we're being asked to pull some money out of the general fund for this one here. And I don't like where we're going with this. I'd much rather see the CRA pay for this item, because it's not a benefit to the overall community, much like the community in North Naples that has paid for their own stormwater drainage. Anybody else have any feelings on that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm in agreement with you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I haven't made a decision yet of which way to go on this. I'm still thinking that one over. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand that this is quite a few million dollars' stormwater problems over there in the triangle; is that correct? MR. WILEY: The anticipated cure is quite a few dollars, yes, ma'am. Page 106 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Four million. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four million. And I don't know how much they get a year from their CRA right now. Of course, it's very minimal because the triangle, as you well know, it looks just as blighted as it did two years ago, or probably more so now. But anyway, so it doesn't amount very quickly. I would guess if we had to wait until -- and we took all of the money from the CRA and not put it into any other redevelopment in the area in order to eliminate the stormwater problem, it would probably only take us 10 years or so in order to save up the money. Which of course then the values wouldn't be going up and the purpose wouldn't be accomplished. I don't know if the county has helped other people in stormwater situations, stormwater drainage situations, but if they have, I would like to see them help these people, too. We're talking about a lower income area here, and these people don't have much of anything to pay into an MSTU. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, I'm just saying that it will take them forever to get this thing underway in this manner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mike, do you have that figure what the CRA has in their budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. As part of the community development budget, there is a separate MSTU for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment that's -- MR. MUDD: It's on Page E-35 under Joe Schmitt's community development. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you just give us that number and we can go on? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The transfer from the general fund in FY '04 is $516,800. That's based on the increasing taxable value. A year ago it was 368,400. Page 107 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a tough problem. We don't have a good source of funding for stormwater improvements. And we traditionally have been getting them I guess mostly out of general fund. But it is a health, safety and welfare issue. And I think to the extent that we can deal with some of the severe flooding problems, we as a county will benefit, because we've been trying to get that area redeveloped for some time, and I don't think we're ever going to get it redeveloped till we solve some of the stormwater problems. And it's sort of like putting seed money in to get redevelopment started and then we derive the benefits from the increase in taxable value. So I wouldn't want to take a position that would refuse to provide funding for people to solve some of the serious stormwater flooding problems. But we -- I would like to see us proceed with the existing projects. But Commissioner Henning is correct, we need to have some kind of uniform policy as to how we deal with this stuff. I'd hate to just set aside all the things that we've told people we're going to do and say well, you know, we led you down the path halfway, now we're going to abandon you. But we really do need to think this thing through. MR. MUDD: Sir, if you look at that unfinanced requirement list, and we tried to I.D. what we had out there where there's been some expectation. And not only in the mini-triangle. I'm going to point to another area with some expectation. Two years ago at District One's town hall meeting, you briefed LASIP, which is the Lely area improvement program for stormwater, and, you know, Dudley Chisholm and everybody there were saying well, you know, I thought you've been taking taxes out of our money in order to do this project. And it's on the unfinanced requirement list for $34 million. Real true cost of that project -- and Robert and I Page 108 June 26, 2003 have been having some one-on-ones -- is about $45 million. We think we can come across with a 75 percent benefit project for about $24 million to the 45. And that's 75 percent benefit. But that big area that he's got only services 7,500 people, property owners. And to say you're going to have an MSTU for $24 million, people start coming out of their -- well, just talk about Naples Park and their smart growth -- or community character study, and you get into that argument in huge detail. The reason LASIP is sitting on there for 34 million is Robert's about ready to cut a permit, okay, with the Corps of Engineers that his shop and John Boldt prior to him have been working on for over 12 years. You got two years to execute that project. And they're looking for execute in full. And so, you know, there's a commitment. He's about six months away. He gets that thing, we're going to have -- the clock's going to start ticking. We're going to go out and do an MSTU in Commissioner Fiala's district, and some of it is in Commissioner Henning's district that this project gets to, and we're going to say here's the project cost and here's what your tax bill is going to look like. And I'll tell you what the human outcry is going to say. It's going to say no. And so there's 12 years worth of-- is it a necessary project, and will it solve a lot of problems that we have on 41, on Davis, on Rad -- absolutely. Okay, in that area, 951 to the western part. And there's going to be projects like this in Commissioner Coletta's area as time goes on, as we develop along Immokalee Road, going out there in the rural fringe and in the rural villages and the hamlets. Those things are going to pop back up again. And we really don't have a good solid waste program, nor funding source, except for general fund monies. And you'll notice that he's in two places. He's in general fund and he's in MSTD fund, okay? And when you start getting away Page 109 June 26, 2003 from the municipalities, that anything that benefits them, then you go into a fund that has a rather small millage rate of .8, not some 3.7. So it is going to be a subject that we're going to have to talk more and more about as the board is concerned. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hey, I think you hit the -- Jim, I think you hit the nail right on the head, and that is exactly how much can people afford in an area when you ask them to step up to an MSTU. And I think sometimes the responsibility does lie in the Board of County Commissioners to find an avenue for funding and determine how we're going to attack this problem. I think this stormwater issue's been a long-term issue. It's been on for 30-some years and we -- nobody's really wanted to address it. We just kind of push the ball off to one side and say well, let somebody else take care of it. But I think we really have to step up to the plate eventually and determine how we're going to attack this and how we're going to address this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'm in agreement with you, Commissioner Halas. Well, actually, I'm in agreement with everyone up here. We've got a problem. We can't cut the fund source off. I also want to remind you that, you know, when it comes to public health, safety and welfare, sometimes we have to go into the general fund to be able to meet those needs and bring them forward. Also, I want to remind you, there's going to be times that I'll come to you for Immokalee for special consideration, and I know that their tax base isn't all that great, and that -- but I think we've got our heads on and we're heading in the right direction. And Mr. Mudd, I appreciate the fact that you put it in such clarity, especially when you mentioned Immokalee. Page 110 June 26, 2003 MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on just a minute. When are you going to lay this out for us? Can you lay it out before we make a decision on this expenditure in October, September? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Because you need to take a look at that Forest Lakes and Naples Park, too, and other communities. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we need to think about-- one of the things that I've been talking to Robert and Norman about are a fact (sic) that maybe an MSTU is set up in a project of a large significance, which has a big price tag. Maybe 10 or 20, 25 percent of that project is borne by the MSTU, and the rest comes out of a general fund type revenue in order to get the project done. But there is a buy-in from the residents, okay, in a project that's going to benefit their property, their property values and whatnot. And we put it in a doable range, and at the same time we're able to stretch those dollars a little bit so it's just not a full general fund, but we also pull in partnerships or whatever we can. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: Basically consistent with the discussion, three years I've been here we have not had a funding source and an ability to move forward on stormwater projects. What my direction to staff was to get the projects ready to go so that we can get it addressed. I believe they're very close on Lely now, the Gateway Triangle, Haldeman Creek, other very significant projects. So we do need to address that issue. I think Jim's point is well taken, we've been looking at what can be the options. But I think you also raised another issue as well, and that is the CRA, where the added value goes back to that CRA, we need to evaluate if you do it in that area, what kind of implication does that Page 111 June 26, 2003 present, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, we're not getting extra tax dollars from that like we're getting from other areas. Again, those assessed values stay there. So that's kind of like a double whammy. Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, for clarity on this, can we reach agreement that the projects that are already underway can proceed without being slowed down or stopped in favor of some reconsideration, but let those projects proceed. But then we develop -- try to develop a more consistent methodology for projects in the future. I'd hate to see these things get bogged down again and hold off for two or three months until such time as we make some decision in September or October. We've known these projects have been on the books for a long time, we've been trying to get the funding for them, we've been partially successful, and I'd like to see us proceed with those. Now, the additional item having to do with the mini-triangle, it would be good, I think, if we broke out the funding. And apparently you already have it, it just maybe needs to be clarified for us a little bit. But to break out the funding for the mini-triangle and so that we can track exactly what is available there. Because I don't see anything wrong with them paying for part of it either. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner, don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to slow this down or stop it, I just wanted to be fair to all. And I hope that's -- we can get to that fairness before September. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my problem is I don't think we can. And the reason is that is some people have already been promised that they've got a project that's going to be done. And we're already at the point of permitting it. Now, if we don't go ahead and proceed with it and we start looking for other sources of revenue, we're going to actually stop that project and probably slow it down. Page 112 June 26, 2003 So my real problem is, I am concerned that the projects that we have gone along on for so long would have to be handled differently than any fair, even-handed approach we might develop later this year, because they have gone on for so long. For example, if we were to go back now to the Lely people and say no, we're not going to sign this permit that we've struggled for 12 years to get until you agree to set up an MSTU, you know, we're going to be in real trouble. And I'd prefer not to do that. It won't hurt us, I think, to proceed with some of these projects that are currently underway, but then concurrently with that, try to deal with future projects in a way that is more consistent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I was moving along that same direction, and what I was going to say was as Commissioner Henning requested, that you could come back to us, Mr. Mudd, with like a prioritization. Those that have been sitting there for 12 years finally working its way up to the top, or those that are dangerous. Like, for instance, I know that the flooding in certain areas of the Gateway Triangle where the -- it's downright dangerous. They can't park near their homes and they have to walk through the flooded area, and they've had snakes and everything in there. And that's dangerous. These things get into the houses because of this. Well, I would think that if you could prioritize. Commissioner Henning also said that one of the things he's concerned with is that the CRA, that the extra dollars over and above the cap that we voted in would not go to benefit the entire community, but that cap does end. I mean, the CRA is only voted in for so many years. And if the area hasn't done anything to improve itself, it just goes back into the fold anyway. That CRA does have an ending point. And I just wanted to make that clear for our audience. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let me make it clear what I said, instead of somebody else trying to interpretate (sic) what I said, Page 113 June 26, 2003 is I just wanted to be fair to all, and it's not fair to tax the rest of the residents when their assessed values are going into the pot, when you've got areas that their assessed values are standing in their pot. And what I pointed out was in Commissioner Halas's district, one is in Naples Park we're asking them to tax themselves to improve their drainage. And another one you have in your district, or maybe it's Commissioner Coyle's and I'm wrong, they tax themselves. So I want to be fair. So that's my clarification of what I said. Any other questions on the capital? (No response.) MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder, do you have anything else? MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I was going to go into the UFR's. I think we've hit that. I think we understand your direction. I'll work with Jim to be ready for tomorrow's discussions. The only thing I will point out to you as well on the UFR list, Jim had already mentioned it to you, but obviously the landscaping issue that you have there, and hopefully being consistent with the policy and trying to find a way to address that. The other thing I will point out to your attention on the City of Marco Island request, we did develop an agreement with them, consistent with the agreement with the City of Naples on impact fees first 200,000 collected retained. We also, based on a couple of roads and a couple of them cited here in the request that they've made, provide them a million a year for each of the next 15 years as a way to resolve their taking over the road system down in Marco. And so we're kind of surprised to see the nature of this request coming in as an unfunded request, above and beyond the million two that they're receiving annually already from the board. And with that, we're open for any questions you might have. Page 114 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one point of clarification, if I could, just so everybody understands the UFR list. If you turn to Page 8 under capital for Norman Feder under -- after that orange tab, you'll notice Haldeman Creek at the top for $1.2 million. And it says it's funded. It's funded-- and I'm talking about where the revenues are coming from. It's funded by $100,000 in the general fund, $800,000 that are coming from -- on a promise we hope they'll keep, $800,000 from the Big Cypress Basin, and $300,000 plus from a private source. When you go to your UFR list on the overview, which is on Page 3, you'll notice down under stormwater, under the general fund, the fourth item down, it says Haldeman Creek improvements, $1.1 million. If those promises or-- you know, nobody has any written contracts with Big Cypress nor from the private source. If they don't come through, this project isn't going to go anywhere unless there's monies that are dedicated from the general fund. And I want to make sure that's clear. Even though it says it's funded, it's funded based on revenues from other sources that I don't have contracts with, basically done at a meeting in a conference room with the Board of County Commissioners. That's all I have. So I just wanted to make that clear so that there's no confusion. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Transportation, you're done. Thank you, you did a great job. Next division is community developments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. I'm Joe Schmitt, your administrator for community development and environmental services. I will refer you to Page 1, which is the -- frankly, the outline as Page 115 June 26, 2003 Mr. Mudd had alluded to earlier this morning, is a community development. And you'll see that there's a 13.1 percent change. And if I could then have you flip to E-1, which is a breakdown of the division. And I'm going to just go through a briefing, just to highlight what we've done in community development, and we're going to go through the shortened version, unless you want to hear from each of the department directors to my left and to my right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the way we did transportation worked out well. MR. SCHMITT: Great. But I do have to, for the record, just highlight some of the things that we're doing. But overall, as shown on your slide, we've actually decreased in full-time employees three-and-a-half employees. Our total cost in appropriations were down 4.7. But the thing I want to talk to you about is what we've done. And as County Manager Mudd pointed out, there's been a decrease in funds. But I violated that rule and actually created a new fund. And we now have Fund 1 13, which is -- are the building fund, and the planning fund, which is 131. And I need to talk about that so you understand why we did what we did and what we're doing. But I do want to highlight the last bullet overall with the impact on my division. When you look at the general fund, we're actually down 5.8 percent. Next slide, Mike? Thank you. Why did we split the funds? Well, if you go back and think about what's happened in development services fees, we talked about the use of those funds and there was some discussions, both with the clerk this past year and in guidance with what was proposed, the Florida statutes, which didn't pass, but it may go back to the state again next year. We've split the two funds. And so this was done, on the lower left-hand part of the slide, for better compliance with existing and proposed statutes, better tracking of costs, and users will Page 116 June 26, 2003 pay. So fundamentally what's going to happen here is building fees will no longer subsidize planning review, environmental review and engineering review as it now does. So building permit fees will be separate and distinct. Next slide basically shows where and -- thank you. Next slide shows how it's going to be divided. Actually Fund 113, which will be the building review and permitting fees, cover the building review process. That's the plan review, addressing and records and cash management. 131 will be the new enterprise fund where it will be a pay for services provided, planning and environmental and engineering and portions of some of the other support services within the division. Next slide. Just to highlight the compliance that only sections that are enforced in the Florida Building Code will be under Fund 113, which is the building fund. Those funds associated with enforcing the Land Development Code will be part of the engineering review and planning fees, which is part of your site development plan review process. The -- so building permit and inspection fees will only be used to defray costs associated with review of building plans and performing inspections. Now, I do and I will be coming back to you in September-- as we talked about in a previous board, I'll be coming back to you for a review of our permitting fees and our engineering and planning fees in September. I do expect a decrease in our building permit fees, and I expect an increase in our planning fees -- engineering fees. Because again, it will be -- you'll pay for services provided. And the last slide, Bleu, basically is just a list for further discussion. And I know you will -- you've already earmarked some of these. These are my list of unfinanced requirements from the TDR program, economic development incentives, some of the community Page 117 June 26, 2003 planning and funding. You'll note that in your book that lists that as the Golden Gate Community Redevelopment Study, but frankly, that was $200,000 earmarked for what study you thought was deemed necessary. It's on the unfinanced requirements list. The housing development corporation, HDC, that we talked about, our low income housing workshop, some Immokalee housing initiatives are listed. And then last was vehicles for code enforcement. And those were there to prevent having to wait for the morning shift's or the day shift's vehicles to come in in order to allow the evening shift to go out without having to wait for the other shift to come back in. So those are my unfinanced requirements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- before you move on, Commissioners, $200,000 for Golden Gate Community Study, I think that is way too high. And I think with my assistance, we can complete that with $60,000 instead of $200,000. MR. SCHMITT: On the unfinanced requirements list? CHAIRMAN HENNING: On the unfunded. MR. SCHMITT: I listed that only because if we want a contract and we wanted to go a -- a study, as was directed by previous boards in compliance with the-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dover-Kohl. MR. SCHMITT: -- Dover-Kohl, but actually the -- I just lost the word now. The Community Character Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This guy, Dover-Kohl over here? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The Community Character Plan, which said that we would do a community a year, and we would budget at least $250,000. And that was what previous boards had directed and that's what we put in the budget. But we only put 200, but I do note that if 60,000 -- and if we Page 118 June 26, 2003 do it at the scope that you and I talked about, I think that would be more than sufficient. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: So with that, as I pointed out, I refer you now to Page E-1. And with me are my eight department directors, and willing to discuss anything that you have. I do note and I know you'll probably want to talk to Bill Lorenz under environmental services, 1,086 percent increase, and we'll discuss that. Primarily that has to do with Conservation Collier. And we can bore into that a bit more. The other areas I've discussed, basically the increase -- or the decreased 4.7 in net appropriations, so I was well within the county manager's and your guidance with the budget. I reduced both staff and I reduced expenses. I also note that on the funding sources, there is, and you will see, this is about halfway down your page, the general fund is increased. Demand on the general fund is 18.4 percent. And the MSTU -- or MSTD fund, which is the county-wide general fund, Fund 111, is down 58.4 percent. But overall in the aggregate, I'm actually down 5.8 percent. I do need to point out, though, that as I begin to ratchet down the demand on the development services fees fund, Fund 113, we begin to identify those kind of things that really were inappropriate to charge to development services fees. One area that I'm sure will come up is the Immokalee initiative, a very successful program. It was a program this board directed over two years ago. Four full-time employees. We moved several tons of material and other things out there. But that was all funded out of permitting fees. And approximately $272,000 this year. It's on the unfinanced requirement, because if we want to continue it, it legally or fiscally should be funded by the general fund. So that's been moved out of Fund 113. Page 119 June 26, 2003 Other areas, code enforcement, we've done some adjustments as far as them being funded by 1 13. So some of the things that we were doing now are burdened under the general fund. But some of the revenues that we're looking at will offset some of that burden. And that's why we've been successful, at least overall, reducing the demand on the general fund, when you look at both the unincorporated and the general fund. So that concludes my opening remarks. Subject to your questions -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you introduce your staff, please? MR. SCHMITT: I sure will. Director of tourism, Jack Wert (phonetic). On my right, Bleu Wallace, operations. Tom Kuck, engineering. Denny Baker, financial management. Now starting down at that end, Bill Lorenz is environmental, Margaret Wuerstle, planning, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement, and Ed Perico, building review and permitting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. A little bit concerned about the Immokalee initiative. We had a wonderful effort under way, and now I see it's been removed to the unfunded for us to pick and choose from it. It's going to be quite a blow to the residents of Immokalee who have organized several different ways to try to get this done. It fits right into our weed and seed and to our front porch initiative. All this was coming together, and I feel we're taking a step backwards. We made some tremendous headway in removing some dilapidated mobile homes that people have been living in in substandard condition. Now the next step, we're looking forward to going in there and taking care of housing that's totally inefficient and doesn't meet the standards for what it should. Page 120 June 26, 2003 But we're keeping in mind too at all times the human element. No one has been dispossessed from a home. At all times we've been working with the residents down there, and I hate to see this thing fall by the wayside. I know we got another day we're going to be talking about this, tomorrow in particular. I just wanted to make sure at this point in time I could get it forward. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I just want to make sure you understand that the Immokalee initiative was an initiative that was certainly passed by this board about two years ago. The cost was placed on Fund 113, and there was some argument whether that was the appropriate thing to do, but there was a rational nexus, and it was decided because of, I guess for lack of a better term, the sins of the past as far as permitting and allowing things to happen between the building department, code enforcement set out to do some of the -- and fix some of that. And basically we absorbed the cost to do the site improvement plans, some of the other activities that were required out there at no cost to the landowners and virtually no cost to some of the property owners who run the trailer parks. So we -- that program's been around for two years. This year, primarily faced at a decision point of what we were doing with our building permit fees and the scrutiny that we were under, both from the clerk's office and from the industry as to where -- what we were doing with the fees that we collected for services provided. I have no problem in continuing that mission. It's just that we had to identify it as a function that if it were to continue, it would have to be basically funded through the general fund. Now, I want to point out, we still have two code enforcement people out there. MR. MUDD: Let me add. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MUDD: I want you to at least describe to the board where you are with the hand-off on the mobile home piece. Because I want Page 121 June 26, 2003 them to have the full information. You know what I'm saying, it's not the $274, go to Phase II. What happened in Phase I and where we are, and how is that going to come to fruition, if these four people are no longer there? So I want to make sure that at least one chapter is done and we've got a concluding paragraph in there and all the dots are dotted and the T's are crossed. MR. SCHMITT: And I will. And I'm going to turn to Michelle Arnold and Margaret Wuerstle, both, code enforcement, Michelle, and Margaret from planning services. Because the function was basically passed off from code enforcement to community redevelopment. But I want to note that we do have two code enforcement folks out there that are funded under the general fund, and we will certainly not let up in any way the enforcement. But I think we're at a point in time that those who need to come into compliance now should be beginning to pay for-- and so in that regard, code enforcement will enforce, and if there's changes that have to be done, then they will go through the normal plan review process, submit a site improvement plan and pay for that service that was -- actually they were not paying for in the past. So Margaret, Michelle, I don't know if you have anything you want to add to that. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, while he's talking about that, if you can go to Page E-32, it might help you a little bit. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Joe's correct that part of the initiative was under my department, but then has since been transferred to the redevelopment section. And the improvements that have been made with respect to the initiative were basically the site development plans that have been started in the process. Page 122 June 26,2003 And Margaret can give you the actual numbers with respect to how many have come through and -- or have been approved so far. And there has been dilapidated structures that have been removed as well. But we are, essentially with the approval of these pending site development plans or site improvement plans, completed Phase I of that initiative. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's Phase II? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, on Page E-32, it describes Phase II. And I just need to point out also, many things that are in Phase II are overlapping with some of the other initiatives that Denny's team is doing out there with CBDG dollars, and what we're going to be doing during the EAR, the evaluation and appraisal report, Stan Litsinger and comprehensive planning under Margaret. As we go through the EAR and the master plan for Immokalee, those kind of things are also being funded partly by the general fund. So they're -- frankly, what I'm trying to do is get a handle on everything that we're doing in Immokalee. And you've seen my weekly reports. I've noted we are spending a good deal of money in Immokalee, and justifiably so in a lot of regards. So Phase II would be a continuation. And Margaret, I don't know if you want to highlight further-- MR. MUDD: Phase II on Page E-32, about the middle of the page. Phase II and fiscal '03-'04, a housing survey of all residential units in Immokalee will be undertaken. Purpose of the survey is twofold: First, the legal units will be identified. Second, units will be classified as either standard, substandard, deteriorated or dilapidated. Housing initiative staff will work with code enforcement staff to develop survey standards. Upon completion of the survey, all owners of illegal units identified will be notified to bring the units up to code. If necessary, illegal units will be forwarded for prosecution Page 123 June 26, 2003 to the Code Enforcement department. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if we don't go forward with Phase II, these units will be able to continue as usual. I can tell you right now, and I don't want to drag this out, because we're going to be dealing with this tomorrow. I appreciate your patience, Commissioner Henning, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your other commissioners are patient, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, and I appreciate it. They're just getting a little sample of what I go through sometimes, too. But if I may -- go ahead, wave to your wife. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my turn now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it's not. Not yet, not yet, my friend. But if I may point out, tomorrow we're going to be discussing this in some detail. There's a number of people there that have complied to what has to be done. And great time and sacrifice -- not that they should have ever let it slide the way they did. Of course we never enforced it, and they were able to go forward with their trailer parks in any condition they wanted to. These people come into compliance and they sort of resent the fact that now that we got to them, we're stopping the initiative. And the next people in line are going to be exempt from it, while they've gone through this great expense to be able to pay for everything, bring their ends up, while the rest of it's going to be able to be held back a little bit. But let's not drag this out. We can get to it tomorrow after 10:00, if I understand it correctly, when we'll be able to deal with it with the people from Immokalee here, and be able to explain it to them what we're looking to do. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner, I'm fully prepared to follow on. Page 124 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you are. MR. SCHMITT: It's just a matter of when you have to identify where you can make cuts, and that was one of them. Frankly, I pointed it out to my boss, and it's on the list. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you going to say anything? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm glad we got to the point of realization that the movement of this to an unfunded requirement does not mean it will be canceled. You know, there are a number of items on the unfunded list that I think are critical requirements, and I will be arguing in support of them. And so the fact that it's been moved to the unfunded requirements list is of no consequence in my mind. And I will, as Commissioner Coletta will, advocate for those things when we get to the point of dealing with the unfunded requirements list. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that all you have to say? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it. I was just trying to get -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the bottom line here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I'll wait till tomorrow. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I appreciate it, and I think everybody needs to recognize how much Commissioner Coletta fights for Immokalee. Mr. Schmitt, please continue. MR. SCHMITT: That's all I have. Unless you have specific questions, we'll be glad to deal with the questions through the various sections and through the various departments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The funding that we have presently in Immokalee for code enforcement, is that sufficient to handle all the complaints that you have out there? Page 125 June 26, 2003 MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold again. Yes, it is. In fact, we do more proactive enforcement in Immokalee than anywhere else in the county. We have currently three positions in the Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason I ask that is because in my particular area I've been -- it's been brought to my attention that we have a lack of code enforcement. And I think it's because we have a lack of personnel. And I realize in Immokalee you do have a big area there, and so I was just .wondering if you have sufficient personnel. Because I think that's another area that we might have to address as far as making sure that we have adequate code enforcement personnel, not only in Immokalee, but all through Collier County, to address a lot of the problems. I know there's areas like probably Plantation and Chokoloskee and just a few of them, Copeland and North Naples. All these people realize that they need to have people like you to enforce the code in that area. So I just wanted to bring that up at this time. MR. SCHMITT: Michelle, I think for the record you may want to just point out the number of code enforcement officials you have, investigators, so they understand. And again, Commissioner, I'd point out, certainly it would be great to enlarge that staff, but frankly, on a ballpark figure, one full-time equivalent is roughly about $100,000 by the time you count full play, plus furniture, plus a truck, plus everything that goes along with that, about $100,000. And that it would be another burden on the general fund. And I certainly-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can't they use the caste system? MR. SCHMITT: -- would-- I'll take four more for Naples Park. But go ahead, Michelle. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've been saving this picture, just so you know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. Page 126 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: If you get any more code enforcement people, we're going to need a bigger conference room. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the guy on the top there, is he leading the code enforcement? MR. MUDD: I've been saving this picture for Michelle, okay, because I knew this was going to come up. And I remember how many people we had to put in front of the dais when they all got there. But that's the clan that you're talking about when you talk about code enforcement. as -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we also have an area as large COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: got to cover, too. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to volunteer my fellow four commissioners to serve as voluntary code enforcement officers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let's stay on track here. MS. ARNOLD: I currently have, on the investigative side, 31.5 investigators. And they're divided in geographic areas. That also includes the evening shift that you all adopted last year, and that has four personnel in there. I presented a budget that was, you know, within the guidelines that were set forth with -- to the division and didn't ask for additional personnel. If additional personnel were to be granted, it would be for enhancing that evening shift that you all adopted last year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Okay, I have a few things. And I'm not going to try to micromanage what you do, Michelle, but I do -- on Page E-26, MSTU General Fund 111, the programs on this sheet, community State of Delaware. -- the State of Delaware that we've Page 127 June 26, 2003 planning and redevelopment provide for professional staff of planning, administration and technical support to implement the Immokalee and Gateway/Bayshore Redevelopment plans (sic). Well, the bottom line is again, these are in CRA's, and that really concerns me. This is coming out of MSTU funds and not -- MS. ARNOLD: That's not my area. MR. SCHMITT: That's in planning. That's under Margaret's, but I'll speak to that. I'll refer you to Page E-27. We increased -- when you look halfway down the page, you'll see transfers from Fund 186 and 187. And those are on the following pages. But those are your two CRA funds, one for Immokalee and one for the triangle. I increased from 15,000 to 35, the demand in each of those, to defray some of the costs and pay for staff time. What you see there are the additional dollars that have been allocated to the general fund, Commissioner, and I certainly accept your opinion and agree that if in fact this board concurs, that I have two choices: We either-- we have that-- the CRA pay for that staff in total, and of course you as both currently the CRA, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, and when the advisory board or the advisory council comes to you reference CRA, you know they've already approached you for an executive director, but this will put more demand on each of those funds. And right now I'm trying to allocate at least one FTE total to support the CRA. But actually, there's more time. I have the manager there, Randy Cohen. But also, some of that time is devoted to doing such things a little bit looking down further, the U.S. 41, the support I provide to the East Naples Civic Association, that is both interested in the CRA, plus the work that they're going to be looking at for the U.S. 41 overlay. And that Aaron Blair, who provides that service, so there -- MR. MUDD: The question I've got -- Page 128 June 26, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: When I looked at it, we looked at it and said some of this is a general fund requirement. But if that's this board's desire -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not going to get enough support, after you mentioned those things, so I'm going to move on to the next item. The next item is provide technical planning, administrative management support. The next item down is a 63.8 request. Now, why can't we have the CRA's pick it up -- that up if we're picking up the item on the top? MR. SCHMITT: And I would concur. We would go back to the CRA and say they fund it or we don't provide the support. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see three -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can go for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three nods. Then the next one, the fast-tracking permit proposed by EDC projects. Shouldn't that be in the EDC budget? I mean, economic development. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, there's a couple of things with EDC. As you well know, it's identified as an unfinanced requirement. We're coming to you in July for some EDC initiatives. If in fact those are not funded, I have one EDC position that probably will have to be assessed whether or not you even need that position. What -- and that's already identified in my budget, so there's a position identified with that as well. So that's something we'll talk about tomorrow when you talk about the unfinanced requirement. This piece is a portion of a planner's salary who provides the specialized tracking for the fast-tracking of EDC. I would have to look and see if whether or not -- we could look to see how we would pay for that strictly out of EDC, because it is an EDC function. But Page 129 June 26, 2003 right now, and I'll point out on page -- I'm looking for the EDC function. Economic development, E-37. That really comes out of the general fund. That's an 001 function. And it's a $430,000 bill that I pay to Tammy and her team out in EDC. And the other is listed as both operating expenses and the one employee that I have, Helene Caseltine, who is the economic development coordinator for the county, currently funded out of the general fund. All of that comes out of the general fund. So the other piece that identified as a general fund requirement was what the planner provides in shepherding those projects through the fast-track planning process. But if it's this board's desire, I will relook at that. But all I'm doing is smoke and mirrors, because it's coming from the general fund, regardless. If you tell me to cut that, then I'll cut it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you could just move it -- move that into the EDC's fund-- MR. SCHMITT: But then I would -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- subtract the amount from it, from the -- MR. SCHMITT: I would take it out of 111 and increase my demand on the general fund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let me tell you something. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think economic development is just in the unincorporated area. You know, it really should be out of the general fund to begin with, my opinion. So the -- what I was suggesting is out of the fast-tracking program, you got five, 10, 800. Incorporate the other one into -- MR. SCHMITT: The 53 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- 200. And instead of 111, take that out of 001. CHAIRMAN HENNING: At least. Or reduce it down from the Page 130 June 26, 2003 EDC's budget. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you come back next time. MR. SCHMITT: I will look at that, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question, while you're talking about that? Would that be something that permits would pay for? Because that seems directly related to building. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the permitting pays for the review, but the -- frankly, the special handling, the fast-tracking, the coordination with the customer-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: They still pay that permit fee. MR. SCHMITT: -- that is above and beyond the permit fee. And -- or I can go back and say again, then I'm penalizing the applicant who is applying for economic incentives and saying well, you're going to pay more for a permit. So there are some things that you say some of this needs to be passed off to the general fund. And frankly, you didn't see this last year, because this was buried in 113. And when I look -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. SCHMITT: Well -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you bury it again? Just kidding, just kidding. MR. SCHMITT: Let me explain, Jim, let me explain so you understand. When I split the funds, in order to pay for the staff that was doing the review, I said -- we got with the industry last August, and I said I'm probably going to reduce building permit fees, but I'm going to raise planning fees, and you've heard this figure, about 322 percent. And they gasped. They, being the industry, gasped. So based on things you've heard probably from the industry, and we heard it from the development services advisory council and others, see where you can-- you do to pass those questionable things that were being funded with development services fees and put them Page 131 June 26, 2003 in the general fund. This is one of them. I'm not looking at probably another 50 percent increase in planning increases, rather than the 300 percent we were talking. But if it's this board's guidance to say somehow figure out that that ought to be an additional charge on planning fees, then I'm just trying to point out to you how we're trying to spread the cost. And if this board says -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to move down my list, and then I know I see some itchy people from my left and right. Vanderbilt Beach overlay, that's been what, two or three years going on? MR. SCHMITT: A year and a half. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A year and a half. MR. SCHMITT: And this is to carry it to fruition. We're finalizing the LDC amendments, and this will carry it through January, from October through January, basically, to cover the development of the land development codes and finishing the overlay. And that was again a cost that was totally the general fund, when this board directed my staff to do the overlay. In retrospect, just like with Naples Park, we should have passed that cost off to the recipients, or to the benefactors. COMMISSIONER HALAS: An MSTU or something -- MR. SCHMITT: An MSTU. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And maybe you can answer this for me, and maybe Commissioner Halas can help me out. I understand those folks up there is (sic) spending over $100,000 to hire their own lawyer and own planner. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not -- I know they spent that on legal fees fighting one of the court cases we had, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I don't know about the overlay study. We're not-- Page 132 June 26, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: I think it's maybe a couple thousand dollars right now, at least for a -- and maybe only a thousand -- for a lawyer. But that's only the initial. I don't know what they spent. Planner Margaret, do you? MS. WUERSTLE: I don't know the-- MR. MUDD: Joe, there's also another move afoot up there, based on our conversations that we had recently with one of the property owners in the area, where they basically want to take this overlay and expand it. And they're basically coming forward with their own study in order to do that and bring it to you and to the board. MR. SCHMITT: No, they've been doing that as part of working with Don Snyder. They've hired a planner and we've been working with them. Commissioner Halas we briefed yesterday on this. And yes, Jim, they have hired a planner, but they've submitted what they want to us. And as part of the LDC third cycle, their planner, their lawyer, will be in front of you trying to sell you on what they think ought to be as far as the overlay. So yes, they have hired their own lawyer, but it still involves staff work that I have to fund. Or if I don't fund, I CHAIRMAN HENNING: Isn't there an MSTU in similar boundaries with-- MR. SCHMITT: I don't know, I'll look to Mike or -- there probably is over there somewhere. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is an MSTU there on Vanderbilt Beach. MR. MUDD: Yeah, it's a landscaping -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Landscaping MSTU. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we change the ordinance and include this? Commissioner Halas, I would defer to you. MR. SCHMITT: My MSTU expert's transportation -- Page 133 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not right now. I think what they got is they set that up as strictly a landscaping MSTU. As you know, we've already had static over people coming in here saying that they didn't even want to pay for that MSTU for landscaping. So I'm sure that if we try to put this other burden across on there, we're going to have an uproar and we'll never get nothing up there accomplished. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, that's fine. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I mentioned that to one of the residents, and the immediate response I got was how much they pay in taxes and the whole nine yards. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're getting even with you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what they have is their own planner. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. But I still have to take the input, I still have to expend-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- manpower, put the LDC together and to -- and bring it to the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more question before I get to my final question. Did you accomplish everything you were supposed to last night, and is everybody satisfied? We had some similarities that we talked about in our office. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ave Maria University. It's a great project. And I know some worthy developers who would like some monies for their planning of that. Now, is that fair, I ask you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're asking me? I can answer it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or should it be passed on to the beneficiary? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The beneficiary is Collier Page 134 June 26, 2003 County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then I say to you, every development is beneficiary to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no, no. You can't compare this to Heritage Bay or some of those others that are out there. This is something that's going to bring a new dimension to Collier County as far as a business, an industry, a new dimension of lifestyle. It's going to be the uplifting entity to bring Immokalee out of the dark ages. I mean, there's many positive things. And I think this $44,600 is minute to be able to keep this thing on track and move it forward. But I do appreciate your concern. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about HMA Hospital, should we pay for that, too? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No, I think there's a big difference there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think we look at the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's be fair. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't mean to jump 'in here, but I think that we're looking at -- Ave Maria is a learning institution for young minds, and I think that we should incur the cost as taxpayers here, because I think this is a way of developing this community and developing the whole country as a nation. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could make sure you understand, there's going to be a lot more than just shown here. This was a portion of one person's salary, Mary Ann Devanis, who is a project manager, to oversee this project. But in no way will the fees -- and they are going to be significant. Both the fees for the stewardship sending areas and the stewardship receiving areas are going to be significant for this project. But we've expended an enormous amount of staff time. As Commissioner Coletta knows, even with the last meeting-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have support on this. You Page 13 5 June 26, 2003 know, we can drop it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good questions, though. MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, just this point of clarification. The reason we've spent an enormous amount of staff time is because this project basically defines the land development codes, okay, for the rural area. And it's basically the test case where we've never done it before, and that's why-- MR. SCHMITT: We're on a learning curve. MR. MUDD: And Joe has to spend that time doing that anyway. And in a way this is a blessing, because we get a little bit of everything with this project at one time, versus getting it over five or six different PUD's, and then having to scratch our head and say well, I thought we covered that in the Land Development Code three times. This thing is so diverse that it's basically testing the entire spectrum of the rural area and anything that could possibly be built in that area, because you've got a college campus, ball fields, housing, downtown. You've got commercial, below residential. So you've got all of those things that are transpiring. And so Joe's staff is really trying to stretch it and break it out, and that's why you see that time that he has to spend in this. He'd have to spend it anyway, one way or the other. We're just getting a crash course. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you for answering my questions. Now if we could go to Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner -- no, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle. But if you all want to be gentlemen, you'll let Commissioner Fiala go first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll even waive my time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can let me go first and I'll tell you that I pass. See? For your consideration. No, I forgot my question. Page 136 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I just wanted to make sure Commissioner Coyle -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- would have time to speak. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pass. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've been waiting for so long, I don't know what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is getting better all the time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- I want to go back to the Vanderbilt Beach study thing. Not because I don't want to fund it, but Commissioner Henning raised an important issue. If the residents there are in fact working with their own planner about what they would like to have, I don't want us to get into a conflict with them by having our planners developing something different. Is that the track we're working on, or are you going to wait until you get what they have and then respond to that? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we'll go back a year and a half. This board directed a moratorium, and then we came back to you to extend the moratorium. We were probably one -- halfway into the project when the residents, shall I say, began to see that probably what was going to be recommended by the county was not really in total what they thought should be recommended. And they then decided to hire a planner. And that was just recently done -- well, recently, within the last six months. We are -- basically we have the development community, and there's one piece of property out there, it's the Vanderbilt Inn. They've hired their own staff. The community hired a planner to counter that, and we're refereeing. And we're trying to then evaluate the legal impacts that we may have with what's being proposed by Page 13 7 June 26, 2003 both the developer and the residents. And so we're basically the -- using the word, the fair minded people who are going to try and come to you with a proposal that will get us in the least trouble, but there's probably going to be a lot of hot water in a roomful of folks -- yeah, there you go. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to throw a lot out there for that one. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we are in fact heading for a train wreck? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know. MR. SCHMITT: Naples Park two revisited. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, God bless. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: I do have one thing I do have to turn over to Bleu Wallace, because we have to make one thing official for the record, on Page E-67. And Bleu, if you could cover the issue regarding regulatory fees. MR. WALLACE: Yes, for the record, Bleu Wallace. I'm the director of community development operations. One of the functional elements of operations is the utility regulation element. We oversee and regulate some six utilities that are investor owned in the county. We play the role as -- same role as the Public Service Commission. For that, we collect a fee from 15,000 customers that's built into their bill. And right now it's one and a half percent. That one and a half percent for the last two years has not generated enough revenue to cover expenditures. In the beginning we charged four and a half percent. And by ordinance, we can charge four and a half percent. That would bring in $900,000 a year. But we need around 400,000. Page 138 June 26, 2003 So staff is going to propose, since we no longer get our interest, that's been stripped off. And before the interest and the revenue, the 1.5 did cover our expenditures. Despite cutting one position this past year and moving it somewhere else in community development, that's still not enough, even after cutting a position to cover our revenues. So I'm asking the board to follow the recommendation of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority by recommending a half a percent increase in the rate from 1.5 percent to two percent. That will generate an additional $100,000 in the coming year. And that's not a very big impact on 15,000 customers. MR. SCHMITT: And that's noted on the last paragraph on Page E-67. Revenue fiscal year '03-'04 talks about the increase. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the loss of the interest was primarily due to the acquisition by another governmental agency; is that what you're talking about? MR. WALLACE: No, sir. The interest is on the reserves. When we first took back jurisdiction, we were charging four and a half percent for a year and a half. That built up a million dollar reserve. The interest on that million dollar reserve has been taken away and placed in the general fund. Since then, any shortfall has come directly out of the reserves. The reserves have gone, in two years, from a million dollars down to 700 and something thousand. So I'm trying to stop the bleeding here from the reserves, is all, by increasing the fee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is the money the clerk has invested and is returning the interest back to the general fund, rather than back to you -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- as it previously was done. That's exactly right. Page 139 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Now, there's another piece to this, and I want -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not -- wait, I just want to follow it through. It's not a loss of revenue to the county. It went into the general fund. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Redirected. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just redirected to a different place. I just want to make sure I understand that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it reflects on their budget. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It reflects on their budget. MR. MUDD: And the other piece I want to bring to your attention is the last line of that paragraph. And Commissioner Fiala, this should have your antennas up. 90 percent of the revenue in this thing is for Marco Island. When Marco Island buys Florida Water Services, you just lost 90 percent of your revenue into Bleu Wallace's fund. So now he's dealing with 10. No doubt in my mind he'll be coming back to see you when and if that transpires. MR. SCHMITT: Well, there'll be an appropriate reduction in the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Expenditures. MR. SCHMITT: -- required staff as well. MR. MUDD: But I'm just letting you know that that area's still got some whickering to do once that transpires. I want to make sure the board is aware of that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, thank you. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before we leave with Mr. Schmitt, I want to go back to E-26 to make sure I have your direction to Mike Smykowski and Joe Schmitt locked out. Page 140 June 26, 2003 The first, under programs, community planning and redevelopment. You've asked Mr. Schmitt to get with Mr. Smykowski and carve out which piece is in the CRA and CRA fundable and change their budget; is that correct? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Do I have three nods? All right, I have three nods, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning. The next item, it's already carved out. Even though you said go carve it out, see where it says that $70,000 revenue? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. MUDD: That $70,000 revenue comes from the next page, E-27, which is transfers 186, 187 that Mr. Schmitt talked about. That's 35 and 35 makes 70, and that's where that $70,000 came from. And then we go down to fast-track permitting. There's been direction to move that as a general fund outlay versus a Fund 111. Okay? I have three nods? That's all the direction I needed in clarification. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a 1 O-minute break for the court reporter. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're back in session of the BCC budget hearings. Mr. Jim DeLony, utilities -- public utilities. Mr. DeLony? MR. DeLONY: Sir, thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here to discuss with you the '04 budget for the public utilities division. I have with -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Looks good to me. MR. DeLONY: I've been told to just be quiet when I hear that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We went through most of this earlier this week, didn't we? MR. DeLONY: Sir, to be frank with you, you go through my Page 141 June 26, 2003 budget on a routine basis in the approval of a master plan, rate studies and other important projects that I bring before the board on an aegis basis. This is all of them in a pile, for lack of a better term. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to go to capital improvements? MR. DeLONY: We can go to capital projects, sir, if you'd like, and debt management, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, please introduce us to your directors. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I would like that very much to do that, sir. I'm very proud of this team that you have in front of you today. To my right, starting on the right is Mr. Joe Cheatham. Mr. Cheatham is the director of the wastewater department. Next to him sitting, Paul Mattausch. That would be my right, sir. Mr. Paul Mattausch, he's the water department director. Sitting next to him is Mr. Roy Anderson. Roy is the director of the engineering department. He's also responsible for our coastal management department as well. Over here to the far left is Mr. George Yilmaz. George is the director of solid waste for Collier County. Next to him is Mr. John Yonkosky. John's in charge of the utility building and customer service. And next to me on my left here, your right, is Mr. Tom Widdes. Tom is the operations officer and the financial officer for the public utilities division. And that's the team in front of you today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. What do we have in capital improvements? MR. DeLONY: I'd like to ask Mr. Anderson to give you a brief overview of the capital projects for the public utilities division. Roy? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, thank you. Page 142 June 26, 2003 The 2002 capital projects are nested in the water and wastewater master plans, as Jim indicated, which have been submitted to you before and were approved on February 25th, 2003. Those are -- that master plan in turn is tied into the strategic goals of the BCC, and which are in turn based on the Collier County Growth Management plan. The FY '02 -- FY '04 public utilities capital budget is shown, after Section F, is included in Pages 1 through 9. The FY '04 budget includes some 147 projects, of which 130 are water and wastewater projects, with specifically 55 in water and 75 projects for wastewater, which tied down to a total budget request of $185.3 million, as shown on Page 3. This total is made up of both projects and transfers. Of these 147 water and wastewater projects, 49 are associated with the county's strategic goal of expansion to meet the demand, 66 are associated with the county's strategic goal of establishing a reliable infrastructure, and 12 are associated with the strategic goal of improving financial planning, management and reporting. We -- in terms of highlighting our significant projects, the first one I'd like to mention is the Orangetree project, the newly acquired 216-acre site. We have to get zoning and planning approvals for that site. We anticipate spending $23.9 million for a 12 million gallon per day expansion of the RO expansion for the south water treatment plant. We anticipate expending $2.7 million for the manatee water treatment plant site; that would be the southeast water treatment plant. COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. DeLONY: Page 3, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. DeLONY: Page 3. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: MR. DeLONY: What page are you on? Pardon? Page 3. F-37 Yes, sir, on the capital projects at the back end Page 143 June 26, 2003 of the section F. If you would just give a moment, Roy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Behind the purple. MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, thank you. MR. DeLONY: When you're ready, let me know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry. Oh, now it makes more sense. MR. DeLONY: Sorry. Are we ready to go? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. DeLONY: Go ahead, Roy, please. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We also anticipate $4.4 million for the northeast regional water treatment plant, and the southeast regional water treatment plant well fields. And $5.1 million in force mains to connect the north and south wastewater plants. We envision $2.6 million for the reclaimed water, ASR. In terms of proactive studies to stay one step ahead of the regulatory curve, we are initiating an infiltration in-flow study for the north county INI for the north county sewer system. We did do one this year in '03 for the south county, and that will be continuing as well. These INI studies, that stands for infiltration in-flow, and we're removing basically extraneous water in the sewer system that should not be there to take it out so we don't have to treat it. And of course we're going to be doing our master plan updates. We have $200,000 allocated for a 2003 update for the water and wastewater master plans. We've spoken to you most recently at the last board meeting about the reliability projects for the north well field. Those are included as well. In conclusion, I would just add that your dedicated PUED staff Page 144 June 26, 2003 is working hard to live up to our mission statement by delivering an efficient, proactive, reliable service that exceeds expectations and meets the demand for our clientele. In doing so, we have integrated sideways management into our daily activities to promote communications and process efficiencies. For example, we have monthly project review board meetings where we discuss all of our active projects between engineering and the water and wastewater operating departments, as well as outside agencies like purchasing and property acquisition folks as well, and community development. We have regular meetings with Norm Feder's staff to coordinate the transportation projects with our utility projects on an ongoing basis. MR. DeLONY: That's about it, right? Other than your questions, that provides a brief overview of our capital program, as proposed in our '04 budget, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. The revenue, you're projecting no increases of user fees for the '04? MR. DeLONY: Tom? MR. WIDDES: Commissioners, back on February 25th, when we reviewed and approved the master plan, the impact fees and the rate studies, the rate studies for user fees were to go into effect on October 1st of '03, which is approximately a combined six and a half percent increase on the water side and about seven percent on the wastewater side. And we have a likewise increase scheduled as part of that approval for October of'04. Those are the two increases that we had scheduled. MR. MUDD: Would somebody like to brief the board on solid waste, please? MR. DeLONY: We're going to get to that. There's one other aspect of our budget. We'll be dealing with the Page 145 June 26, 2003 amount that we will charge for our solid waste services. I'd like John Yonkosky to describe that rate to you. And Tom, I'd like you to summarize at the end of that. John, please? MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. On Page F-4 -- I mean F-39 in your budget is where we'll be looking at the solid waste mandatory trash collection program. The budget this year is -- or recommended for '04 is 12.3 million, and that's an 8.2 percent increase over the budget for this last year. The key drivers for this increase is growth. They were estimating a growth of 4,200 new accounts, and the money will come in from the tax roll for those 4,200 accounts, and it will be used to pay proportionately for the services. We'd have to pay for the haulers to collect them, we'd have to pay for the property appraiser, and the tax collector, and we'd have to pay the landfill tipping fees. That's the major driver is growth. And in order to accommodate receiving those payments, we're looking at the proposed rate, which is on Page F-40. If you could go to F-40. Color coded. This represents a $7.48 increase over last year. It's a 5.9 percent increase over the FY '03 rate. There are two key variables that are driving that rate. The increase is structured to offset the four percent discount. Every person that pays the annual charge is entitled to a four percent discount, if they pay their bill in November, the tax bill, which includes a special assessment for this. The remaining portion of the increase, which is less than two percent, is a variable for other increases. We have to pay the landfill contractor a CPI increase, and it's passing on to the landfill contractor who handles the landfill waste. Basically those are the two key elements that are in the increase. And I might add that this is still a rate that's significantly lower than anyplace else in the State of Florida. MR. MUDD: John, can you please tell the board why all of a Page 146 June 26, 2003 sudden that four percent issue became an issue this time around? MR. DeLONY: Yeah, Tom, why don't you take that on from the standpoint of where we stand on reserves? MR. WIDDES: Commissioners, in the past few years, as we've drawn down our reserves, there's been an overriding decision to in fact not -- essentially not gross up for that four percent that we're talking about again for early payment. But what that's done is that's continually drawn down the solid waste reserves, which was a targeted activity. What's happening now is we're getting to the point where those reserves are getting low enough and frankly too low where we're actually turning upside down and our expenses are starting to run the risk of outstripping our revenues. So what we're saying is to maintain an adequate reserve level, we're trying to keep that gross up back in place for the actual revenue needed. We set our budgets, we set everything else up on the gross. And then what happens is as the bills come in, it's actually reduced by the four percent, because people tend to pay early. And then we go in, we start digging back into our reserves again. So it's time to set our reserves properly. MR. MUDD: One of the things that happened here, Commissioner, is when we first went to Waste Management on a contract and we set that contract and we laid out that budget, people paid the mandatory rate for a year, okay, when they paid their rate, but it was only nine months. So there was a three-month reserve from that mandatory rate for that annual at the beginning of the contract. And so this utility, this division, has used that reserve up in that four percent, you know, bargain that you get when you pay in November. Now, that's for your property tax, that isn't really with something as pay as you go as far as the service is concerned. And they've used that piece up. And they're to the point in time where Page 147 June 26, 2003 they can't keep taking the four percent savings from an early payment of the property tax, which was supposed to be a way to incentivize (sic) people paying their taxes early as far as a mandatory collection fee for their operation. So they're basically saying if it's there in 90 some odd percent of the property owners in Collier County, take advantage of that four percent bargain. And that's what they're trying to overcome at this particular case, and that's why it's here today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question on that one then. Does the clerk of courts strip the interest off of this account? MR. MUDD: Yes. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess it brings up another question I never realized, when we set the general fund or anticipate the general fund, is that in the monies that we receive in November, or is it the monies we receive in March? In our budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We base the tax revenue on the gross amount. There is the five percent statutory set-aside. The state says you can only appropriate 95 cents on the dollar. So that in effect covers us for that discount period in the general fund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: One of the thing that utilities had -- prior to this particular case had come up and said hey, you know, I'm going to need some kind of a five percent to cover the two months that we've got between the time where you first get your general fund or they pay their mandatory collection. And we've been able to talk to the clerk of courts in order to take that money off of the reserve that they have for landfill closing in order to provide that gap, instead of having to raise the rates five percent more. So it was a lot worse than what you see on the sheet. And we had some conversations, why should we have to go out and charge the residents more for the collection when they paid already for a large landfill closing reserve that's sitting there. Why can't we use Page 148 June 26, 2003 that for a two-month period of time until the revenues come in? It's a short-term loan. And they said that will cover that five percent fee. So there was some good news with some great conversation, great work with the clerk of courts to reduce it even where it was -- from where it was down to this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Mr. DeLony? MR. DeLONY: No, sir. Other than your questions, I'm completed with our presentation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers today? MR. MUDD: Sir, we have one public speaker on this item. It's Mr. Bob Krasowski. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon. Thanks for setting the workshop up this way so that the public has a chance to comment as these items come past us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My pleasure. MR. KRASOWSKI: My name is Bob Krasowski, for the record. I was wondering if I'd be able to get a copy of Mr. DeLony's presentation, being that he didn't make it, and so -- we didn't have the opportunity to see it on the screen. It's hard to follow these issues when the presentations aren't made or the material isn't provided. Like there's no packet like you usually have at your regular agenda packet meeting, though I understand it would be hard to provide everybody with a copy of the budget and stuff. But there's just certain materials I'd like to review at a time when I can develop an understanding of them. I'd like to touch on a couple of things related to solid waste in the public utilities' direction. Earlier today Mr. Mudd pointed out Page 149 June 26, 2003 that there were 25 possible positions available to expand the county's work force. And he's used 16 of them. Well, over the last couple of years we've used consultants to do some work for the public utilities regarding solid waste, and we've spent over a million dollars to pay these people for their expertise. And I'm just suggesting that we could have had two or three full-time employees working on the solid waste management issue as we're looking towards the future, and not spent as much money and had in-house people working full time for us. I think that we could have had, you know, someone at a Ph.D. level and an assistant to that person and a secretary for that million dollars plus. Then also, I'm here again to appeal to you to -- like I've seen we had the budget item, the five-task assignment to Malcolm Pirnie to analyze the IWT bottom line, as far as what they would provide in their pyrolysis proposal service to the county. And then they were supposed to come back to you and then you decide to look into that or to go to Britestar to look at both. In that proposal, that five-task proposal, two of the tasks that added up to $100,000 went along that line. Then there was a bit of an exaggerated activity, in my point of view, that was $132,000. And the thing that gets me most about that is that if we took that $132,000 and budgeted it for the RFP on the zero waste maximum diversion strategy RFP, if we spent the money on not that but on choosing a respondent and paying them 100,000, $132,000, we would have gotten more information for this very impressive group of people to evaluate in comparison to pyrolysis, if you do find yourself proceeding along those lines in the future. But, you know, my time's up, so that's all I'll do for now. But thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, thank you. Okay, great job. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. Page 150 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Keep up the good work. MR. MUDD: The next item on-- and public utilities, if you could just leave quietly. The next item is debt service, and Mike Smykowski will present. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Mike Smykowski, budget director. We're at the debt service tab, Page G-1. Debt service is an area where the board has no discretion. This is essentially the repayment of principal and interest on outstanding debt. So in essence, it's your mortgage payments for various bond issues. There are just a few things I'd like to highlight. In FY '03, you see the shaded boxes at the top -- actually under '04 there, where there are zeros, and the budget change is -100 percent, that is because in FY '03 we've paid off three of our outstanding bonds issues: The racetrack bonds; the guaranteed entitlement bonds, which are secured by revenue sharing; and third, the parks GO debt. The significance of that is that there was a millage levied of .0268 mils in fiscal year '03, whereas for $2.68 per 100,000 of taxable value, that being paid off. Obviously there will be no corresponding levy for debt service. So a majority of folks in roughly the unincorporated area of the county will see that reduction on their proposed tax bill this year. Overall debt service is up 40.3 percent. Most significantly is the -- if you look under gas tax Fund 212, that is our first series of road bond issues that were issued this year at the extraordinarily low rates that we were able to capture this year, so that was certainly an advantage to the county as we embarked on tackling the outstanding road projects. And unless there are any questions, that would conclude. Again, there's no discretion here. These are previously approved debt levies, many of which are many years old, with the exception obviously of the gas tax bond issue, which was issued this year. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board? Page 151 June 26, 2003 Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you explain the last entry there, revenues reserve? You've got a parenthesis there. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. The State of Florida, to ensure against revenue shortfalls, requires that you only appropriate 95 cents on the dollar. That limits overly aggressive revenue estimates and helps -- provides a built-in safeguard against revenue shortfalls. So for every dollar that you budget in revenue, you have to budget a negative five percent, or the five percent revenue reserve that is required by statute. And again, that's a built-in safeguard against overly aggressive revenue estimates and to provide you some protection. Just like this year, tourist taxes were off. But the first five percent you're in essence held harmless because of that built-in safeguard. So it's a good tool to protect us in the event of economic downturn. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. What's that Pine Ridge and Naples? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Pine Ridge and Naples Industrial Park. That was improvements specific to -- that was a special assessment bond to the property owners within the Pine Ridge and Naples industrial parks for I believe it was drainage and roadway improvements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's an MSTU? MR. SMYKOWSKI:. Yes, that is correct. Special assessments only on the property owners within the boundaries of that district. So it is not county-wide in any stretch. Only paid off by those who directly benefit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that was the drainage in the industrial area? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Drainage. Yes, that was drainage and roadway improvements. Page 152 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For businesses. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For businesses operating within the industrial park, yes. They-- there were special assessments levied 'against their properties, based on the benefit accruing to each of those properties within the industrial park. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Those were taxpayers? MR. SMYKOWSKI: They are taxpayers indeed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is my area. And that line worked so well for Michael, you don't have a lot of discretion -- no, I'm only kidding with you. If I could please get the office of management and budget, communication customer relations, emergency management and medical examiner, whatnot, Isle of Capri, county fire, whoever's here in that process. I'm on Page H-1 of management offices. The County Manager line, the '02-'03 was at seven and a quarter. I'm at 759,400, which is a budget increase of 4.7 percent. The explanation of the County Manager's line right there is on Page H-4. Most of the increase, Commissioner, has to do with personnel services. And I have an operating expense of 31-6, which is about $800 more than last year on operating expenses. We've held the line in the office to try to minimize any adverse impacts and try to hold that percentage down. One of the things that you also try to do when you're trying to set the budget, you're always trying to set the standard for everybody else to try to emulate, so we tried to do that. You go to the next line, C -- and I'm on Page H-1 now. CM, board-related costs. It went from 88,100 to 95,700. That's an 8.6 percent increase. And those board-related costs are on Page H-7. Page 153 June 26, 2003 And those are itemized under board directed activities on H-7. Lobbyists contract for 60,000. Employee picnic for 16,000. Citizen survey, and that's what we do annually, at $5,800. ICMA performance measures, that's an item that I've added so we can start benchmarking ourselves against other counties to see if we're efficient or not or where we need to get improvements, and that's a way to do it. That gets us into their database. And goal-setting is another process where I've tried to set the goals in a business environment for county staff so we can set the goals, we can lay out the metrics, measure it to see if we're being successful or not or what items that we need to change. The subtotal there is 89-3. And then board-related activities, including travel, legal advertising, operating supplies at $6,400, which gives you the total budget of $95,700. And that is an increase of 8.6 percent. The next item is office of management budget. And that line is a -- it has one expanded position of $84,000. That position is for internal review. And that is to find a productivity analyst. Had to hire that new. We went to the productivity committee, it's been an item we talked to the clerk about and had no takers, and a recommendation that we bring one on staff and work with the productivity committee to work on the personnel description as we go out and hire that particular person. Because of that increase, you see a 20.3 percent increase in the budget. And Mike, I won't say any more. You want to talk about H-107 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we stop and ask a question, if you don't mind? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything you need. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page H-7, lobbyist contract for $60,000? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How long does that contract Page 154 June 26, 2003 extend? MR. MUDD: Sir, that contract is an annual contract with annual renewals. And if-- and the board basically told the county manager, the previous county manager, that we should hire a lobbyist in order to do that. If the board doesn't feel that the present lobbyist is -- or you don't need a lobbyist, if you don't feel the present lobbyist is sufficient, we can go out and readvertise for that position or we can eliminate it, whatever the board's desire. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I wouldn't try and make a judgment that the present lobbyist isn't sufficient. I think it might be appropriate that we reassess our need for a lobbyist, in view of what the Florida Association for Counties does for us and our legislative delegation does for us. And, quite frankly, what some of the staff and the Commissioners do for us. I'm just wondering if it's necessary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, there's the question out there. My perspective, yeah, either we cut it or there are specialty lobbyists out there that deal with certain topics that Tallahassee legislators do. And I think we get a better bang for our buck if we do that. So I'm either in favor of trying to target that, you know, whether it's a -- something directly just affects Collier County or it's something that we want to go after. Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never heard of a specialty lobbyist before. But if there is such a person, or there is such a person, would that person then be hired by like seven or eight counties, so he goes in and says for these seven counties I'm lobbying you for so-and-so? MR. MUDD: For instance, Commissioner, in your particular district, Marco Island. Talking about Florida Waters' takeover by those -- Gulf Breeze and whoever that was that was going to do it? Page 155 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Toomey. MR. MUDD: We hired Mike Toomey, okay, in order to handle that as a specialty lobbyist, and he lobbied for Collier County. And I will tell you, that particular lobbyist saved the day for Marco Island, because we came across with a strong suit for Collier County in that particular issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's a perfect example. Now, that's where we would win. I was just wondering if a specialty lobbyist works for seven or eight or 12 counties at a time, would we lose the bang for the buck, or do we get somebody who just works for Collier County at -- for that particular specialty? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, where I was going with that is let's say you have a wish list, the board has a wish list. Let's say it's -- give an example, Lely drainage basin. We want out of EFTAP (sic), $12 million to assist us in this drainage basin. Well, there's people that can do that, make it happen, that work with the DEP, that sector of it. Or if it's transportation, there are special people out there, you know, so on, so forth. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to bring up basically the same thing. What's the biggest bang for our buck, and what does it cost us to have separate lobbyists that we would hire for specific line items that we'd be interested in. So I guess you've got to look at the whole picture here. The whole equation is finding out what is each one of these lobbyists going to cost us, and the other thing is, the lobbyist that we presently have, does he do the job for us and does he know all of the different areas of expertise that we need in regards for him to be an effective lobbyist? I guess that's -- I've given a lot more -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- questions here than I'm getting answers. Page 156 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I'm glad you're bringing the subject up, being that on the last three legislative sessions I've been going to Tallahassee on a regular basis and working with the lobbyists. I think our present lobbyist, Keith Arnold, has done an excellent job for us. But once again, is there a way that this money might better service us? I mean, I'm open for anything, but I'll tell you, these reports that come in, you get something from the Florida Association of Counties that's pretty generic. I don't know if you people read the reports or not. They -- but they're following particular bills. Now, Florida Association of Counties might not be the same direction that Collier County may want to take. This past year, I mean, we've taken several stances that was different than what the group from the Florida Association of Counties took. Meanwhile, you're getting information that's of value that's directed more globally than particularly to what we're dealing with. So I do think that we need a lobbyist. When you go to Tallahassee to do your lobbying, they give you directions of where to go and who's the people to see. You can get some of that information from Florida Association of Counties, but it's always great to have a lobbyist that can give you direction, set up appointments, and then you can go in there and move forward on it. And it has made a difference in dollars that have come. I'll be honest with you, this year has not been as productive as last year. But I think one of the efforts that has to be made is a lobbyist is important, I do believe in that, but I think even more important is to try to get everybody up there to Tallahassee on a timely basis so that we can keep the message in front of the people. Sometimes it's just the influence that you may be able to turn somebody's opinion, one person's opinion, that will mean whether we get the funding or not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 157 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want you to take note of the fact that the Chairman has implemented an affirmative action program. Every time I raise my hand, he calls on Commissioner Coletta. MR. MUDD: I can always put the lights on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can change chairs, that might work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I just thought you'd like to know that. But I guess one of the things that has impressed me over the past couple of years watching what goes on in Tallahassee and the Florida Association of Counties' report is that these issues are incredibly complex. And I don't think any one person can possibly understand the details of all of these complex issues. It's like if you want brain surgery, you're not going to go to a podiatrist or a GP. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about a proctologist? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe that, too. But-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's hard, isn't it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it is hard. But in any event, I believe that whenever we have difficult things like a water service issue or an environmental issue, you know, we hire environmental lawyers. And I think that it might serve us well to consider evaluating some of these issues internally and decide who has the best contacts for that particular issue, who has the best background, best track record, and trying to deal with it on that basis. So I thinl~ there's something to be said for going to a specialist for some of these issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Remind everybody, in September we're going to have a workshop on legislation issues in the State of Florida. I can seek out and find out what kind of specialists are out there. And I think from that we can probably make a decision what Page 158 June 26, 2003 we need to do as far as a lobbyist. So my perspective, why don't we just leave it there and discuss it in the September or October budget. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We keep the 60 in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, good. MR. MUDD: We were on the office of management and budget on H-10, and I talked about the expanded position. I turned it over for Mike for any jewels that I missed. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No jewels. This is again a fallout of Commissioner Henning's request to the productivity committee to -- whether or not they had the ability to take on efficiency reviews. At that point they said no, and they were looking to Mr. Mudd to add that to his budget, and they heartily endorse the concept of adding a staff member to have a dedicated resource to perform that function. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is anybody opposed to this position of government efficiency? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: The next item is communication and customer relations, and that's on Page H-12. And Ms. Debbie White will -- who's the acting interim director -- I think you're a little bit of both; plus you're also working as an assistant in the county manager's office -- will present this particular item. And oh, by the way, that position is out, being advertised right now. MS. WHITE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Debbie White. This is Barbara Pedone, public information coordinator. And presenting our department budget to you on Page 12, 13 and 14, our operating expenses for FY '03-'04 increased only 2.6 percent from the current budget, which is consistent with the county manager's guidelines approved by the board. In addition, you'll see that we have no expanded services. It's a Page 159 June 26, 2003 pretty straightforward budget. We welcome any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: I will also -- not in their defense, but as an atta person, instead of atta boy, atta girl, atta group, they've made big changes in that organization as far as our TV station and what we're presenting to the board and the information that we're getting out to the community as far as customer service today. I asked them to do something a little bit special this morning, and there was some things -- added things to it. And everybody asked me what those boxes are, and that's just to get that screen to work. And so now you can see why it is that that mess-up happened in the box. It wasn't really a mistake by that staff. And we had a power outage this morning and I had a repairman down there. Now, I will tell that you those IBM commercials were on the TV screens at home, okay, but they didn't get to see the sight bits. What they got to see, because Kady was trying to get the thing, is they got all the commissioners doing one of these numbers as they were looking over here, okay? So they got to see the IBM commercial, which you didn't have the sound for in the sight bit. But it's a super group and they're making big changes, and they're thinking out of the box to provide a better service for the employees, and I didn't want to go without that being said. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It needed to be said. And I will say that I, as one of the commissioners, anyway, constantly hear good things on the street. I can't believe how many people tune in and listen to what's going on. And when you have a better informed constituency, I think you can govern more for the people, so I have nothing but praise. Seems to be getting awfully professional. For just a government facility, it's very professional. Page 160 June 26, 2003 MS. WHITE: We've got a good staff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plus they got a low overhead, too, really, as far as staff goes. MR. MUDD: The next item is emergency management, and that is $380,200. It's a 4.1 percent increase. And that's on Page H- 16. And Mr. Pineau and Mr. Summers is -- just looking this time. Watch Ken do it the first time and then he learns from it and goes for it. MR. SUMMERS: I'm backing Ken up all the way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a great job. I have no questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Neither do I. MR. MUDD: Next item-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just hope it's enough money. MR. MUDD: Next item is miscellaneous grants, okay, and that's for $110,000. And that's a decrease of .3 percent. And that's on Page H-22. And Ken will also present on this particular item. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions. Thank you, Mr. Pineau. It's great. MR. MUDD: We had forestry grants and some other things that show up in that particular item. So Ken, you're doing really good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Excellent. MR. MUDD: The next one is division of forestry services, and that's on Page H-24. And we have an appropriation, we have an agreement with the division of forestry services to work on our particular forest in the county for 12,400. It stays the same from year to year. It's an agreement, it's in the budget, no increase. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Next item is medical examiner, and that's on Page H-26, H-27, and that's for $796,200. And that is only a 2.7 percent increase. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was the dead budget? Page 161 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: And the grim reaper's sick today, too, so we'll just -- without further questions on that particular item, Pelican Bay Services and Mr. Jim Ward is here to present. And their budget is on H-28. MR. WARD: Thank you. For your record, Jim Ward, I'm manager for Pelican Bay Services. First, this budget is fully funded by just the residents of Pelican Bay, solely through either non-ad valorem assessments that we levy on the property or alternatively some ad valorem taxes that are also levied. There's a variety of services that are provided. The MSTU is governed by an 11-member advisory board that the commission has set up by ordinance; three members which have recently been elected to the board itself. So they take a lot of time to go through this budget in extraordinarily intricate detail. The budget from what you have here actually will go down slightly, based upon the recommendations that will come to you in final form from the advisory board. For next year, though, they will pay -- residents will pay roughly $325 per unit in Pelican Bay for the services, plus a slight amount for some ad valorem taxes. But on an average home worth about a million dollars in Pelican Bay will pay roughly $550 to us in total taxes, both non-ad valorem and ad valorem for the services provided by the division. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if you could ask Mr. Ward to show you his right hand. He talked to their board out there and he started to talk about additional public beach access, and look at what they did to him. MR. WARD: Beat him up a little bit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, somebody beat somebody Page 162 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: The next item is Collier County Fire, and that's on H-40. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: A 4.1 percent decrease in the amount that we have. Next item is Isle of Capri Fire, and that's H-44. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No expanded services? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your capital improvements? None. MR. RODRIGUEZ: We repaired an inspection vehicle that we had for the inspector. That went under the capital improvement with impact fees. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Emilio Rodriguez, for the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You repaired what? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We bought the truck. It was a used vehicle from the county, and we repaired it to fit the inspector's needs. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. So this is an expanded vehicle to the fleet. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody else has (sic) any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next item is Ochoppee Fire, on H-48. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chief Wilson. No questions? Page 163 June 26, 2003 (No response.) MR. MUDD: The next item is Goodland/Horrs Fire (sic) at H-52. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: That brings us to the capital program that's the blue -- purple sheet that's back of-- next to H-53. Commissioner, do you have any questions on the capital budget? CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to the county attorney. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I could get you to turn to Page 1-8 under the Board of County Commissioners tab. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. David Weigel, county attorney. And with me is our office administrator and certified legal assistant, Debbie Allen. The figures for the county attorney office budget for the '03-'04 show on 1-7 and 8. And I can mention just right off the top that the major budgetary change that is reflected in the numbers that you have are that in the past we had a significant revenue coming from community development/environmental services to our office. And through a bookkeeping and a truing up mechanism it has been changed to go to the indirect cost basis. That shows a reduction of approximately 400,000 of what had previously been shown as a revenue to the office. It does not indicate in any way a change in the staffing or additional significant capital or other operational increases from the previous year. Page 164 June 26, 2003 The budgetary change that is truly reflected here is merely the fact that by your leave, your permission last year, we did increase staff by a few employees, six of which of our employees, for instance, are permanently exclusively dedicated to community development/environmental services. Three new employees came and were dedicated to that service. And I asked for and you approved them to be brought in on a phased basis, which provided for a somewhat reduced budget allocation for those positions last year. We had to bring on line for the next year, this coming budget year, the full 12-month allocation for those additional employees, so our budget did come up actually a small percentage beyond the last year budget. We have no significant capital improvements this next year, other than computer-related improvements and licensing that's required for the attorneys to be able to access the website legal references that we contract for. If you should have any questions, obviously I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, what I heard you say is you're receiving less money from community development? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Probably your budget director, Mike Smykowski, can address this with a little more specificity than I can. The intent was in years past when division administrators and the county manager would come and say we need more legal support in a particular area, and recognizing the general budgetary process and review that we have, I replied to them, I think that's a good idea, we should work through this together. And I'd like for it to be reflected to show more directly the allocation that we must provide. So for several years, as an example, risk management has been Page 165 June 26, 2003 -- has shown as a revenue to the county. And in like manner for a few years development services has done the same. The development services direct expense allocation went up by three additional employees and so was reflected with an increase this year. And County Manager and Mr. Smykowski noted that there is a relation to the indirect expense, in any event. A truing up through an accounting process occurs at a later point in time, and they determine that based upon the general county valuation factors in play this year and the direction from County Manager to his divisions and my intent to not have significant expansion of operating personnel or capital costs, that this was the year to provide this, quote, truing up. And have I expressed that relatively well? Perhaps a little simplistically. MR. MUDD: What Michael has done, and rightfully so, is he charges everybody in the county for the attorney's services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Through the indirect cost allocation. MR. MUDD: Through the indirect cost allocation. And Mr. Schmitt and David had -- Mr. Schmitt needs additional services; there's a lot more stuff going on. And so Mr. Schmitt was giving him about $591,000 extra than his indirect cost, which he was also getting taken out, which was to the tune of about 460,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. MR. MUDD: And so we would have to pay Mr. Schmitt back $591,000 in '05, okay, because of this outlay, because it would have been a credit to him at the time we're trying to work the millage issues out during '05,'06, and it would work against us into the general fund. So I said wait a minute, time out, he wants additional services; pay the delta between what he gets in his fair share, and he gets that increment versus going 460 and another 591, and so David would have more dollars than the service that he would ask to be provided. So we tried to look at that process and tried to hold it down the Page 166 June 26, 2003 best way we could so that we didn't get nailed two years from now with a big bill. And that's what I basically tried to true up and get it squared away this year as we were going through it. MR. WEIGEL: And ultimately I would add that my previous working with County Manager and the development services was that much of the attorney work that we do obviously falls in both areas of funding that the development services has; some that comes from the unincorporated general fund area, and some that comes from the permitting and planning fee area. Different funds, both of which are not -- only one of which is ad valorem. And I believe that we have the assurance that even with the indirect expenditures, we're still being able to provide at least a degree of allocation so that the impacts of the legal services for those non-ad valorem type activities that we provide are not assessed purely against the ad valorem fund. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: David, could you explain the rather large increase in personnel services? About a $300,000 increase. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I believe I can. And that is that with an attorney, legal secretary and a legal assistant that are hired, and we have them for four fiscal quarters this year, with the salaries and the benefits that must be also attributed to the package for those employees, that that is essentially where that comes from right there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a 10 percent increase. MR. WEIGEL: Well, comparatively, perhaps. I'm not looking at the sheet right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I interpreting that correctly? MR. SMYKOWSKI: You are interpreting that correctly. However, as Mr. Weigel does not work for the county manager, the 4.55 percent for salary adjustment is reflected already in his budget, Page 167 June 26, 2003 versus being for the county manager's agency, that is budgeted in the general fund reserves. So his budget is not apples to apples to the other county organizations, because the 4.55 percent is already reflected in his appropriations for the upcoming year. So you've got four point -- you've got a margin of 4.55 percent that no one else has reflected in their budget as of this moment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't understand that. But there's a 10 percent budget change here for personnel services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. If an increase in health insurance -- and again, we budget at this point for the salary adjustments at the reserve level in each of the respective funds. We have not taken the money out of reserves and moved it to the respective operating units all within community development, transportation, on down the line. The county attorney does not work for the county manager; therefore, we have moved the 4.55 percent salary adjustment into the county attorney's appropriations already; whereas, in these other agencies, that is not reflected. So he has -- his is artificially trued up by that 4.55 percent that no one else would otherwise have at this point in time. Because we're budgeting at the reserve level. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, does that mean that all the budgets we have seen so far don't really show the net effect of the personnel cost increase? Because you have retained that four and a half percent in the reserve line item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, in the general fund reserve, there is an amount specified at the 4.55 percent level. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So all of the personnel costs we have seen so far today in all of the budgets would be increased by 4.5 percent; is that what you're telling us? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no, no. Page 168 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's already -- isn't it already in the budget? MR. MUDD: Well, every budget we had today that had personnel services on it in their personnel service side of the house, it has their COLA 5.55 percent increase to personnel, medical, dental and all those things in their personnel side of the house. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The health insurance is reflected. The salary adjustment is in the reserves in each of the respective funds as of this moment. MR. MUDD: Okay, but it's in their budgets. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's in each of the respective funds, it's just not within personnel services in each operating department. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if we wanted to look at the personnel services cost increases on a year-to-year basis, we would have to add four and a half percent, I guess, to any of the years we are evaluating. That's not entirely correct. We'd have to use the budget guidance from last year to last year's figure, and use the budget guidance for this year for this year's figure to get an accurate indication of the year-to-year change in personnel services cost. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. We typically do not move the money until the summer, when we get through the workshops, to see where the board settles on personnel services. So obviously it's simpler to change one number in a fund at this point, if the board opted to make a change, than it is to recalculate the entire salaried budgets for each of the operating departments across the entire county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't know that I agree with that, but could we give some consideration to changing that next time so that we've got a clear indication of the -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of the difference between last Page 169 June 26, 2003 year's personnel services costs and this year's personnel services cost? Because we've been -- at least I have been looking at personnel services cost from the standpoint of our guidance, which was roughly four and a half percent. MR. MUDD: You're not the only one -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- okay, looking at the same sheets. You just got a piece of information that I didn't have either. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I understand why it's being done that way, but it doesn't give us a full picture of what's happening with respect to that, and I think it's something you need to take a look at, okay? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's -- once we set the guidance for next year, if that is the approach you'd like to take, that is fine and we'll make that change. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more questions for Mr. Weigel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. Next victim? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That gets us to the board offices. MR. MUDD: The Board of County Commissioners. And that's on Board of County Commissioners tab. MS. FILSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And you are? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good afternoon, ma'am. Your name? MS. FILSON: My name is Sue Filson from the board office. She knows me. I'm happy to say that we've reduced our operating budget by 6.9 percent or $7,100. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is pixie dust time, right? MS. FILSON: I have no expanded services, no capital to Page 170 June 26, 2003 improvements, and I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? The -- you have some office equipment you're going to be purchasing in '04? MS. FILSON: No, sir. I probably will do that over the summer with my current budget. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What about travel expenses? MS. FILSON: The travel expenses for each commissioner, I have allocated $4,000. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's -- we have some reserves in the travel? What is reserves in there? MS. FILSON: Well, everyone has reserves in there. You want me to tell you what each one is? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MS. FILSON: District 1 is $3,786. District 2 is $872.31. District 3 is $2,009.49. District 4 is $1,850. And that's -- District 3 is because you only had $3,000 budgeted for this year, District 4 only had $2,000 budgeted for this year, and District 5 has a remainder of $266.72. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the remainder of that monies, what we don't use -- MS. FILSON: Will go to the general fund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- needs to go back into the general fund? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, thank you. Where are we at? MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'd like to bring one -- well, you're pretty much done, Commissioners. But what I'd like to do is bring one thing to your attention real quick, and if I -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 1-4 and 1-5. Page 171 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: I-4 and I-5. And that gets into, we mentioned it earlier, about the Board of County Commissioners' other general administration -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where are you at now? MR. MUDD: I'm on Page I-4 and I-5 of your tab. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: These are in essence central -- a centralized place for costs such as insurance, computer leases, the county-wide audit, for the general fund and for the unincorporated area general fund, rather than budgeting those piecemeal, spread out across all the departments. But Jim I think wanted to talk specifically about -- MR. MUDD: I want to talk about the CRA payment down on one, two, three, four, fourth line down, about the middle of the page on I-4. In 01, it was $862,000, 459,000 (sic); in '02-'03 it's $1,182,000. '03-'04, we're looking at $1.3 million to an 11.4 percent increase. That's Fifth Avenue. I just want you to understand what that value is. That's Fifth Avenue. It was the CRA, and it was a blighted element, and it's increasing every year, and it's like a 20-year deal. Michael and I are going to go back, and we're going to look at that agreement, because what's happening is the assessed values are increasing, and so that's $1.3 million that isn't coming back to the general fund. And if it was used to pay off a loan or a loan was done in order to build a garage and whatever -- and I wasn't here when all that transpired -- if that all transpired and there was a loan or a bond that was picked up and they're paying back the bond, I need to see how all of that transpired and what pieces are put into it. I need to look at the actuary tables that go along with this to see if this is in keeping, or we want to make sure we're not building onto a CRA that's in my opinion not blighted anymore. And so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 172 June 26, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: It raises some interesting questions. If a bond was floated at that time, it would have been at a much higher interest rate. So you might give some consideration, if we have the authority to do that. I don't know if it was done by the city or the county. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It was the city. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was the city. Okay, then they'll probably take a look at it and see if it can be refinanced and save some money. But tell me about the personnel services cost there. What are they? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is solely for unemployment benefits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, that's the centralized spot in which they are budgeted in the general fund. And that is all it is. There are no employees, it is just unemployment compensation, budgeted centrally. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you go, I guess this is -- and so far we have a Board of County Commissioners that aren't throwing their books down saying they don't understand, so that's the good news, as far as this budget is concerned. I'd like to get you your grade sheets that you have for the unfinanced requirements. And we've basically taken notes as we've moved -- today, and I'll go over those sheets with you a little bit so that we all get to see them. Because we have had some changes today as we went along to this unfinanced requirement list. And we've taken copious notes to try to make those changes so that we could come up with some kind of a voting mechanism to help us along with our discussions tomorrow after we're done with the constitutionals. The changes on your sheet: Sheriff records management is the same. Economic developments both are the same; that is for job Page 173 June 26, 2003 creation, which is a half a mil, and that 1.5 million, and $1 million for revolving loan to incentivize commercial. The added commercial incentives from the June workshop for Immokalee Road is that other $500,000, which is that third line down. If the board so chooses to do economic development or put monies against it, I would say that the next item, which is economic development, pending decision on economic initiatives up to one FTE, that that be added back in again. And that's $96,900. The transportation streetlights is still the same, and that's the U.S. 41 piece of the streetlights that is remaining in order to take that all the way down to 951. We were only to do partial with the 275,000 of the 500 original estimate, and that's what's there. That -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get this paid back from FDOT, though, right? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you would get it back in '07, I think it's what it was. They give a quantity of dollars and they do a projection that said this is what we think Collier County is going to get in '07. And it's -- let's say it's $3 million. If you get it back in '07, your quantity that you're going to get from FDOT's going to be $2,775,000. It won't be the three million that's going to be there. There's no free lunch on this one, okay, it's just another time when those dollars are going to come in from a state agency, if they get the dollars to get them to us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, the reason I asked that is someone from FDOT stopped me at an MPO meeting and took me aside and said when we promised to give you that money, we promised to give it to you. They said that's a contract; that's not just an iffy, that's a contract. So I just wanted to state that. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, in this particular case, we would get in that agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation and get a firm commitment to get a return on the $225,000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Page 174 June 26, 2003 MR. MUDD: The next item is housing, Housing Development Corp. That's $100,000 a year for three years, and that was one of the things that the board had talked about and pushed during the affordable housing workshop that we have, a central clearinghouse where people can find affordable housing, have it aware and run the program to make sure that all the dollars are going in the right direction. And that was one of the things that the board said to do, along with a modified linkage fee. The next item is a request from the Conservancy to help them with $100,000 a year for wildlife rehabilitation center. They're basically -- their donations are down. They provide a service for wildlife, not domestic animals that are hurt or whatever, and return them. And that's what that's about in a process. The next one is network core redundancy. We talked about that today. It was one of the items that I cut out of the IT budget that I didn't feel was -- had a priority enough in order to keep in. Facilities management: Roof projects for 409 and another 750 for building jail repairs. These were items that I cut out of the facilities budget because I didn't think it passed the priority test. Parks and rec.: The board has talked about beach access and boat access. Boat Haven, our estimated fee to purchase Boat Haven, it's on the market, it's $20 million. The Marco Beach access parcels that were talked about by the Hideaway Beach Homeowners Association, we looked at those parcels. The ones that are for sale are going for $800,000. The Wiggins Pass Marina that's up for sale right now has got a going price for $22 million. And Vanderbilt Beach Inn, which I can't say if it was a -- if it was a whimsical remark at the time that we were talking about it, but, you know, we were talking about getting into the inn business. And I really don't think the board really wanted us to get into the inn business. But that parcel does provide an opportunity to do a lot of Page 175 June 26, 2003 parking and a lot of beach access. Right now the going rate for that inn is $21 million. Beach park discussion today. Do we charge $6.00 a year? $12.00 for a two-year pass for beach parking brings in around $960,000, $480,000, a year. There was some discussion-- there was some discussion amongst the board for a relatively long period of time. I put beach parking on there for $480,000, which would be the offset to John Dunnuck not implementing the beach parking fee for the stickers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. You were saying that this was a two-year fee. Could we ever divide that, part of it this year and part of it next year? CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's 900,000 for each year. MR. MUDD: No, it's $960,000 -- go ahead, Michael. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's 480,000, and it -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: A year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Per year. If we issued the stickers next year, it would be -- a sticker would be valid for a two-year period. So the budget right now contains $480,000 in revenue from that beach parking source. MR. MUDD: The stormwater piece, the board asked me some questions about well, is the whole thing there, could they get it done, is this really a one-year or a two-year project. So I went back to Robert Wiley and I said, Robert, you need to get me the information and you've got one hour to do it, and he did. First thing is Gateway mini-triangle improvements. Next year, the unfinanced requirement, if it was available, would be $2,400,000. The total project cost -- so the next year would be the remainder of that $4.7 million. So if it's in brackets, it means that's what it is for '04 and that's the cost to the unfinanced requirement. Gordon River master plan: It's not a priority for next year. Total cost of the project, as they've been talking about it as it's going Page 176 June 26, 2003 through, is $18.5 million. Rock Creek restoration: Not a priority in '04. Total cost of the project, as it goes through, is 1.2 million. Haldeman Creek improvements: Again, it's in the budget, the funding sources, we don't have a firm contract with Big Cypress, nor from that individual for the private contribution, so '04, $1.1 million on top of the $100,000 that we've already allocated out of the general fund in order to make that project. And that would be the total project amount. We plan to go to construction on that project right now in February. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question on the general fund? Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle, I didn't see your hand raised. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought you were going to call on Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was going to make a comment. That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, the other change you didn't make was to reduce the available -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mike just brought it to my attention. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It should be four. MR. MUDD: Four instead of 10. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other thing, boys and girls, if we could put our name in the upper right-hand comer for -- you didn't put my name down there. What do you mean, you're going to put our name down? MR. MUDD: I don't care. You can do it ahead of time or when you hand it to me, I can do it, and I'll make sure I don't mess up on the C's. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to talk about this, aren't we, tomorrow? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, absolutely. Page 177 June 26, 2003 What I'll do, Commissioners, once you put that amount that you have in there, you can put zero or wherever it sits in that priority that you have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're right. MR. MUDD: And what I would also -- and the total amount at the bottom, I didn't have her go through the adding and subtracting as I was putting those numbers in, okay? What I'd ask you to do is if you have some other projects in there, we don't know how the constitutionals' budget's going to go, and so you can think of those things. But this is just a way for you to take some notes, and once you give them to me at the end, then we can bring them in a sheet, I'll have every Commissioner's column there by dollar amounts against these particular items. I'll give you that composite slip back again, consolidate it, and then you'll know where everybody is. And then from there we can go into the discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not going to read the MSTD general fund figures to us, are you? MR. MUDD: No, sir. Only thing I'm going to tell you is that I've reduced the Golden Gate community character plan, because Commissioner Henning said it only cost us 60,000. He's going to do it $140,000 on his back on that particular case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I said I'll work with him. And I think I can -- you know, working with him, we only need 60 -- MR. MUDD: So the community's going to do some in-kind services on that one, so I reduced that down to $60,000, based on that statement. And then I did the same thing for stormwater-- Lely area stormwater improvement program, it's $2.7 million for '04; the total 34,500 for total project. And that's all I -- and the last thing I will say is code enforcement. I have it there. I've told -- I think I've talked to each commissioner. That's an operational change. And I will tell you, I Page 178 June 26, 2003 will recommend against doing that for $91,000. It means a couple people have to come in a couple hours early and start their shifts at 6:00, 6:30, and have those vehicles ready for the night shift to move out so that there's no loss. I really think there's operational efficiencies that can be there, and I really don't believe the $91,000 is justified. And then you turn to your second page. Commissioners, I would also recommend that these items be dropped. It's because there's gas tax revenue in their impact fees that are basically given to the municipalities to do road work. And I don't want to mention any municipalities that are talking about a millage rate decrease. And I removed Lowdermilk Park off the top of that list, because it was a TDC funded element. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we have some municipalities that are decreased under millage rate. I'll mention them. They're out there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we ought to do the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Send them the bill? COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Just-- Let's see how things go this year. -- give our taxpayers a break. Reduce their taxes. Give them more take-home pay. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) When do you want these score sheets back? MR. MUDD: I would need them first thing in the morning. And I'll try to consolidate, as we do the constitutionals, and get that information in. And again, it's a straw man. It's not a finalized list, it's a straw man that you're going to use for your discussions. Page 179 June 26, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're going to rank them then after that, right? MR. MUDD: The dollar amounts, we'll rank them, Commissioner, as you go along in the thing as far as average ratings. Yes, sir, it will be there. You'll see it. If five of you decide that something shouldn't be funded, there'll be all zeros there. So you'll pretty much know that that's not a ranking. And if there's any dollar figure, you'll know exactly which commissioner put that particular item on there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, don't you want them in importance of the ranking? Like Commissioner Fiala would probably go with Lely basin -- drainage basin, that might be her number one priority. And if we go through that, then we can know what's priority to the commissioners, if you got a bunch of ones of the same item. MR. MUDD: If I could ask you as you put those dollars against it, can you just put like a one or two or three in parentheses, one being your highest priority and the bottom one being your last maybe 10 or 12, whatever that is? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Maybe high, medium, low kind of thing. MR. MUDD: No, just do one through whatever it is, if you could do that, it sure would help. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we leave all of our stuff here? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you want to take this home. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I meant stuff like this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, as long as nobody steals it, that's fine, you can leave it there. Okay, we're adjourned. Page 180 June 26, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:23 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPEC~ D~?iCTS' UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM HENNING, Chaiq'man ATTEST: DWIGlt. T E.'BR~OC , CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented ,,/ or as corrected r]_ Zq- 0..3 , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 181