Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/22/2006 B (Budget Workshop) June 22, 2006 BUDGET MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, FL June 22, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Tom Henning Donna Fiala Fred Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will conduct Budget Workshops on Thursday, June 22, 2006, Friday, June 23, 2006 and Mondal' June 26, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Workshops will be held in the Boardroom, 3r Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 330 I East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida to hear the following: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2007 BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:00 a.m. General Overview Courts and Related Agencies (State Attorney and Public Defender) Airport Authority Administrative Services Transportation Services Public Utilities Public Services Community Development Debt Service Management Offices (Pelican Bay) County Attorney BCC Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:00 a.m. Constitutional Officers: Elections Property Appraiser Clerk of Courts Sheriff Preliminary UFR Discussion 1 :00 p.m. Public Comment Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:00 a.m. Wrap-up (if required) June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager, and we'll be in session here shortly with the budget workshop for this year. If everybody would rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was said in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. At this time I'll turn this proceedings over to the county manager in regards to our county commissioners' budget workshop budget schedule for today and what we're going to be addressing. GENERAL OVERVIEW MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, on your overhead or in your display, and for the other people in the room on your visualizers over there in the corners on the sides of the room, you will see a proposed agenda for this particular workshop. Today we'll start with a general overview then go to Court-related agencies, go to the Airport Authority, go to Admin. Services, Transportation and Public Utilities, Public Services, Community Developments. Mike Smykowski will talk about Debt Service, Management Offices including Pelican Bay, go to County Attorney, and then finally for the day, you'll talk about your particular budget and your particular office. On Friday we'll try to get to the Constitutional Officers: Supervisor of Elections, Property Appraiser, Clerk of Courts, Sheriff and then talk about a preliminary UFR discussion and, just so that you know, at 1 :00 p.m. on Friday it's open for public comment. As we mentioned yesterday during the Board of County Comissioners' meetings, the Expressway Authority wants to come in and talk to you about some budget needs for the '07 budget, and we've put some time to that. And we've also advertised for this public comment period. Without further ado on the agenda I'll go to an overview of the budget. And I'll start with the budget guidance and let you know how Page 2 June 22, 2006 well we did or didn't do on a particular budget. First item is general fund millage. Part of the budget guidance was to recommend everything above the 16 percent increase assessed value would be rolled back as far as -- increase in taxable value would be rolled back. What does that relate to -- and it's basically on the third column on that page -- the rollback above 16 percent increase equates to a $22 million tax savings or return to taxes to the taxpayers. The taxable value, the millage would be set at -- could potentially be set at 3.5912 mils, and that's a savings $28.60 per hundred thousand dollars of taxable value. Also on your list is $20.2 million on the unfinanced requirement fund available list. It is approximately -- there is about a million dollars difference in what you have on your sheet versus that $20.2 million, and I'll talk about that in a little bit because some things have been approved since the time the books were done, so -- and we keep an itemized roll on that as things progress. Why don't I just turn to that right now. In your books it says the unfinanced requirement funding amount is $21.3 million. It's less for additional EMS units, which were $469,756 that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on the 9th of May. Facilities management emergency generator fund was $383,000. That was approved by the board on 6/6, the 6th of June. Airport Authority Immokalee PUD master plan was approved by the board yesterday for 50,000. And this $177,000 was continued from yesterday's agenda, if you remember, to the 25th, and that's a potential reduction. And that would bring us down to that $20.2 million. So I just want to make sure you knew that that was a change of work, where those changes had come from. We'll go to the next item, which is MSTD general fund millage, and that's the unincorporated millage rate. That millage rate is set at .8069 mils. Things are budgeted, and on your UFR list you have $7.2 million of unfinanced money for unfinanced requirements that are Page 3 June 22, 2006 available. On the general fund capital millage it's a third of a mil, and this budget submission that you have in front of you basically has it at a third of a mil. Stormwater millage is .15 mils. Your budget represents .15 mil equivalent in that, in your budget document. We go to the next item in your budget guidance, limit new positions on the county manager to 25 new positions. This budget submission to you has 24.5, and there are positions on the unfinanced requirement list that didn't fit within my 25 new position limit. The next item is agency general fund budget increases. The board adopted a budget policy limiting the '07 agency budgets to 12 percent. The agency programs are listed on the third column. BCC came in at 6.4; County Attorney 8.6; County Manager 11.1; Courts and Related down 24.5, that has a whole lot to do with the Article 5 financial instruments that have been put in position, and we're doing quite well with the help of Mark Middlebrook and his able staff along with all the ladies and gentlemen on the court side today in the audience that you'll hear from in just a couple of minutes. The Airport Authority is at 21 percent. I will tell you they have had a large increase in their property insurance allocation, and I think a whole lot of that had to do with damage from the air force because of the last hurricane, Wilma. And your Airport Authority director Theresa Cook will talk about that today. The Clerk of Courts is at 5 percent, Sheriff is at 11.6, the Property Appraiser is 2.7 percent, Tax Collector you don't get his particular budget until 1 August, and Supervisor of Elections is at 10.9 percent. Adherence to the general fund budget allocation. The board also put in their budget guidance that -- this is what I call a piece of the pie, is what you call a piece of the pie -- basically take a look at a percentage of their budget from FY '04, making sure that everybody Page 4 June 22, 2006 stayed within that '04 percentage allocation. And you can see that everybody did except for three particular items, road subsidy -- the road subsidy in '04 was building from zero to a $24 million subsidy that it has today, so that percentage has gone up and it is locked in at $24 million now. Your Stormwater, that utility general fund allocation was not allocated at that particular time so that's out in your reserves. It has a lot to do with what you have in unfinanced requirements and what you have as far as additional funds that you can put against particular projects or return to the taxpayer, whichever this board decides to do. But that has a lot to do with that particular item. Brings us to our next issue, which is provide budget metrics. '05, and again, in your budget guidance in '07 you basically said, let's compare particular agencies against other counties within the state that are comparable in size or -- basically in size, and those are Sarasota County, Lee County, Manatee, Charlotte and Marion. And we've done that for the county manager, sheriff, the elections. Tax collector, clerk and property appraiser have not produced metrics, and the reasons are stated below in an asterisk underneath that particular column. Last but not least, overtime. Your overtime in your allocation for the '07 budget guidance was basically schedule a 2 percent attrition rate in your overtime, try to limit it to two times 2 percent. The agencies that had problems meeting that particular guidance were EMS and fire districts, domestic animal services, water, wastewater, fleet management, facilities management, building review and permitting, traffic operations, Pelican Bay and the sheriffs office. So to let you know on the overtime who was able to get it in. I will tell you that the agencies that are on the right are normally in a lot of cases 24-hour agencies that get called up on different things, and that has a tendency to skew their overtime particular projections. As far as metrics are concerned for the county manager, for the Page 5 June 22, 2006 county manager we've taken a look at those particular counties. This particular metric has to do with employees per thousand population in unincorporated parts of the counties. Collier County has about 6.49 employees per thousand population. You can see how if relates up to the other counties. The only county that has less employees per thousand population is Marion County. The other particular sophistic (sic) that we measure our budget against, the county manager's agency, is the adjusted budget per capita, how much money per person in the unincorporated area do we spend in Collier County. It's $1,356 a year. You can see in Lee, Manatee, Charlotte and in Sarasota they all beat us as far as adjusted budget per capita in unincorporated. The only county to have a lesser amount budgeted per capita is Marion county. What those two statistics basically tell you is we try to be as frugal as we possibly can, try to provide the services that we can for this particular county and hold down the amount of the cost that it costs in order to provide those particular services. On page two, if you look under general text overview of your particular -- if you'll look past the county logo to go past to the second page you'll see the macro breakdown on this particular budget for the county, including all the people that will brief you today and all the staff that will brief you today. The county budget, and I'm down at the very bottom line of the next county budget, the budget that we're presenting to you is $1,188,351,000. That represents a 20.7 percent increase over the adopted budget in '06. As you also go up into the capital budget you will also see that the majority of that increase, the significant part that puts us over that 12 percent item that you talked about has to do with capital programs. And if you go up from the bottom line and you go up about five you'll see grand total capital projects, that's $592,000,000, a 23 percent increase over the '06 adopted budget for capital programs. Page 6 June 22, 2006 And I want you to go back up a little bit and about the middle of the page -- I think I'm just going to put it up on the overhead, it will be easier. Commissioners, I had originally talked about the budget number that we're going in with at 20.7 percent. I'll try to break down where that increase comes from. If you go up to the grand total capital budget, or capital projects, you'll see $992, 000,000 -- excuse me, $592,000,000, thank you, sir, which is a 23 percent increase. If you go up the page just a tad more you'll take a look at grand total operating and you'll see the grand total operating is $662,000,000, and that's a 9.4 percent increase. If you take a look at those two sections, you add the numbers together, you come up with the $1.1 billion budget, and you average those numbers in their respective categories and you get a 20.7 percent increase. On the next page of your budget you'll notice that we talk about revenues and we will also talk about position counts. And that's broken out in pretty good detail so that you can see where those particular positions have increased and it what particular departments they've been so. I will also bring to your attention that on Page 5 of your packet if you go into -- on Page 4 you have a breakdown as far as everything above the 16 percent and what the rollback would be and then how much money it would be and then it breaks it down in detail. And then you have on Page 5 the proposed tax rates based on the budget guidance. And it's a bit of an eye chart on the overhead but it gives you an idea based on -- and the proposed millage rates on that particular chart have to do with what the board approved for budget guidance, and you can see those particular numbers. They are on Page 5 of your agenda book. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple questions, Jim, the $1.1 billion budget is made up of lots of things, impact fees, revenue from enterprise funds that don't include property taxes. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Page 7 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And consequently they won't be affected by any decisions with respect to the millage rate. So what I'm wondering is, do you have a breakdown of property tax general fund revenue in the same categories we just went through? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I was going to get to that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute, don't do that yet. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're -- you've made a recommendation, as I understand it, that the proposed millage rate be reduced from last -- this past year, this current fiscal year, to 3.5912. MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what you're saying, it's a proposed budget millage rate? MR. MUDD: Based on your budget guidance that you gave me in March and you approved by this board, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm just trying to rationalize that with the comment in the newspaper that staff thinks we're going to keep the same millage rate. Where did that -- would that staff member please stand up? MR. MUDD: I know Mr. Smykowski pretty well, and Mr. Smykowski would never say that, okay. And I looked at him today and he said, not my words. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were all reading off the same page here. MR. MUDD: They also stated in the thing that we're only talking about a $21 million reduction. And you read everything that I just presented to you, what's on the UFR list and what's talking about everything above that 16 percent, you know, we're talking about there's $50 million on the table, okay. So the article today and what's in this budget book are -- the article today was not accurate with all the figures. Page 8 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, hopefully we can clarify those today. Good. Thank you. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't have a chance to talk to a reporter, so it didn't come from me. I do want to talk about Page 2 and 3. I had some questions. Debt transfers, public utilities transfer to other funds, I'm assuming that's to a debt fund that it's paying, going into? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's not only a debt fund but public utilities in their operating fund makes transfers, as the header indicates, debt service and transfers, makes operating transfers from the county water-sewer district to their water and sewer maintenance capital funds for projects that are not impact fee elibible. And we'll have plenty of time to talk about that. Mr. DeLony and staff will, I'm sure, talk about that in great detail when we talk about utilities capital proj ects this afternoon. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great. Down below it says county manager agencies administrative service capital projects, excluding CO projects. I don't know what CO means. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's constitutional officer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Constitutional, okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Some of the projects with the constitutional officers, particularly the sheriff, are managed by the facilities management staff, but, given that the projects are for the benefit of the sheriff, we show those under constitutional officers. So we want to differentiate between the two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we go up one where it says capital budget, it says, the Board of Commissioners are going up 203 percent, and it looks like it's from the Airport Authority capital projects. Now I'm sure we're going to talk about that in detail, I just can't find that over $11 million capital improvement. What I seen it wase Page 9 June 22, 2006 like about 900 -- we'll talk about that. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go to kind of balance it out. Then the interfund transfer, the second to last line, can you explain that in a little bit more detail? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure, I would be happy to. The example I gave earlier is one example where there is an interfund transfer from the county water-sewer district fund 408 to the capital water, capital fund and the sewer capital fund that are maintenance-oriented. Probably the best example, though, is within the general fund. We budget a transfer to the sheriff of $140 plus million dollars. That is an interfund transfer. The sheriffs expenses are not expended directly out of the general fund, there is a separate operating fund 040 for the sheriffs expenses. So there is an interfund transfer of a 140 million that transfers that revenue to the sheriff, which is then expended out of his separate and distinct operating fund. So what you end up with is some double counting, in essence, because you have that $140 million budgeted in the general fund on the transfer side, you receive the transfer in the sheriffs operating fund and it's actually expended out of the sheriffs operating fund. But bottom line, that shows in the budget as 140 million in the general fund and 140 million in the sheriffs budget. It's double counted, 280. We net out the interfund transfers because obviously that is double counted, there is only $140 million. It's just moving the money from the general to that other operating fund. You have a whole series of those. Between the general fund for capital, for all of your capital projects you have interfund transfers to the debt service funds, you have interfund transfers to your Airport Authority, to the court system -- we'll talk about that in a minute, there is a whole series of transfers back and forth between the various funds that were established post Article 5 -- and it goes on and on. There is Page 10 June 22, 2006 approximately 20 pages when we run a printout. When we think the budget's balanced we also then run a series of interfund transfer reports that is about 20 pages long of money going back and forth between funds, and we need to make sure that those are all in balance as well to ensure that ultimately the total county budget is in balance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just a checks and balances. Is it appropriate to ask questions about revenues right now on Page 3? MR. MUDD: You certainly can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The gas and sales tax, I'm assuming you are getting that information from the state, the State of Florida, what is being proposed and -- that an estimate? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. We do estimates of gas tax and sales tax. Not only do we monitor what the state LCIR provides, we monitor gas tax and sales tax on a monthly basis within the Office of Management and Budget to ensure A, that the current year revenues are on track, and that also is kind of a launching pad from which we make estimates for the upcoming year. At this point on the LCIR website, I checked as recently as yesterday, the sales tax and revenue sharing estimates just came out within the last two days. The gas tax estimates from the state are not yet available. So we're relying on our internal information at that point. But for sales tax and revenue sharing I was able to validate we're within a couple hundred thousand dollars of the state estimates, which is a good check and balance, again, internally. Their economists are doing their estimations as well as OMB staff, and we're doing our own, and it's nice when the models mesh pretty closely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is LCIR, is that the legislation inter -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Legislative Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. That's a mouthful. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I went to that page and Page 11 June 22, 2006 it's quite different than what is in our budget book. But also they have in there a half cent sales tax which we don't impose. They show the state's estimates between the gas taxes and the revenue sharing is 65 -- 65, almost 65 and a half million dollars. You know, I would be happy to provide that information to you. I think I do have it here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sales tax. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then I asked the budgeting department over in the clerk of court, okay, what actually is coming in. And there is a little bit of a differential -- there is a total of like 6 percent differential, what came in and actually what is, what was budgeted last year. Maybe at the break you can maybe help me out with that. I just want to make sure that we're appropriating at the right level. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. I would be happy to share that, and we'll pull up the detail that we use as well. Here is the example I pulled up off the LCIR website for local government half cent sales tax. This is 100 percent distribution. The estimate for Collier County is 35,545,372, and this is as of yesterday that it was posted or two days ago. What's in the budget for Collier County is 35190 -- 35,190,000, so we're within $340,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that is reported for this -- they are working on their fiscal year, which ends in June, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, these estimates are for the year ending September 30th, 2007, which would be consistent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's consistent with the county's fiscal year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's working within this present fiscal year that we're working in? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Our current fiscal year FY '06 will end Page 12 June 22, 2006 September 30, 2006. This is for the next fiscal year, which will begin October 1 st, 2006 and end September 30th, 2007. So this is consistent with the county fiscal year. That's why we're always anxious, in fact, we have been somewhat critical because typically these items have come out after the board has adopted their tentative millage in July. At that point they do you no good if there is a huge variation in the estimates. So I was thankful that, you know, the estimates are available at this point in time and they mesh pretty darn close with what we have in the budget at this point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And maybe it's a different information source within the state that I have versus yours. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. I would be happy to compare, though, because if we can eek out a little more gas tax revenue in the budget I'm all for that as long as it's within the realm of reason. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate that. And I think projected versus actuals, what we actually get in, if that historical information will help us get where we need to, then I trust that, that you'll assist us in that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. Another example, sir, is county revenue sharing, which is another key revenue in our general fund. This was also made available within the last couple of days. The state estimate for Collier County is $9.2 million. What we have in the budget at this point is 9,000,056. Again, we're within $150,000 on $9 million. So we're within spitting distance of each other relative to that revenue estimate as well. So again, they are meshing quite nicely with the internal estimates that were developed. And on the gas tax I would be happy to look at that with you and the sheet that was passed over was for the current fiscal year. That was through the end -- on the gas tax information was through September 30th, 2006, so I still don't believe the gas tax estimates for the subsequent fiscal year '07 that we're dealing with are yet available. But we will be monitoring that within the next week or so. Page 13 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's move on. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I still have some more questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The impact fees reported on the revenue are going down but yet I think we raised them significantly. Can you explain how we derived (sic) at that figure? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe a lot of that has to do with the 50 percent given to Norman Feder when he first came out with the particular development where they would pay 50 percent up and then three years later they would pay the other 50 percent. So when we had -- we had a big windfall in the 50 percent range on Norman's side, that's exactly what that particular offering from the development community and that change to your growth management plan was designed to do. And you are seeing a little bit of reduction because you are not getting that 50 percent in those kind of quantities anymore from those large PUD developments. Did I miss anything, Michael? I think that's what it is. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. And what I'm having my staff do is put together a list of each of the impact fees by category: Roads, parks, libraries, on down the line, what the adopted budget was in '06 and what the proposed is for '07. So then when you talk about the capital section we'll have that in front of us. We can also look at the year to date information as well and hedge your bet a little bit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's coming from the 50 percent paying of impact fees, can you get that number for us? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also, is that -- I would imagine that's part of the carryforward on the same revenue side. And Page 14 June 22, 2006 is the carryforward all impact fees or is that unincumbered funds also? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's unincumbered funds also. That carryforward number is a summation of all of the operating and capital funds within the Collier County budget. And you've got a lot of cases, MSTUs, that are accumulating money for future projects. You've got, the library trust fund has grown tremendously. Some people bequeathed money in their wills to the Collier County library system and restricted it for specific things, so that money has also been budgeted within the confines of that. So that's the gamut of the entire county budget, not only impact fees but every operating fund, the general fund and every little trust fund and all of the MSTUs and debt service. MR. MUDD: We can take a look -- and Mr. Schmitt just handed me this particular page as a back up document on your overhead, basically talks about the different funds. Notice that the $71,918,400 does not include water and sewer and schools. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Just one more question. But going back from the previous year it doesn't seem like it's an adequate amount compared to last year since we have doubled and tripled impact fees this year. MR. MUDD: Sir, we'll bring that forward and we'll break it down. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just one last question. Where can I find the unincumbered funds in the budget? Details. Where is the details on those unincumbered funds? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, within each fund there's an estimate of carryforward, which is unobligated, it's the compilation of revenues and expenses proj ected to carry over -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- into the subsequent fiscal year. So the carryforward number budgeted in fiscal year '07 within each respective fund is the amount of funds we anticipate to be available for Page 15 June 22, 2006 appropriation in fiscal year '07. So those would be unobligated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'll notice as you go through your packet -- and this gets to Commissioner Coyle's particular issue -- on Page 8 and 9 gives you a break-out of the general fund, 00 fund summary and appropriation that talks just specifically to the general fund, that gets specifically to the general fund tax millage, a question that Commissioner Coyle had. And that's broken down in detail to let folks know. And the net fund appropriation for the general fund is $396,785,900, and that's a 12.1 percent -- and I'm on Page 9, very bottom of the page -- a 12.1 percent increase. Then if you -- on Page 10 and 11 you get into the unincorporated general fund, which is fund 111, and you take a look at that particular item and where it sits, and you'll notice on Page 11 total appropriations, it's $52,555,200, and that represents a 27.2 percent increase. And we'll talk about those in specific detail as we go through the budget dialogue today. On Page 12 and 13, okay, we have at least listed the unfinanced requirements that are sitting out in the particular county, highlighted which ones are reoccurring costs. I want to make sure again that you note that the total at the top of the page, Page 12, where it says total 21.3 million is 20.2 million. And I showed you how that went down. So we'll update those sheets for the September time frame and let you know if anything has changed during the particular year on that. And behind page -- and then on Page 13 you have the unfunded -- well, you have 111 underneath on Page 12 on the 001, that's the MSTD fund, and then you've got available funds on 113, 131 and 408, Page 16 June 22, 2006 which has to do with community developments, planning services and public utilities on Page 13. Behind Page 13, all the way to the end of the tab, it is a description of what those unfinanced requirements are. I have also provided you a letter that was given to me on the 15th of June from Mr. Bob Lee, city manager for the City of Naples, asking for additional funds. And he tells me that on Friday at one o'clock there will be city staff here to explain those particular items to you. Mr. Chairman, I'm finished with the general overview and we're ready to go through the board's -- unless there are other questions -- to the Courts and Related agency, State Attorney, Public Defender, if that's the desire of the board. I would ask those ladies and gentlemen to please step forward - COURTS AND RELATED AGENCIES (STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER CHAIRMAN HALAS: Constitutional officers, please. Excuse me, Courts and Related Agencies: State Attorney, Public Defender. JUDGE HAYES: As unaccustomed as we are to speak, we would, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing us to make a presentation to you this morning. For the record, I'm Judge Hayes. I sit here in Naples in Collier County, one of the circuit judges. But I'm also serving as the chief judge for the 20th Judicial Circuit. On my right is somebody that you don't need to be introduced to, and you can't have him back, sorry. But Judge Manalich has been helpful with us in helping us to get our budget set up, to make some critiques and things like that. We also have our court administrative staff here. On my immediate left is probably the only non-government employee at the table. And I just wanted to introduce Bill Hazzard, Page 1 7 June 22, 2006 who is the president of the Collier County Bar Association. The rest of us are speaking to you in our roles as state employees as well. So he's the only one who's, shall we say, a civilian-oriented person. And you may find it necessary to ask him a question as an outsider. But we are pleased to have Bob Jacobs from the public defender's office and his staff here. Steve Russell was in trial today but he has his members of his staff here as well to answer any questions for the state attorney's office. I just wanted to briefly say to you that we're going through this year and next year somewhat of a little bit of a hypertensive change in our system. We're in the transition phase still from Article 5 Provision 7 that was passed by the citizens of the state and through the legislature, and that seems to be working out very well, actually, from what we can see. It's not nearly as crisis oriented as we originally thought it might be. In particular, though, for this county it's kind of one of those are you bragging or complaining stories, it's for our whole circuit. We've undergone a somewhat unique situation in that last year in session B of the legislature we were able to acquire through the leadership, as you know, through the leadership, Representative Goodlette and Kottkamp and Kyle and Senator Saunders and some of the other individuals that represent our area, and the addition of four new judges, two of which came to this county and are now working as of about -- well actually, their first official day of work was about a month ago, I guess, for us. That has kind of cut into the, right into the middle of our budget so we have had to make adjustments. We really appreciate the fact that Colonel Mudd and his staff have worked with us to make that transition to now fund two new judges that you didn't have before. Even though they are state employees and they are staff, their JA is a state employee, it does require space, it requires a budget, it requires, you know, an overhead that the counties provide. So we appreciate Page 18 June 22, 2006 that. With the immediate passage or adjournment of this most recent legislature on May the 5th of this year, this circuit received nine new judges. This is my twenty-ninth year in the judiciary, and speaking to our current chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, no circuit in the State of Florida that we know of in history has ever received nine new judges. So we were very fortunate. And you take those nine plus the four we got in December, we will have had 13 new judges in this circuit within a 12-month period. That's really exceptionally good news for us because we now will have the personnel to adequately address all of the cases that we have. We have the highest caseload per judge in the state for this circuit. And I suspect it will drop fairly quickly with that kind of personnel being added on. Of those 13, five of them are coming to this county. Two just came on, and even though the county is now building in the fourth floor that they had built years ago and we had -- the public defender's office was in there, and as you know the public defender's office is now out of the building and leasing space across the street, so that's an expenditure you're making that's not -- you are not paying yourself rent, you are paying somebody else. But even when this fourth floor is completed, we will still be short. We will not have enough courtrooms for those five judges. They will be filled immediately. I think we only need one more to fill it in. That -- it's kind of like when the legislature was meeting, they kept going up there and we would take judges up there and ask them to continue to fund us for the necessary judges that we were certified for by the Florida Supreme Court, and periodically somebody would say, well, what are you going to do with them when you get them? Our standard response was, we'll worry about that when we get there. Historically, you know, it's like, I would rather get them first and worry about them later. Well, now we're worrying about them later. Page 19 June 22, 2006 We now have them and we're very appreciative of that from the legislature. But now we need to also look at where we're going to house them, and that's -- plus we need to house the public defender and the state attorney. I probably should tell you that under our formula that the state uses, for every 1.0 FTE criminal law judge that we use -- and we just put this figure together for Bob Jacobs and Steve Russell last week, actually -- but for every 1.0 we generate two state attorneys and one public defender. That's part of a state formula. There is a fund that Steve and Bob will draw down on to acquire those employees. But that's based on what we tell the state the workload is going to be. Of these nine new judges that we are receiving we gave you, I think it was 4.5 -- 4.65 -- MR. JACOBS: That's correct. JUDGE HAYES: -- is the estimate of the criminal law impact. That's misdemeanor and felony. So out of those four, and two of those will be here, that will generate at least four more state attorneys, assistant state attorneys. It will generate at least two more public defenders as far as personnel are concerned. And then, also, for every three judges that you get from the state from the Trial Court Budget Commission, you also draw one more staff attorney as a support staff to do research and handle caseloads. The point I'm trying to make is it's this trickle down effect. Drawing nine judges has a tremendous impact down the system. That creates a need for space. So when I mention to you that even with the fourth floor being built in we're going to be short probably two judges' offices, that's really not just two bodies, that's the staff that goes with them, the state attorneys, the public defenders that are needed to service them because they are handling this caseload that is generated not only in Collier County, just like in Lee County.a Page 20 June 22, 2006 I would like to say that even if the economy slows down, that our caseload would. But that's not true. In fact, when the economy is good in the business community our experience over the years has been that they may be willing to let certain accounts go that are accounts receivable. And quite frankly, I can always tell you it's in the 25 to $30,000 range. They are so busy making money and they don't want to take time to go back and do these accounts receivable. As times get tough, quite frankly, they go back to their comptrollers and say, go back and look at these accounts and see if we can get those funds. And if it doesn't get resolved reasonably between the parties, we end up being the recipients of their dispute. So I can't tell you that the cases are going to go down even if the economy slows. I think in fact the statistics would reflect that we may increase somewhat because there are more disputes out there that need to be resolved by the courts. The reason I bring all this up is that -- is obvious, and that is I know that this commission is considering the -- how much to build as far as the annex facility to the court system on the land that is what we -- the old courthouse space, is what I would call it. And it would appear to me that, based on our current growth and our current space problems, it -- if you -- I would like to have you consider filling the building out all the way, not just building, say, seven floors and funding -- and building in four. When I was the administrative judge when we built the current courthouse, I remember at that time Mr. Dorrill had mentioned to me I believe it was about a million dollars a floor to fill that building in. And now it's gotten up to about $2 million a floor for these. I don't think it's going to go down. I would seriously think that we're probably underestimating our space needs requirements to just go in with four floors. Now that the public defender has -- depends on whose view you take here -- but been kicked out of the building, we have one less person to pick on. And quite frankly, down the road, I Page 21 June 22, 2006 have talked to -- Dwight Brock was here earlier and had to go to another conference call -- but has agreed that I can speak for him on this point. He's also fully in agreement to fill the -- he said I could mention that he would be happy to have ten floors filled in. But it's going to, I think, down the line probably in about a year to 15 months or so get a little bit interesting because as we have greater space requirements we're looking around at fewer and fewer people that we're going to probably be pushing out of the courthouse building. And we don't want to push the clerk out. They are a very integral part of our day-to-day operations. But worse comes to worse, we would put courtrooms and judges and staff in there ahead of the clerks. So Dwight and I are clearly in agreement that we don't want to go there two years from now. So anyway, those are the things I bring out because I know it takes time and I know that the building is not going up over there yet and it takes time to build a building and it's just something I thought I would bring up while we were here because it's not exactly oriented towards today's budget. But I don't think we're -- we have been so successful that now we're going to have to worry about where we're going to put our staff and our people. And it's not just judges, it impacts state attorneys, public defenders and a lot of other people. There is a large impact there. So thank you. I'll answer any questions, but I'm sure that Bob or President Hazzard -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Judge, every year we hear from the Sheriff the crime rate is going down. I would imagine what you talked about is some civil litigation. Can you provide us the historical cases of the last five years? JUDGE HAYES: Sure. That is not a problem. We can give that to you. I don't have them with me sitting here this morning. I can tell you that all these cases are recorded through our clerk of courts, both Page 22 June 22, 2006 criminal and civil. They get filtered through the office of state court administration at the Florida Supreme Court. I started to say, not surprisingly, but I won't go there. There are 67 clerks of court. Each clerk of court has a matrix that they are supposed to use provided by the Supreme Court. But some of them are different. They have to be put through, in essence, a filter at OSCA so that they all are in the same -- everybody is counting those the same way. So that, those numbers come out of OSCA. Periodically, they come back even to our county and say your numbers are not jiving, we need you to do them again. So we argue with them a little but then we do it. And so that's where those numbers come from. But for the last, I believe, in fact the number you are picking is about the last five years, we have been number one in the State of Florida for caseload per judge as compared to -- there are 20 circuits in the state, of course we are the 20th circuit. The years that we were not number one we were number two. It's ironic, but either Orange County, the 9th circuit, or Orlando or Naples has had the highest caseload per judge in the state for probably seven or eight years. We can get those numbers to you and show you what our cases are and how much they've increased each year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some more questions. JUDGE HAYES: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 2 in our book. It's division budget summary, cost summary. It's showing that you are having a reserve contingency increase of a 166 percent with -- JUDGE HAYES: Let's see, because I have part of these documents. I'm not showing -- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Mark Middlebrook, senior deputy court administrator assigned here as chief of operations in Collier. Many of these reserves are Article 5-induced money that is collected through a $65 fee, a $15 fee and a $2 fee, and they can only be spent on certain Page 23 June 22, 2006 items. Weare in an unfortunate area, I believe, where we're not spending as much as we're bringing in and we continue to carry over. How this year's budget differs from last years is, and we went down a significant number, percentage number, is that through the guidance of the chief judge and Colonel Mudd we have attacked those fees that we collect and attached as much as we can out of our budget that was formally paid for out of the general fund. Those items are now being paid for out of these contingencies. So that's why we carry a fairly high number. We're still working on utilizing all of that available money. JUDGE HAYES: I'll give you an example. Last year, that's the Florida Statute 939, there are four subparts to that as to how -- and each one gets 25 percent. But last year we used some of that money to fund an additional state attorney and an additional public defender and a paralegal, I think, for each one of them in order to attack the caseload that the number of people that are in jail, that we might be able to process them through faster. So that we could save that, depending on what number you use, I just picked one that's commonly used, $55 a day, $65 a day to house someone in the jail system. So what we did was to use some of that account's funds to hire these additional staff to focus on trying to get these people through the jail faster. If we can get them out of jail then we save the county money on a daily basis. And quite frankly, it did work pretty well. We brought that up in front of the public safety council meeting the other day. Part of that is working on the federal government to get people over to -- if they belong at Krome Avenue to take them and get them over to Krome. I wouldn't say you should expect this normally, but I think our jail population actually went down from one month too by a hundred people. From what I recollect, Commissioner Coyle was there at the meeting. But that's fairly rare, actually. We, in all of the counties that we work in, the coastal counties, Page 24 June 22, 2006 there are the haves and have not counties, quite frankly, but Charlotte, Lee and Collier, each one of these is -- we're working with trying to use some of these funds to hire people to go in and reduce jail populations. We're doing different kinds of things to do that. At pretrial, at intake, diversion programs. Lee County is very big in using this. And they are still implementing it, in the process of implementing this now where when these people come in we'll shoot them out to a drug rehab program or a mental health court or something like that, things that we have not had in Collier County with regard to mental health work, things we have not had here because we didn't have the staff to actually run it. We had people ask. We talked among our judges and we said we just don't have the staff to do it, even if we could have the funds. Now we're going to have the staff and I think next year you'll see us going with a mental health court like Lee County has and Charlotte County has. Those counties funded that just independently on their own. They didn't wait for the legislature, and just said it's more important, we go without them. That kind of fund is where those -- we could use some of those monies for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Two more questions. What part of the -- where is your fund that comes back to the Board of Commissioners? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Where's our -- I'm not sure I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean your-- MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have our probation fund that returns approximately $175,000 back to the county, more than you spend on the probation department. I don't know if you are talking fine and forfeiture fees or -- Mike? We really don't handle that aspect of the funding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in the clerk of court's Page 25 June 22, 2006 side. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would be under the clerk of court's section, yes. We basically go out and get the money but we turn it over -- in that capacity the clerk of courts -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- is truly working as the clerk of the courts and that's their responsibility to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will tell you before Article 5 it was significant. We were talking six to $9 million, and I can't remember, it's in that range -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll get that number later. MR. MUDD: It used to come back because of Article 5. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to get through this. I apologize to my colleagues for the questions but I just need answers about the budget. JUDGE HAYES: Dwight would have that for sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And your carrying forward a lot in your funding sources. JUDGE HAYES: Actually -- and you are correct, and the-- that's been brought to our attention actually by staff. And because of that we are looking at other ways. Subparagraph 1 of that statute, basically you get down to Paragraph 4 and if you haven't used it for four it throws it back into one. And then at that point it's kind of like if the court recommends or the chief judge recommends and the county agrees, it has to be with the approval of the county, then you can spend it for what they call, I don't know what the word innovative actually means, but it says innovative supplemental programs that otherwise would be provided by the state under Chapter 29. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. JUDGE HAYES: So what we did last year was in dipping into that fund was to say, well, I don't know how innovative it is but it is Page 26 June 22, 2006 supplemental to the state's requirement to help us out, so let's use that money to hire a state attorney or public defender and let's attack some of the people who come through the court system and try to process them out faster. And it seems to work pretty well. But we're looking now at other areas that we can use that. The law library will probably increase in the future, I think. If they got a little more space I'm sure they will as well. But part of that is juvenile. They get funded by two different statutes. If you pick one side of the statute you can't pick the other. I think it's 38. If you use 38 you can't use 939. It's built into the law. And we do use that for the juvenile assessment center, that fund. But the point you raise is still the same point and that is that there are some extra funds in there that we can use, and we're going to try to figure out how to do that because we don't want to give them back to the state, quite frankly. I believe that those are funds that don't get thrown back to the county, they get thrown back into the state's internal revenue and we would prefer not to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question that I have before I turn this over to Commissioner Coyle is that each judge, about what is their head count per staff member? JUDGE HAYES: Each judge has a judicial assistant slash secretary . CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. JUDGE HAYES: And that's the only one that the state provides to them. Based on the -- every three judges, the trial court budget commission, which is still the state's money, provides you with a staff attorney. Most of those are used for criminal appeals, what we call 3.850s. We don't really get to use them for research. They do mainly the pro se criminal appeals from prisoners, state prisoners who claim that either they didn't get a fair trial or they didn't have a good lawyer or whatever. So most of them are used in that area. But as far as Page 27 June 22, 2006 actual staff that's it. We've used -- we have a -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm trying to do is just get a head count of what it is going to take to come up with the space that's available to house everybody. So that's what I need to know. JUDGE HAYES : We'll be glad to get that to you, because, like I say, for every 1.0 felony or criminal judge we generate two state attorneys and one public defender. And then they generate their own staff. But we can get you a number as to what that would increase. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's something that we really need up here to figure out the total staff. Not the cost, just we want to know what the staff is as far as housing them, what it's going to take. JUDGE HAYES: It's a real swag. I would say with five new judges that are coming to this county you are probably going to generate ten per judge. I would say 50 bodies. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fifty bodies. JUDGE HAYES: I would say. And that's just, that's a real swag. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I haven't heard that term since I worked at Ford, swag. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What does that mean? I'll tell you, I've never heard that term before. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Something you pull a curtain back with. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a brief clarification, Judge. You touched upon it in some detail but since I can't talk independently to my colleagues here, it's a good time, I think, to make them aware that there is a public safety coordinating council which consists of almost most of the people here and the state law enforcement, I mean the sheriffs agency, representatives from the David Lawrence Center, of course the public defender. And these people are working together to find ways to do things more efficiently and at lower cost. And there are a number of ways, as Judge Hayes has suggested, Page 28 June 22, 2006 where increases in their staffing and their budget will result in corresponding decreases in other areas. For example the sheriffs budget. Anything that the judiciary can do with respect to processing people who are awaiting trial or to divert them from jail reduces the needs for jail capacity. That reduce the needs for staffing and staffing growth in the sheriffs department. So we have a committee established in the coordinating council that will report to us on the anticipated savings resulting from some of these recommendations. And as soon as those reports are delivered and we have some experience with that, I'll be happy to report the results to the board in a public meeting. But I just wanted you to understand that although we're talking about cost increases in the judiciary, these are cost increases that are in most cases very productive from the standpoint of reducing burdens somewhere else in the government. And so with that I just thought I would try to clarify them. And since I've got the mic., Mr. Hazzard, as a representative of the bar maybe you could share with us, since we're coming up to an election, which judges you think should be retained. MR. HAZZARD: Perhaps we'll do that on the break as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of them. JUDGE HAYES: Luckily, none of them here at the table are in that situation. This one, he just got reelected with no opposition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it should be. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a couple of fast questions. When you have judges and you don't have a courtroom for them, then what do you do? JUDGE HAYES: Well, we basically kind of play musical chairs. It's not the first time we're being in this situation. I think you'll remember, actually, when we had the old courthouse we had that Page 29 June 22, 2006 situation occur once in a while, and I remember Judge Carlton actually holding a trial out here in the shade outside of this building. And I don't think the jury was really excited about that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did they have the gallows there too? JUDGE HAYES: Yes. I don't recollect whether he was trying to make a point or not. He really just needed the space and so he said, let's just hold it out in the sunshine. And that truly turned out to be the case. There were a lot of very hot people. (Commissioner Henning has left the room.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you -- JUDGE HAYES: In a lot of different capacities. We just kind of rotate everybody around. It's a very tough system to manage in a way because everybody starts heavy in the beginning of the week and then as the day of reckoning occurs you don't ever know when Bob's guys are going to cut a deal or not, you know, with the state attorney. And so you may have set up for a trial for three or four days and then on the day of trial it goes away. So then your space is empty but you're having to plan on a weekly basis. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just one last question. I don't mean to interrupt you but, to move it along, why haven't they started the annex yet? If you need this space so desperately do you know what -- JUDGE HAYES: I think it's really kind of, we're underway. I think the question is how -- I think at this point though the county is only looking at maybe funding the first four floors. MR. MUDD: We have one item before we finally get our permit to go horizontal -- excuse me, go vertical, and it has to do with the fire issue, okay, and we're trying to resolve that, depending on the definition of what you call it. And that could determine if we have to put more money in a particular proj ect, they have to sprinkle more area. It has to do with the little atrium that you have on the side and how that interconnects with the annex. Page 30 June 22, 2006 (Commissioner Henning has returned to the room.) MR. MUDD: But right now in the budget we only have a seven-story building with only four floors finished out. There are still three floors to be finished. And you have an unfinanced requirement item on those three remaining floors, and I believe that the price tag runs about $8 million. You also have to -- we also moved folks from the courthouse and over as -- the courthouse as it stands today in your master plan is to be all judges' suites, deliberation rooms and courtrooms. So the administrative function of the courthouse for the most part will be taken out of that courthouse and moved into the annex. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. JUDGE HAYES: The state attorney and public defender would move into the annex as well. And, of course, at this point the public defender is now in private leases. The state attorney is actually here. By getting them into that building -- we're not the only one growing, we understand that, and the county's staff needs space as well, but this would actually free up some degree of space if the state attorney moves out of here and into this building as well. But right now that building would primarily be housing state attorneys, public defenders, clerk of courts. And so we -- we all are impacting each other. We all cause each other to increase in size. But it, of course, is to provide a public -- a service to the public, which is to get their cases tried in a timely manner as well as the law enforcement concepts of keeping people off the streets. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the bottom line is we're building this building to seven stories and you are asking us to finish the whole building out because of the impact that is going to be put upon us here in Collier County. JUDGE HAYES: Right. I think as history has shown we're going to need that space faster than any of us have anticipated. And I Page 31 June 22, 2006 don't think that our need is going to go down and I'm concerned that, of course, eventually the cost will go up. I was here when a former county commission decided to build the current courthouse with the fourth floor being empty and I've always said that I believe that was one of the smartest and most economical things they ever did because I just don't know how easy it is to build floors on top of already existing buildings without getting a lot of leaks, and it's always more .. . expenSive In my expenence. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We appreciate your time. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Judge, the caseloads that you have today is the caseloads that you have today. JUDGE HAYES: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to move those through. That's going to be, I would imagine, go up whatever amount for next year. So you are still processing the same caseload, basically. JUDGE HAYES: True. We run about on, I would say, on average about a caseload of about, in circuit court, of about 2,000 cases per person per year, that's what you are looking at. The state recommended average until we get these new judges, the state recommended average is 1250, that's what the Supreme Court says you need, you need a caseload of 1250 per judge in order to do justice. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. JUDGE HAYES: It's never really been that way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's the same number of caseloads, so you are going to have more judges to move those caseloads but yet I would guess those individual courtrooms are going to be used less, so why -- no. JUDGE HAYES: No, no. My guess is with these new judges we'll probably drop our -- the caseload for a county judge is 7,500 cases per year. Circuit is, like I say, we're running about 2000 cases per judge per year. I'm guessing that this increase in our judiciary will Page 32 June 22, 2006 drop us down to somewhere around 1650 to 1700 cases per year, still above the 1250 that the Supreme Court recommends. The thing that we'll be able to do, and, I mean it's -- I hate to say it because we're being recorded, but this is the way it is. We get accused of having to -- we know with the same bodies we have, we have some of the best judges in this state -- and I not only say that because our chief justice says that as well -- we'll take on whatever is up there. And the problem is, is when you get into bringing people into the courtroom, especially in county court, which is most clearly always known as the people's court, that's where most of the population, if they ever see a judge, it's going to be in county court, traffic court, things like that. It gets to be, quite frankly, a cattle call. And that's what the lawyers call it. It's a cattle call. We're still trying to process as many bodies as we can as fast as we can and the people are getting short-changed. There is no doubt about it. We've got good guys that give the best -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are saying you want to spend more time looking at each case -- JUDGE HAYES: We want to provide better quality. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We also have a backlog of cases. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, now I'm starting to understand. JUDGE HAYES: Yes. This theory of 1250 per judge is not, you know -- I mean, they did studies to come up with this number as to how much time it takes, it should take a judge to dispose of a case, giving it the time it deserves, listening to the public come in front of you and make their case. We -- I don't know if I would want to do one of these exit polls with them and say, did you feel like you got a fair shake, a fair hearing in front of the judge in this case because it's -- (snapping fingers) -- that's how fast we're moving. It's like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand where you are coming from. Page 33 June 22, 2006 JUDGE HAYES: So it's a matter, truly, of providing a true public service as well as administering the law of the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I would just add to that that we do have a backlog. We just did a statistical run where the county judges cleared 220 percent of the cases. So for every hundred cases that were coming in they were knocking out 220 cases. We're hustling but we can't keep up with the numbers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. I understand. JUDGE HAYES: It's quality -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other -- JUDGE HAYES: It's a matter of real quality. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from your commissioners? I want to thank you very much for your time -- JUDGE HAYES: Okay. No problem. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and all of your input. I think we all learned a great lesson here today. Thank you. JUDGE HAYES: Thank you. MR. JACOBS: Thank you. AIRPORT AUTHORITY MR. MUDD: Your next item is the Airport Authority. Commissioners, I'm going to try to get you in the right place in the book. It's under Board Of County Commissioner's tab and it starts on Page 19. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Theresa Cook, your director of the Airport Authority is here to present the budget. MS. COOK: Commissioners, we're here to present our 2007 budget. I want to point out a few things. Our operating budget has stayed pretty stagnant over the last three. Unfortunately, our indirect Page 34 June 22, 2006 costs, our insurance has gone up over 100,000 for our administration at three airports. We've increased our revenue at Immokalee approximately 100,000 but the insurance there has gone up 75 and we had hurricane damage loss of revenue about 30,000. We also have been hit by the economy. Our fuel sales -- our fuel costs have increased. Our fuel sales have been reduced, because of the cost of fuel we have less jet traffic into the Marco airport. We also have additional fleet maintenance costs because of the increase in fuel and our equipment getting older but we're replacing some of those to improve that maintenance cost. I would like to move on to the capital budget if there is no questions on the operating budget. MR. MUDD: And that, if you look behind your -- it's a salmon color, it says Airport Authority capital. That starts on Page 32. MS. COOK: Our project expenses for the capital budget are approximately, on the county map, $126,000, that's to match a $1.747 million capital expenses that we have in place in our projected over the next year. We have an additional $750,000 in county grant, county match money that we've set aside for anticipated grants to match approximately 30 million over the next four years but approximately 1.5 million over fiscal year 2007. MR. MUDD: If I may interject, that's the $750,000 a year for four years that the board set aside during the workshop with the Airport Authority, directed staff in order to do that. This is the first year, the $750,000. But what Theresa is obligated to do is to basically show where that match could go against improvements to her particular Airport Authority. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't see any of that on the page we're looking at. MS. COOK: If you look at Page 35 I believe it gives you a good breakdown of how our capital project requests and expenditures are Page 35 June 22, 2006 going to layout over fiscal year '07. As you'll see in the '07 496 fund, we're putting out 126,000 plus an increase from reserve of 172 to match approximately $1.5 million in grant funding. And then the -- I'm tasked to try and find some grant funding to, over the next four years, to increase the development of the Immokalee airport, the runway extension and air traffic control tower, and move forward on an environmental study and land acquisition for that runway extension. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. A couple of things. One, compared to last year, Everglades City airport, what is it we need to do to subsidize it this year? MS. COOK: Our insurance costs have gone up. I believe last year it was about 96,000. Excuse me, last year we were at about 160,000. This year 186,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more time, please. MS. COOK: Last year we were at 186,700 and this year we're at 196. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the amount of money over and above operating revenues coming in that has to be subsidized for that airport? MS. COOK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- some time ago the commission tasked you with working with Everglades City to see about them assuming the responsibility for the airport. How is that going? MS. COOK: We have had contact from their attorney requesting documents for the Everglades airport, historical documents looking at the operating expenses and what their responsibilities would be. I believe they received those documents right before Hurricane Wilma Page 36 June 22, 2006 and we have not had any contact from them since Hurricane Wilma. So I believe that that put a lot of difficulties on their intention of taking over the Everglades airport if that was going to be the outcome. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, it's not the Airport Authority, it's Everglades City that hasn't been following through on this? MS. COOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The other thing I would like to know is this panther mitigation, $175,000. Is this for something outside the fenced part of the airport? MS. COOK: Technically speaking, the airport houses wild boar, wild pigs and other wildlife that are the panthers' food chain, they provide the panthers' dinner. So even though the airport is fenced in and we believe the panther habitat is outside the airport, what the airport rules is a part of the panther habitat's existence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we supply them dinner and have to pay for it too. MS. COOK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason I'm bringing that up is that we're going, we're going to be inviting Fish and Wildlife to come before this commission in a workshop to talk about panther mitigation. And I sure hope that your schedule will permit you to be here at that time. MS. COOK: I'll make sure I'll be here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Theresa, looking at your operational budget, I'm only seeing it going up 7.4 percent but yet I'm hearing a lot of increase in insurance costs. I can't find it. MS. COOK: We -- the airport operations actually went up 21 percent over all three airports. We have, we increased our revenue a hundred thousand plus. Unfortunately we also increased our costs in Page 37 June 22, 2006 Insurance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe what is in our book is different than what you have. MS. COOK: I think I can -- on Pages 23, 25 and 27, the comments at the bottom of the page address the cost increases in insurance. But for each airport broken down you'll see that we have an 8 percent increase for the administration, we have a -- Marco had a 7 percent increase and Immokalee had a 7 percent increase and so did Everglades approximately. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Page 20, the way the book is laid out, everything as far as operational is on the front page. Maybe I was looking at the wrong page when I was studying this. MS. COOK: Debi will comment on that. MS. MUELLER: The insurance increases combined with our expected revenue increase from the sod farming out in Immokalee produced the 7.4 percent increase. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Put your name on the record for us. MS. MUELLER: I'm Debi Mueller. I'm the office manager for the authority. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's fine. But if you go down to the appropriation it shows where the monies are going. The appropriation by department. I'm seeing that you have a budget of 3.3. What's being proposed? That's it? MS. COOK: That's our total budget. Then we have a general match fund from that. But that is our total budget, 3.3. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I was just trying to figure out where the, I think, $11 million -- MS. COOK: That's our -- MS. MUELLER: The million-- MS. COOK: That's our capital budget for capital projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coming from the general fund? Page 38 June 22, 2006 MS. COOK: Actually, the match, that's match -- a million dollars is for our grant money that we receive. The general fund match is about $126,000. That helps us get that million dollars. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Theresa, I think we can help you out too there. On Page 31 is the summary. The 21 percent that Mr. Mudd spoke of in his opening remarks would be general fund transfer or subsidy of the Airport Authority operation, of that fund. And that went up 21 percent. And that was -- the magnitude of that increase, that spike was driven by the increase in the property insurance. Overall their expenditures are up seven, 8 percent but the general fund transfer is up 21 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That still doesn't explain the $11 million in the capital fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We will do that. On Pages 33 and 34 at the very bottom, you have total appropriations on Page 33 and Airport Authority capital fund of 1,747,900. And then on Page 34 bottom line total, which is a separate fund, we wanted to segregate that money, especially the 750,000, with the matching grant reimbursements that's $9.4 million and the sum of the two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So where is the grants on the revenue side of it? If you are using -- if you are including grant fund in the capital improvements, where is it on the revenue? MS. COOK: The grant reimbursements are shown underneath the capital fund, not in our revenue operating budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, Theresa, this is going back to our summary page. We have a different kind of funding revenues but I don't see grants. Actually, there are a lot of grants that I have identified where they are coming from or where they are appropriated on the commissioners' summary sheet. MS. COOK: Page 20, is that the page? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's on the very front of the book. And Mr. Smykowski can probably explain it to me. Page 39 June 22, 2006 MR. SMYKOWSKI: First of all there is a segregation between the operating budget, which begins on Page 20, I believe it was, for Airport Authority and the Airport Authority capital budget. You had asked a specific question about the grant reimbursements. In fund 497, the $750,000 county contribution, there are grants of approximately 8.7 million. And on Page 33 you've got a general fund transfer of 172,900 and grant reimbursements of approximately $1.3 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That still doesn't answer the question. In the front of our book we have the revenues. We have some of the things that we talked about as gas taxes, sales tax, well, property taxes, you know, permit fines and fees, intergovernmental service charges. Where is the grants on there? MR. SMYKOWSKI: On Page -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should be on Page 3. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, under -- it's probably under intergovernmental. These are macro categories that total up a whole series of revenue codes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's probably under there? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I get a breakdown of all of those in that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of what is included within each of those header categories, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. Let's go back to this panther mitigation thing. We've got hundreds of thousands of dollars we're spending on panther mitigation inside a fenced airport. Are the panthers coming in there to get their dinner? MS. COOK: Sir, I can't really respond whether they are actually Page 40 June 22, 2006 coming into the airport property to get their dinner or whether their food is migrating across airport property going into the panther area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how does a wild boar climb a 10-foot fence? MS. COOK: I think it probably goes underneath the outer perimeter fence in the back. Four or five hundred acres are -- it's more of a cattle-type fence. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Barbed wire or something. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you planning on fencing it all in? MS. COOK: We did a lot of the fencing around the airport operations area in-house with employees and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, I believe. We put it in our budget but we're down on manpower. So that's a lot of acreage, that's about probably 700 more, maybe 900 more acres to fence in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my concerns are not as great as they once were. If it's not completely fenced in I can understand the problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta and then we'll take a 15-minute break. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to go back to the Everglades airport again, $196,000, what we're subsidizing in that airport for. Can you tell me how many planes use that airport in a given year? MS. COOK: Unfortunately, we don't have a count or even an estimate that I could derive for you. I have the Immokalee airport person actually trying to get an estimated count by watching for the aircraft each day. But we haven't -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On a given day do you have maybe 20 planes a day at Everglades City? MS. COOK: I would say not. We average 20 planes a day into Immokalee. Page 41 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, for Everglades City. You don't have anything -- it's probably considerably less, right? MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The thing was, I was looking for a number that would help me understand what the subsidation (sic) is that we are doing against that $196,000. In other words, X number of trips or estimated trips divided into it. What is the subsidy that we're paying to have each plane land at the airport? MS. COOK: I would have to get that information for you and bring it back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At some point I would like to have it. It's not the reason I would ask you to not pay for the airport but I do think that we as the taxpayers have a right to know what the subsidy is. MS. COOK: Let me correct myself on the fact that our operating budget is about a 186,700 a year at Everglades and we receive from the general fund approximately 80,000 of that, so we're -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it's quite a bit different. I remember last year I thought it was 60,000 and then all of a sudden I'm hearing 196. Still, even at that, I'd like to know what it is. It might end up being five dollars per plane, extremely reasonable. Again, it might end up being a $150. If that's the case I would like to know it. MS. COOK: I'll bring that information back to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. We'll take a 15-minute recess and be back. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back from recess. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure for clarification because I was asked -- ladies and gentlemen, if you could please keep it down -- I was asked by the director of the Airport Authority if you were finished with that particular item or do you have Page 42 June 22, 2006 additional questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any additional questions from my commissioners on the Airport Authority? (No response.) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will bring us to our next item, which is Admin Services. I also want to make sure that you know that Admin Services, Transportation Services and Public Utilities, their particular budgets are being reviewed also by the Productivity Committee. They chose to take three divisions this year and hopefully do three divisions -- or two divisions and the remainder of the separates next year in order to get that done. So without further ado, Ms. Len Price, your Administrator for Admin Services Division is here with her team to answer your questions on this budget. Ms. Price. MS. PRICE: Good morning, commissioners. I just would like to give you a brief overview of our budget in regard to budget guidance. With only a few exceptions the division was able to meet the budget guidance. Those exceptions include overtime for facilities and fleet which are required to provide 24-by-seven emergency services for things such as the buses, the ambulances and work at the jail. Fuel costs rose way beyond our wildest expectations. Property and casualty insurance has also gone up by approximately 30 plus percent. On a division level we still were able to remain very close to the 12 percent increase. Our budget is driven primarily by the needs and the demands of the rest of the agency. And in order to meet current service levels, I just wanted to give you a brief idea of what that means to us. We have 1350 PCs and laptops, 2700 telephone sets, 3100 radios, 93 servers, 80 networked sites, 600 plus buildings. Page 43 June 22, 2006 We're working on 23 major construction projects plus 19 remodeling projects. We negotiate at least 130 contracts each year and monitor 50 to 60 of them weekly. Process 15,000 purchase orders. We have 1500 pieces of equipment and vehicles that we maintain, purchase, et cetera. Weare taking care of over 1 700 employees, attempting to fill or advertise for about a hundred positions on average each week and have processed 6,000 applications last year. Weare taking care of healthcare for over 2000 employees, with 4500 covered lives. That's just a small taste of what our division takes care of. And as we add employees throughout the division we're required to take care of those employees, provide them with the healthcare that they need, the IT support, purchasing support, et cetera. So to a large extent our destiny is not really in our own control. In addition to that certain services show up in our budget but are also appropriated throughout the rest of the budget, such as fuel and fleet services. That's appropriated in our budget but that's reimbursed to us through charge outs. Same goes for health insurance, workers' compensation insurance and property and casualty. So you see those in two places throughout the budget. This year we're asking for three and a half additional positions, one in IT, one in fleet, one in purchasing, and a part-time individual to help us take care of our grant administration. We currently have over 58 grants and we apply for at least 30 grants each year. Weare at approximately 90 percent success rate with the grants that we apply for. We need to take care of additional janitorial/ground maintenance for new buildings that have come on. We need to improve and increase our computer security, take care of some inventory tracking, make sure that our systems are updated and upgraded. We're looking next year at an upgrade to the SAP system as well as the replacement Page 44 June 22, 2006 for CD plus. Those are two of our very mayor processes. Next year's primary focus is on process improvement, technology integration, efficiencies in cost containment, employee retention, records management, opening up our in-house primary care clinic, safety, customer service and compliance. The productivity committee did review our budget, and although you'll see their formal report, I would like to just summarize what they had to say about our budget. We sent them not only budget dollar information but also a lot of benchmarking information. And they felt that we were in the 75 percentile for efficiency in every department, and so they believed that there was no need to do a minute detail review of our budget and instead looked at it from an overall perspective. They are recommending that we review the department charge outs to see if those should be increased, look at outsourcing, which is something that we continually do to see which is more effective, doing it in-house or outsourcing it. And they had a few recommendations about the way we report on the budget. And you'll see that in your final report. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. PRICE: At this point, the directors are all here. You can either listen to each of them or just direct questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I want to hear those reports before I take questions. MR. AXELROD: I really don't have much to add. It's hard to talk about IT without getting too technical. We're dealing with large growth. We have had a major success story in that we are getting more and more of the departments which have been operating without the benefits of automation starting to use IT systems, which accounts for some of the growth that we're seeing in computers and servers and things likes that. However, this is important for the future of the county, as Page 45 June 22, 2006 automation is one of the best levers to pull in order to try to control head count and scale up services as we grow in the county. We're also -- have two initiatives that are interesting with the clerk of courts going on. One, as Len said, is the SAP upgrade project for next year, and that is one of the recommendations also that was made by the productivity committee. And we are also in a joint project with the clerk on a new inventory system which is changing some business processes on how we account for equipment and inventory those, get better accountability and -- for the IT assets that are involved to make sure that we get a longer useful life out of what we buy, extend the useful life of the equipment, which is one of the best practices that most government agencies do. So those things have been difficult process changes for us to implement. We have been working hard at that for about a year. We are going to see some fruits from those efforts next year along with another one of the things the productivity committee brought up, which is the benefits of the data that we've been collecting. We as an organization do a tremendous amount of transactions, and the data goes into our systems and it's been very difficult to get the data out to actually analyze the data and use it to make our business more efficient. We've started to implement what we call data integration where data from different databases can be viewed in one report or one set of views, which enables us to do things which are important for things like concurrency where we're dealing with building permits and certificates of occupancy that drive issues like traffic counts and road capacity and utility capacities. So those sort of analyses are going to be much easier to deal with as we go forward. And that's about the state of affairs in IT for the agency. MS. PRICE: Barry, would you just talk quickly about the IT item. MR. AXELROD: One of the things that we've been working on Page 46 June 22, 2006 for the last few years is a joint project between the Collier County School Board, the Transportation Division and the IT department for the board where we have an extensive fiber project going on where the School Board is the lead agency, put most of the money into the project, is fibering every school together basically all over the county, out to Immokalee. Not quite down to Everglades City but very, very good coverage for the 951 and west areas and out to Immokalee along two routes. We have been taking advantage of the economies of scale there where they have been, like I said, paying for digging the trenches and putting the conduit in the ground. In a lot of cases we are being able to pay about a dollar and a quarter a foot, which is about a nine dollar a foot cost advantage, by partnering with this, with this work. Again, it started with the Transportation Division here and their signalization project and the School Board. So we have already lit certain sections of the fiber. The new north regional park was the first facility to come online. So the fiber is already up Livingston Road. We also have the Davis Boulevard Transportation Facility is online and Animal Services on Davis Boulevard is online. The next facility to come online is going to be the south water plant along Utilities Drive at the intersection of951 and 75. And that facility, as you know, is a back-up EOC location, it's for hurricane season. So we expect to have that facility online on fiber in time for its use this summer. But we're building that out and that will continue for probably another two years. Barry Axelrod, the IT director. MS. PRICE: Commissioners, I would also like to introduce to you our new records manager. He was hired in March to get our county on a full-blown records management project. Michael Cox. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Michael, give your name on the mic. there. MR. COX: My name is Michael Cox. I'm the new records Page 47 June 22, 2006 manager for Collier County. The focus of the records management program as we go forward will be primarily in three areas. Number one is compliance. We want to make sure that we comply with the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Number two, we hope to improve customer service. And when we talk about customer service we're talking about both internal customers here within the county and the external customers to ensure that we meet all the Sunshine Law requirements and make information available to those folks. And then number three, we're going to focus on costs. We have some great opportunities as we implement this policy to significantly reduce storage costs of records that we currently have for external sites. And as we heard earlier today there is a real premium on facilities space around here and I think that as we implement a sound program we will be able to transfer or scan a whole lot of records and store them electronically and get rid of a lot of paper records that we currently have on site. So that will be the three areas of focus moving forward. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. COX: Thank you. MR. CARNELL: For the record, I'm Steve Carnell, your purchasing director. And we are continuing on a very aggressive and broad process modernization effort. We, through your insistence, we have expanded in the area of contract administration support in the last two years. Weare looking in this coming year to be involved in some very specific additional modernizations including developing online bid capability and the ability of vendors and contractors to fully access bidding documents remotely. We're also involved in the SAP upgrade project as well and some modernization in the use of our purchasing targets to generate more benefits to the county. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Page 48 June 22, 2006 MR. CROFT: Sir, I'm Dan Croft, fleet management director. The fleet management department operates as an internal service fund. We charge back all of our costs to our using departments and organizations. This year our budget increased by about 19 percent, and that's about $1.15 million. One million dollars of that is for fuel. We anticipate that the cost of fuel will continue to rise through the next year and that's what all of the indicators are showing. With that, some other costs are arising such as parts or transportation in the manufacture of those parts and whatnot. So the remainder of that increase basically is for parts and in the cost of those facilities. Weare involved with all of the maintenance and acquisition of the vehicles and equipment in the county. I notice that you approved some expansion of the bus system in the past week, that will have an impact on us also. Probably see you next year probably asking for another mechanic or so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. MERRITT: Jean Merritt, HR director. Our big thrust for the coming year is to retain our employees. We have a serious problem with retention. Our people are leaving after serving four years and they are leaving at the average age of 44. So it isn't because they are retiring, they are moving on somewhere else. To help do some of the things that we need to be doing we are implementing a new applicant tracking system which is going to make the hiring process much more streamlined. We're going to be able to get reports. We're going to know how long it takes to fill each position, and it's going to make it easier for our department directors and managers to hire. We have outsourced this year the unemployment compensation claims. We've already saved about three times of what it cost in unemployment claims. We have a firm in Tallahassee that is very familiar with the system and can manipulate it much easier than we Page 49 June 22, 2006 could here. We also are outsourcing the codification of our practices and procedures. Our staff has spent untold thousands of hours taking care of this and it's going to be very cost effective for us to do that. As I said, our major thrust is coming up with new programs. We have a new employee recognition program which is starting July 1. We're very excited about that. We think that is going to be a very significant help in retaining our employees. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. WALKER: Good morning. Jeff Walker, risk management director. I'm responsible for three internal service funds, fund 516, which is property casualty. You will be hearing a lot about increases in that fund from myself as well as other departments simply because of the nature of the market. I'm responsible for the group health, life, disability, dental.fund. And I'm also responsible for the workers' compensation fund. Weare experiencing a tough property insurance market. If you pick the paper up you are going to see that everywhere. We will renew our property insurance program on April 1 st of 2007. And right now what we have done is we have budgeted a 50 percent increase in that rate. I will tell you that I am not confident that that will be enough. I hope it will and I hope I'm wrong. But what we are seeing happening in the marketplace right now are two issues, increases in the rates and problems with capacity or availability of coverage. I'm hearing about public entities who have a billion dollars of insured values who are being presented with renewals of 70 to 100 million of insurance on those values. So I'm concerned about the rate and I'm concerned about the capacity issue. But we did set our budget. It did go up quite substantially but it is simply a reflection of what is happening in the marketplace. I will say this about it as well. We did budget an 8 percent increase for the Page 50 June 22, 2006 inflationary and replacement cost of our property and we did budget about a $62 million increase in insured values as part of that budget as well when we were doing our planning. So, yes, it did go up but we're trying to predict as close as we can what will happen on April 1 st of 2007. As far as the health insurance program, we're actually doing very well. We have built a good reserve level within that fund now. As you will recall a few years ago we had some problems in our health insurance fund and we did increase rates significantly in 2004. But what has occurred is we've seen a moderation in our claims cost. It's attributable to a few things. Our wellness program is helping us out quite a lot. Some things that we have done with plan design have helped out quite a lot. We do a lot of work with the Collier County healthcare consortium, which is four large employers, including the sheriff and the schools and the hospital. And we've done quite a lot with that group. So what has happened is claims have come in below our budgeted rates and what we have tried to do, and in the '06 budget we actually reduced rates about 6 percent. For the '07 budget what we are recommending is that we hold rates at the level that they are -- and we're trying to avoid this Ping-Pong effect of having rates go down and then go way up. And we want to use our reserve levels to offset potential catastrophic hits or significant future rate increases. So we're confident that we can hold that rate through '07. And we're hopeful, we're hopeful if we continue to see this experience that we will have a very moderate increase in '08. If none, we would like to have none, one of the things Ms. Price mentioned was the primary care clinic that we're preparing. We understand we got our permit and so we're going to start construction on that. That will be on this campus and will be available to employees. And what that will allow them to do is to see an on-site clinic for a lot of their primary care health needs. Page 51 June 22, 2006 That's going to have some huge productivity factors to it. If an employee can go down and see somebody and be taken care of, that will reduce the time they're waiting in a doctor's office, driving around town or -- and hopefully we'll get them back to work more quickly. So we're excited about that. We hope to have that up and running by the end of the calendar year, this year. As far as the workers' compo program, we have not had a significant rate increase in workers' compo in over three years to speak of. It's been less than inflation. Our actuary told us that we needed to look at a rate increase for the '07 budget and we did. We did increase the rates about 16 percent but with that I will say that the cost of that program is still about a half a million dollars less than what it would cost us to go out and buy it in the private market, and that includes also the overhead costs of the employees in the department are built into that budget. So we have -- we actually have a very, very successful workers' compensation program. Our costs are very, very low when you compare to the industry norms. So with that, those are the major issues. We are not increasing staff. We didn't increase any costs in our discretionary budget. The things that did increase are things that are pretty market driven or exposure driven. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. In facilities management we acquire, design, construct, maintain and secure government facilities. We think we do a pretty good job of it. Most of what we do is contracted out. We think we have some pretty good contractors, although we don't have enough. Some of our program enhancements this year include the new buildings, providing them with building maintenance and management services, including grounds and janitorial. Page 52 June 22, 2006 Weare just now recuperating from the hurricane. Everyone needs to know that. We were 900 work orders that were produced by the hurricane. We're just now finishing those up. Nine hundred work orders and 15 FEMA people we entertained for the last six or seven months. This year we have for the first time, we have a 301 long-term building maintenance replacement program. The county manager pushed us hard. It was not easy. It took a lot of time but it's the first time we've had one. We're very, very proud of it. This way we'll know in advance, the commission will know in advance what we're going to replace, what we are going to do, we will know what we're going to do long range and we'll have a more stable submission of our 301. Again, we benchmarked with all the other counties and I hope you will review that. We do it better and we do it more efficiently and we're real proud of that. We do it with a great staff, and we appreciate your review of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. At this time I'll entertain questions from the commissioners, starting with Tom Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, thank you for the detail. I do have some information I got off the web and I want to give to you and see if it's appropriate for the web. The carryforward. That carryforward, is that for all levels of insurance? MR. WALKER: Yes. Within the three funds that I'm responsible for we are -- we fund on an accrual basis, meaning that when we set our rates they anticipate the incurred cost of claims for the year in which they are incurred. It may take several years. For example, workers' comp., it may take ten years to pay a claim, to get it closed. That's very typical. Health is a lot shorter. Typically, it's Page 53 June 22, 2006 incurred and paid quicker. But we do it on an accrual basis and we are required to carry reserves both from a statutory as well as a GASB standard, GASB-I0 requires that. And so when you look at our carryforward numbers as well as our reserve numbers, the cash is tied to a liability requirement. And we had actuarial studies performed every fall on all three of those funds, and as a matter of fact we're updating our health actuarial study now, but we have that done every year. And we tie our budget into what those actuarial funding requirements are. And so to answer your question, yes, those cash carryforward numbers are tied to a liability requirement or liability reserve requirement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Ms. Price, I guess it's not your duty to report the grants received or the anticipated grants in your budget. MS. PRICE: No, no. We just help to coordinate them, apply for them and monitor compliance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Skip, well, I think we're going to get that information, correct, where the grants are, anticipated grants? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. One of my staff members is running a report that will show the breakdown of the macro, the very highest level aggregation of data on the revenue side, so you would see the component pieces of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Skip, what was the increase of impact fees just recently on the governmental buildings? Wasn't it a hundred percent? MR. CAMP: Mike, can you address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy Patterson is here. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. For the record, Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee manager. The government buildings impact fee increase is coming to you on July 25th. And the increase is about over a hundred Page 54 June 22, 2006 percent over all of the land use categories. If you take the schedule there is over 66 land uses that are contemplated on that rate schedule but if you average out it is about a hundred and some odd percent increase. It has not been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as of yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Is that anticipated in this budget? Who does the figures on the year impact fees? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sue Usher from my staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Would that include the anticipated increase? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We've budgeted '06. The adopted budget was 2.8 million for impact fees -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- government buildings. We forecast 3.5. The budget next year is reflective of 3.9 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That doesn't include the anticipated increase, since the board hasn't adopted it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. When is that coming in? MS. PATTERSON: July 25th. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Your next board meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I would imagine that would reduce the general fund, the need for general fund, because you are showing an increase. MS. PRICE: Commissioner, that would be under capital, the impact fees would be under capital, and it would be for building new buildings that were required by growth. What we have our general fund operating request is more for maintenance of current buildings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You anticipate -- you are going to do -- in here is all kinds of capital improvements, new buildings. I mean, just to balance it out, I mean, you are going to -- Page 55 June 22, 2006 you are using impact fee as a general fund, there is no other source. MS. PRICE: From the construction side our impact fees increase for that portion that's applicable then, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. PRICE: But a good portion of our capital projects here are maintenance projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what is going to happen when we -- if the board adopts the impact fees? Are you going to build more buildings or -- since you are saying that they are not anticipated, they are anticipated on what the current level of impact fees are now. And if it's going to double are we going to double the amount of building? MR. CAMP: The buildings are obviously built only -- it depends on the funding, and we also have a master plan, so it's not like we're going to automatically build more buildings if we have more money. There is a master plan and there is funding. And they are both, although related, they are totally independent, too. I'm not sure I understand the question, commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There are several projects that you're going to undertake according to your A UIR. MR. CAMP: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And as a funding source would be general fund and impact fees. MR. CAMP: That's correct, depending on the project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we increase the impact fees I would assume that the ad valorem dollars would go down because we're increasing the impact fees. MS. PRICE: We would have to study that. That might be correct. Also might mean that we could build a building that we thought we were not going to be able to build, either move it up -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the AUIR. MS. PRICE: Within the AUIR, correct. Page 56 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the board adopted the AUIR and the -- for the '07, this coming up. MS. PRICE: Right. A lot of what we've got in the '07 budget, however, not all of it is impact fee eligible for this particular year. So we would have to study the impact on the future of the increase in the impact fees. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we just had a request this morning also with regards to addressing some issues on providing -- MS. PRICE: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where I was going with the guy. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I add something on impact fees just so I understand. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development. Commissioner Henning, the impact fees that we pass go into effect the first of July. At the end of this month here in a couple of days we will be inundated with permits. Most of those permits will take -- will probably sit almost six months before builders pick up. So what I'm trying to explain is it's not an immediate change, there is going to be a lot of permits that will come in and the old impact fees will apply. The new impact fees are gradual. The permit applications will come in after the first of July, many of those may not be picked up again for four, five, six months. And it's not an immediate -- it's immediate for us but it's not immediate as far as collections because it's a gradual -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you can demonstrate those in the last two months of the increased request for permits? MR. SCHMITT: Demonstrate? We can give you actual figures on what we collected, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The numbers of permits. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Joe, I think the commissioner is asking can you demonstrate in the past when there has been a big spike or a new impact fee is there typically a run on the bank in terms of -- Page 57 June 22, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- people backing up the bus and dropping off truckloads of permits applications. MR. SCHMITT: I expect the 28th, 29th we will be inundated with permit applications trying to beat the bank, beat the change. Yes. And we can demonstrate that. I'll get figures to show past impact fees when they are implemented and the number of permits. Is that what you are asking? Prior to the permit going into effect we normally -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: This year. MR. SCHMITT: -- have a run on the bank. For this year everything is going in effective July 1st. MR. MUDD: Except for two. MR. SCHMITT: Except for two. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Never mind, I guess I'll get it from the website. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think a lot of this information you probably could have asked for prior to the hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I did try to ask a lot of information and I didn't get responses, okay. And I tried to anticipate CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you talking about everyone as far as the budget? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, different questions that it took a while to get a response to. I mean, we were given the budget about three weeks ago and I did generate some questions. So I apologize for asking too many questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not saying you are asking too many questions. I just think some of the questions you could have probably asked prior to the meeting here. We are tying up an awful lot of staff here trying to get through this process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can tell you that there will Page 58 June 22, 2006 be some more questions because in order for me to vote on the budget I would like my answers, my questions answered, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand. But like I said, I think some of these might have been asked ahead of time. Continue. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to try to close that issue out, I really think that the correct response to the question is if you've got more impact fees being collected than you've anticipated, you are going to have some impact on reducing the ad valorem contributions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a correct answer to Commissioner Henning's question. You might not be able to say how much right now, but you've got them allocated over the library fund, parks and recreation, Caribbean Gardens, university extension services. If you get more impact fees, you are going to reduce the impact on ad valorem property taxes. At least you should. And so it would be helpful, I think, for everybody if when you get the new proj ections or you incorporate the new proj ections, you know they are going to be implemented, why not incorporate the new projections and then adjust the budget based upon that. Let's go for a moment to the-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me just -- I understand what you just said, and it's kind of 50/50 on the thing. What we do now so that you don't incur a credit, okay, because if you are using ad valorem money to do general fund or impact fee eligible work, you've now given them a credit. So what we do is we borrow the shortage, okay, on that particular fund to be paid back by the impact fee at a future date, okay. And you will not get that reduction to the ad valorem until that money is paid back. Now, if it's instantaneous where you don't have to get the loan, good, then there is no ad valorem that has been dedicated toward it, and so that part you'll get the savings too. But in most cases, on the Page 59 June 22, 2006 impact fee side of the house, the impact fees collected do not pay for everything, as far as impact fee eligible services or growth. So we try to keep up with it. We try to update them on a yearly basis. But if you have a spike in construction costs in the middle of the year that are unanticipated and you have to wait six months before you get it and you try to keep them up as fast as we can, so you have some of a little bit of a thing. But it's 50/50. You are right in what you said but there is just another piece to it that says, yes, but we're still short and we're taking loans for it. So, yes, there is some kind of return on the ad valorem but I will tell you it's not a one for one because you've taken out a loan for it over a period of time. MR. SCHMITT: Jim, can I also add as well, commissioner, you are correct but just so you understand for the record, this board adopted the government impact fee at 75 percent of the recommended rate, and it was a gradual implementation. We're coming back finally at a hundred percent. So there was a conscious decision by this board to adopt a rate lower than what was deemed needed to fund future construction, which forces you to then go into the, as Manager Mudd said, goes into the ad valorem to compensate for that shortfall. So that was a decision in 2004. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Much of that can be, I think, be compensated for with respect to schedules. You can adjust schedules so that you have more time to collect impact fees. But the other point is, that it is certainly true that we have to grant credits in the calculation of these but the credits lag a year behind, the calculation of the credits is a year behind the actual collection of the impact fees, because the credits are based upon what we did last year, right, Amy, not what we're going to do in the future. So when you take into consideration the lag in the credits and the increased impact fee collections in the future and your ability to adjust schedules based upon the availability of capital funding monies, then I Page 60 June 22, 2006 think the net result is if you've got an increase in impact fees you ought to have a decrease in ad valorem property taxes, with the one caveat that you mentioned, is that these are things that are eligible for impact fee funding. And I'm sure there are many that are not. But nevertheless, the concept, I think, and I think that's what Commissioner Henning was trying to get at was we need to give some consideration to that. But let me get to my real issue here, and it has to do with the reserve for attrition. I think your reserve for attrition is something like 5.2, 5.7. Do you recall what it is? MR. MUDD: Are you talking about for admin services division, sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: I've got it as a -- in this particular chit it's on Page 26 of admin services. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Negative. MR. MUDD: Under the tab reserve for attrition is $37,100. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 5.3. Okay, 5.3 percent change from last year. Now, what -- that reserve, that negative reserve for attrition, essentially means that you are going to have more costs because of attrition. MS. PRICE: It means that we believe we're going to have less attrition, less open positions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you arrive at that conclusion when we're having difficulty hiring people and people are leaving? MS. PRICE: I'm going to have to get back to you on that. That work was done some time ago, and I don't believe that we did a comparison year to year. We simply looked at what we thought this year was going to look like. So if I could get back to you on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be fine. What I'm Page 61 June 22, 2006 really getting to here, and this applies, Mr. Mudd, to all of the divisions as well as to some of the constitutions. If you don't anticipate full staffing for the next fiscal year for the entire year, you won't achieve the full expenditure for personnel for the entire year. So my question to you is, what have you done to compensate for that and what is your figure? You've budgeted for X number of personnel, you are admitting that you are losing people. We know that we can't replace people as quickly as we would like. How do you calculate the net cost so that you can create a budget that accurately reflects what your personnel costs are likely to be for the next fiscal year? Do you understand what I'm -- MS. PRICE: I do understand what you are saying. And as a general rule we don't make those calculations, we have to assume that if we're down positions, we generally parse out the work either to temporary employees, sometimes contracted out, depending on the type of work it is. Or oftentimes we use our current employees on an overtime basis to try and make sure that all of the services are provided. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me use your actual budget as an example. For example, fiscal 2006 adopted budget is 22.8 million dollars. Your 2006 forecast budget is 21.7. There is a $1.1 million difference between the two. I have to make the assumption that it is mostly the result of or at least partly the result of you not being at full staff for the entire period of time. MS. PRICE: Could you tell me what page you are looking at. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 2 under public services division, personnel services, top line. MS. PRICE: This is Administrative Services. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. MS. PRICE: Our numbers are in the 14 million. That is why you had me confused. My glasses needed to be changed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you would get me on the right Page 62 June 22, 2006 page we would have this done a lot faster. You should have known which page I was looking at. MS. PRICE: Sorry, my ESP went out for lunch. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The concept is the same. So you are not doing that. You're not trying to make a forecast of what your actual staffing is likely to be next year. You are assuming it's going to be fully staffed. MS. PRICE: We budget at full staffing and then Mike helps us pull out a portion that we believe is going to be unfilled. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you do that in the aggregate for the entire -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Fund by fund we do it. So in this case, sir, the 37,100 reserved for attrition on admin services on Page 2 is actually 2 percent. In this case the only separate fund here is the fleet fund, and that's 37 -- 37,100 is 2 percent of the fleet personal services budget. What we do on an annual basis, maybe to more directly answer your question, as part of budget policy annually we address -- we take a look at what personal services expenditures were for the previous year versus the budget and compare that to the percent attrition rate we had been using. A couple of years ago we were using 4 percent and then -- MR. MUDD: With the dialogue with the sheriff we wanted to have it at 0 percent because at that time he didn't have any attrition because he had people standing in line to be deputies. We changed it to 2 percent, and we came up with a common agreement that that would be okay. Remember, there was some compromise in that. We retained that 2 percent through this year. Even though we're having problems recruiting in the county manager's agency, I'm not too sure that still remains. I mean, it's hard to get them but I'm not too sure the vacancy rate in the sheriffs department is over that at this particular juncture, because he has been successful getting people in and training Page 63 June 22, 2006 them. N ow between the time that he needs to train and certify and the time to get on the road, that is anywhere from 120 to 180 days, and you can ask him more about that tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For your agency you have taken into consideration the anticipated attrition and you are not budgeting for full staffing for the entire year, I presume. MR. MUDD: That's right, 98 percent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: A question I have is do you have to contract people to fill some of those positions that you can't fill and is that part of this budget too? MS. PRICE: As a general rule what we contract for is to perform a function. So if we can't get the function taken care of by our employees we might contract for the function. Skip does that quite frequently by hiring a plumbing agency if we can't hire enough plumbers or electricians, et cetera. Oftentimes we will also go to a job bank situation where we've got some folks who want to work just on a temporary basis, and we'll bring in a few job bank folks to handle a specific function that is labor intensive. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you talking about clerical workers? MS. PRICE: Things like that. Even sometimes in IT we can bring in some part-time folks. MR. CAMP: Can I make one comment on that. Skip Camp, for the record. We have to do that if there is a -- if there is an issue, an emergency issue we have to have it one way or the other. If I don't have it in-house I've got to contract it out. Our in-house people may make 20 to $25 an hour with benefit package and everything included, the low bid on the contract may be $60 an hour. So it's advantageous to us to get those positions filled as soon as possible, at least in my particular situation. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell me where, since a Page 64 June 22, 2006 lot of those positions wasn't filled this year, where the carryforward for those salaries that wasn't expended, where I could find that. And also where the unincumbered funds are. MS. PRICE: For salaries? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. For salaries and unincumbered funds in general. MS. PRICE: Most of my departments are general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PRICE: And so they don't -- any unexpended monies at the end of the year don't carry over, that just goes back into your general fund. So we don't have carry over for salaries. The only place that there is carry over as a general fund balance is in the enterprise fund -- I'm sorry, the internal service funds and the insurance funds, and that's part of the total carry over, you know, fund balance at the end-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not reported within your budget, it's just not -- if it's not incumbered then it just stays in the general fund. MS. PRICE: Right. And we don't actually encumber salaries, we simply pay them as payroll goes through. So at the end of the year any funds that were not expended in salaries simply return to the general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we could get those. I thought the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The carryforward in every individual fund is a function of surplus revenue or unexpended dollars. So the budgeted FY '07 carryforward fund by fund is a function of the residual cash in that fund that is available for reappropriation in fiscal year '07. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But those are encumbered and not encumbered. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are unincumbered. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are all unincumbered? Page 65 June 22, 2006 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we have a $24 million unincumbered? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. MS. PRICE: The carry over in my budget consists of, there were $66,000 under the Dory Schlossberg grant, that's a pass-through grant that has been reappropriated in this year. Under fleet management we have 103,000, that will go back into the fund balance for fleet. There is $1.4 million in the GAC land trust, that's the land trust for the Golden Gate Estates properties. There is a small carryforward under ADA, which is the funding that -- that comes primarily from the concession? MR. CAMP: That's true. MS. PRICE: That goes in, and that is used for, any ADA compliance issues goes there. There is $4,000 remaining on the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page are you -- MS. PRICE: This is a breakdown -- can we make a copy -- this is a breakdown that Mike made for me that broke out some of these large dollar totals so that I could answer any questions you might have. The biggest areas for carryforward include property and casual, group health and workers' compo And that's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those are encumbered, correct? MS. PRICE: No, they are not necessarily encumbered but they're restricted. MR. SMYKOWSKI: They have been encumbered but they are restricted for the use in that particular fund. For instance -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The GAC trust fund, those proceeds can only be used for improvements within the Golden Gate Estates -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- pursuant to that agreement. Of the $24.8 Page 66 June 22, 2006 million in carryforward within admin services division, 22 million is within your three self-insurance funds, and that's the reserves for claims payment and the reserves that the actuaries require for us in order to be a financially sound self-insurance program. The State of Florida regulates that and dictates to us the level of reserves that are required. So that's something that Jeff analyzes annually and brings recommendations to the county manager relative to rates as a function also of the actuaries' recommendations, which is done annually for each of those programs to ensure that we are keeping an appropriate level of reserve available to handle future claims. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering, Skip, are we going to be reducing some of the security people that we have around at times when really they are not needed or after hours when nobody's in the building? MR. CAMP: Yes, ma'am. The county manager has already directed us to do exactly that. Starting Building F was a new, a new checkpoint for us, a new service. We've kind of tweaked it now . We were staying open until 11 :00. Because this is a public meeting I feel a little uncomfortable about going into the details, but the direct response to your question is yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Is that reflected in the budget? MR. CAMP: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to transportation services as the next presenter. Page 67 June 22, 2006 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we've planned to do if we don't get through the next segment, we'll break at 12:00 and have an hour for a lunch break. What we'll do is the same thing we did before, each of you can give a presentation and then we'll ask questions. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, I'm Norm Feder, the Transportation Administrator. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. What I'm going to do is give you a quick overview then hit on some of what our expanded items are, and maybe cover a little bit of what is in our UFR, both in the operating and in the capital. And of course open it up for questions. I'm going to be fairly brief. But I will tell you if you start on Page 2 under transportation, you see a figure there, of course, we tried to stay within 12 percent. What I need to point out to you, if you look on Page 18, we had about a 78.1 percent increase in MSTUs and that equates effectively into 9.5 percent of the increase you see in the operating budget for the division itself on Page 2. As you are aware the MSTUs are managed on their own and not managed by the division in that sense. The reason that they show that level of increase is essentially they are saving monies up from year to year for projects in many case, and of course without having reduced the millage, which was their choice, they are generating significantly additional revenues. So overall theirs shows about a 78.1 percent increase in total and it does represent 9.5 percent of the increase you see on Page 2 in the operating for the division. If you take out that 9.5 what you're really working with in our budget is a 4.91 percent increase in operating without the expanded and an 8.7 percent increase in operating with expanded items. So we're well within, in spite of fixed costs which went up quite a bit Page 68 June 22, 2006 whether they be electricity, insurance, fleet and other issues, we're well within the budget provisions. I will tell you that 3.8 of the 8.7 total operating increase is in some expanded items. I'll give you a brief overview for that and would ask that if you have any questions specifically on those let the directors go through in a little more detail the specifics. But in road and bridge you've got a new boom truck at $80,000. That one is coming out essentially of not only the road and bridge but actually the part of DOT portion of the budget, that happens to be on Page 44 that I'm referring to and I'm going to go by. And I will jump pages a little bit but I will tell you what page -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: You have to tell us what page you are on, yes. MR. FEDER: Page 44, sir. On Page 44 you see that boom truck and some definition of that. It is out of the state monies that we've got from the asset management and it is to do, as the name would imply, to allow them to reach particularly for sign repairs and other issues. I'll refer you then over to Page 41 on road and bridge, and you do have two other items there under our expanded. You've got 115,000 being requested for a road and bridge manager. This is an effort to provide some assistance to your road and bridge superintendent, Mr. Vliet. As we get into expanded programs he's got three programs particularly noted there. We're getting into a striping program, as our reflectivity issues indicate from our own efforts at doing roadway condition management and our performance measures, that we've got to put some concentration there. Additionally, we're focusing on an expanded effort that you provided for us last cycle on limerock road conversion. And then lastly, another item that is also on Page 48, which is a bridge study, would be another focus area. And that bridge study is a recognition that we have not, with all the aggressive programs we Page 69 June 22, 2006 have had, done a lot on our bridges that exist today. They are in good condition rating but they are going down to the point of needing some work in some of the bridges. And what we need is a full study to evaluate what does our program need to be in the future to basically consider, hopefully, more rehabilitation rather than replacement as time goes along. But to look at that and to establish a program to provide that guidance for us and for you in the future. Also back on Page 41 was two other last items in road and bridge. One is cartograph work order management system. The effort out of road and bridge, they are doing a good job with the resources they have but they have been looking for an automated work order management system to be able to give them what they really need, which is an idea of tasking and time so that they can really work with efficiencies and some of the performance measures they have tried to implement. We were going to try to get that out of a modular enhancement; of course, that didn't come about. Our traffic ops was using a cartograph, and we've worked with IT very strongly and they are comfortable with the cartograph. And we're going to bring that with your approval into the road and bridge as a way to get that automated work order management system that we need. The other is GIS on call for 50,000, and that supports, again through IT, the demands that we have both in being able to identify our network and the work through, and we've been in a big effort, as many of you have experienced, and I think unfortunately, with our efforts on citizen response issues as being able to fully identify specifically responsibility on roadways, whether they be private or whether they be county. It sounds like it should be a very easy thing to know but it's something we've been working very hard to get one listed fully and reviewed. And it isn't just a case of looking up on the plat, sometimes there are a lot of other issues and documents you need to go through to see what intent, what actions were taken over time. Page 70 June 22, 2006 As well, I'll bring you to alternative transportation. If you have any questions on those let me do that. John Vliet is here and he'll be happy to respond. There are quite a few but the total is not that large, but they have the boom truck, Florida DOT, the road and bridge manager, the bridge study itself, cartograph work order and the GIS on call. Those are the expanded items that are recommended within the road and bridge. Again, as I said, 3.81 percent increase is all of the expanded items proposed, which, along with our others is 8.7 percent, so well under the 12. Our emphasis was to identify some issues under unfunded and I'll go over that in a few minutes. If not what I'll do is jump in alternative transportation modes. You've got three items on Page 13 . You've got red route CAT service development, it shows 190,200, of which half of that or 95,125, actually not quite half I should say, but basically is a grant. So this is a matching to a grant to provide additional services on the red route. The red route is basically 41 and Airport, one of our first and one of our primary very heavily traveled routes. You have also on Page 13 the Marco Island circulator continuation. The reason this is shown as expanded, it was previously a grant. That grant is now out. This is to continue that, to take that on by the county fully itself. And then the last I'll identify for you in A TM is an increase to reserves. That is primarily in the area of the landscaping but nonetheless there is not a lot of reserves built into here, and there is a provision for reserves in that area of 174,000. I will, and that's noted I should say to you on, Page 16, reserves. If you have any questions, Diane Flagg, your director of alternative transportation modes I'm sure will be happy to respond. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would like to go through each of the presentations. MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, this is going to be the presentation. We're trying to make it very brief for you. Then we'll open to Page 71 June 22, 2006 questions and we'll go from there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. MR. FEDER: I will note just the others, and I'll try not to belabor, but I'm trying to make sure you know everything in here that's shown as an expanded item. Within engineering construction management we're looking for one vehicle, 18,500, construction supervisor. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page is that on? MR. FEDER: That is on Page 59. This individual never had a vehicle that is pre-assigned. His work is much more out in the field than it originally started out. As the supervisor of the engineering construction management team he's been using a private vehicle. We do get him a vehicle and it will be used quite a bit. On Page 51, going back two pages, we're looking at the largest, if you will, of these enhanced items is 500,000 for North Belle Meade corridor study. As you know there was a study done, level of study done originally to look at a haul route in the North Belle Meade area that concentrated typically north of I -75. There is a lot of issues coming forward relative to what is an alternative east of 951 for a north-south route, a lot of discussion about Ben Field Road. A lot of questions, though, with environmentally sensitive areas, ability to get over, traverse the interstate. So that's a big part of the focus of this is to equate those issues especially as we see development issues come in, and in some cases the possibility of providing portions of that corridor, but the question is, is the overall corridor viable and how would it be structured. Then further down on Page 37, you have the balance of items and what we're calling the type two areas and the type three areas. If you remember we had the unfortunate situation of an individual going off of one of the dead-end streets in the Estates and going into the canal. Fortunately, they were fine but we did make improvements at the end of that street, did do a full study of all of the dead-end canal streets out Page 72 June 22, 2006 in the Estates. The treatment, as we did in the study and provided over to the board previously, was to structure, based on how much visibility there is across the area where we had the most severe problems, which we've already addressed, essentially as you drove you had no real obstruction over to the roadway on the other side of the canal, there is a roadway on the opposite side, and somebody's red lights on the opposite side may have given the optical illusion that the roadway continued if someone is unfamiliar with the roadway. Those we've addressed. This is to address the others that have some of that level or feature, and if they have less of that to expand the dead-end streets signs and the issue of chevrons at the end. The last item we have that is a modification of the current program is on Page 67, stormwater, is a request for 100,000 for Stormview software. It's on Page 67 in the budget. And essentially this is to work some in their expanded efforts under the GIS and in establishing asset management for the stormwater section. So those are the items, as I said, we concentrated our efforts on keeping well within the 12 percent of what we control. We came in at 8.7 percent even with these expanded items. And then we identified some items under the unfunded requests that are very significant to us but we felt we needed to bring to the board in that manner for the board to decide within resources how to address. And those unfunded items in operation, would you like me to go over those now or are there any questions on the operating? Maybe we can take questions on the operating first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My questions are a little over the -- around a number of different subjects. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What contingency do you have Page 73 June 22, 2006 in your budget for inflation? I know we've seen unbelievable amounts of inflation over the last couple of years, anywheres from 40 percent in two years to 60 percent, depending where you're going with it. MR. FEDER: Really not so much in the operating because of course that is year to year. If you are asking me over in our capital program, we keep a five-year work program. Obviously, the way our issues get budgeted, the way they get paid out isn't year by year. So that carryforward is being reduced each year -- we've gone through and done updates based on current recent bids and our understanding of we're going with the market. At board direction we did increase our reserves each of the years on an escalating level of increase to the greater unknown further out, the further we get away from having plans already in hand, right-of-way already in hand. So we've done that in capital program. What that in effect does, though, is we have a very reduced program, almost none in the fifth year. Four common years became the new five years and a lot of reduction in the fourth year because obviously costs have gone up. Revenue stream is going up with impact fees having been raised. Gas taxes are pretty staid in that we are unable to index them. And our dollars from ad valorem have been set on an ongoing steady basis of 24 million. So those increases haven't eaten into the expanded in the outer end of the program. Did that answer your question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It does to a point. But also, too, you brought to us many times examples of where the state has fallen back on their plan because of a lack of proper planning for adequate funds to be available. Also another county, we've seen Lee County doing it, another county, is the inflation rate has caught up to them to the point they cannot function so they cut back on the road program by moving the item some time farther into the future. MR. FEDER: If I understand your question, our work program we added a new fifth year, four common years adding a new fifth Page 74 June 22, 2006 year, we do a five-year work program, obviously, for this board. We didn't add much of anything new in the fifth year. And we had impact fees that have increased, which the state couldn't have access to. The state situation was that they basically, their five-year work program, they took three years, stretched it out to the five, and eliminated what was their common year, fourth year, as we unfortunately well know because 15 million was taken out of Davis Boulevard. So in answer to your question we fared better because, not because our costs were so much less than theirs as increased costs over time, but because our impact fees as we've kept them up to cost have allowed us to maintain our program with a little bit of this revenue stream. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now going back to the state. You were talking about Davis. Where are we with that particular program at this time? I know this is mainly a state project. MR. FEDER: Yes. We're continuing to work with the state. We've worked with the state and with property owners in the area. We're trying to get reductions in the design and right-of-way demands and issues. And we're trying to get the state to bring forward more of the dollars that were lost, about 30 million of that 50. That hasn't happened yet but we've managed to reduce the scope to some degree. We've gotten some commitment to opportunity for right-of-way and we're doing everything on our end of the county to try and bring it forward for them to then step forward and fully fund it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question is, is that we know that this is our number two priority in the county. MR. FEDER: Actually, it was number one on our priority for only the last five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Number one, excuse me. And it always seems to slip. Is there a possibility that if we were to lend the state the money, in other words, to do the job up front to be able to get Page 75 June 22, 2006 it done sooner than later we could get reimbursed from the state and maybe be able to provide that needed service to our residents rather than wait until sometime in the distant future? MR. FEDER: That's a possible option. What you would do is, the state has a program where they can agree to advance a reimbursement outside of their five-year work program to a level-- again, do the whole program obviously that way to a level. If that level is not fully committed out then we could pursue that as a possibility -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there is a possibility that we could get it done if we became proactive with the idea that we had a reserve of money to work with? MR. FEDER: Yes. Ifwe can't get them to come forward with the dollars straight out with our efforts. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is that rate point in it? We're talking about time and time is money and time is a lack of roads. When do we reach that point where the break point comes, whether they come across to the money or not? MR. FEDER: Essentially, they had it not scheduled for program out until 2010. They have got a portion of the right-of-way, and as we've done things to reduce both the scope and requirements for right-of-way we're probably somewhat covered there. We still have to get the right-of-way, so in answer to your question I'm close to about 2009 or 2010 that I would have to have the dollars in hand to get it accelerated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, do you have a reserve that you could tap into at this time? MR. FEDER: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question if I may is I'm having -- and I commend this commission and everyone for stepping forward and moving the road issues forward many times in the past and making it the number one priority and staying with that. Page 76 June 22, 2006 And I thank you for the fact that we identified the Vanderbilt Beach corridor. I know that was very, very hard for all of us to do. Now we're at the point now where we have a program that we just recently have okayed to be able to go ahead with the advanced purchases. But that's only up to Wilson; is that correct? MR. FEDER: When you say advanced purchases, yes. What we're looking at as our first proj ect is out to Wilson. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. MR. FEDER: This will allow us to negotiate even in advance of 60 percent design plans, which you can only negotiate at that point for purchases. Again, using our appropriate right-of-way acquisition processes, the ones we use in every case, and each one becomes site specific to that particular site, to that issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the most part it's a generous program. I know, I've been through it with my daughter before. But I have a concern. We have a lot of people to the north of Wilson who are, excuse me, the east of Wilson who are very concerned. They are at the point in their life where they are ready to move on for one reason or another, many of them have homes in there. They are going to have a taking either of a home or just the property, and this is a real estate market at the moment that's been overinflated to the point where home sales are not going at the rate they were a couple of years ago. And so the market out there is wide open. The choices are, or the chance of these people selling their land with a cloud of a road going through one place or the other greatly diminishes their ability to sell. And we have some people out there that would be very, very willing sellers if they could come to some sort of agreement. I'm not saying that we have to go and raid the kitty to be able to reach this money now, but let me ask it this way. When would that funding become available for the other side of Wilson by the normal occurrence of the money coming in in the budget years? Page 77 June 22, 2006 MR. FEDER: If would be a ways out. What we have recommended to you as one of our unfunded requests is monies for advance right-of-way acquisition. This might be an application. Again, we have a number of people that come to our attention, some that are on the corridor where we know we'll probably be acquiring right-of-way but we don't have design plans yet, some that are off the corridor that probably won't be part of an acquisition program. But what I will tell you is that we are asking for the advance right-of-way acquisition dollars out in this program right now because we have a very different situation with our program as it starts to move out to the east. In the past in the urbanized area generally this board was able to help us secure at least some commitment under PUDs, plats, developments to reserve right-of-ways that were needed even if we had to pay for them and get them assessed and pay for them later. They were basically reserved or maintained for future facilities. Out in the Estates it's parcel by parcel, and therefore the advanced acquisition becomes even more important because they are not developing in a PUD manner. So I think, to answer your question, we are asking for some dollars to be able to do that or in other acquisitions along corridors that are maybe a little bit further out but nonetheless obvious that we're developing where we know that we need the right-of-way and to the extent that we need the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll come back and ask some questions later. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what we'll do is we'll take a recess and be back at 1:02. (Lunch recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And we're Page 78 June 22, 2006 reconvening here the Collier County fiscal proposed budget for 2007. And I believe Norm Feder had a few items he wanted to touch on before we continued our questioning. So, Norm, if you would -- MR. FEDER: Yes. I'll be extremely brief. I just remind you that our operating budget once you took out 9.5 percent for the MSTUs is a total of 8.7 percent increase. We went through the expanded items that were included in that 8.7 which is well under the 12 percent budget guidance. I will tell you that as well as we put an emphasis on some areas of focus that are in your unfunded requests. I know we're not necessarily going to address those or decide them today, but I'll just bring it to your attention very briefly that on page 12 in the beginning of your budget book, the unfunded requests that we're bringing forward to you, the first is to try and establish a revolving right-of-way acquisition fund. And in response to a question from Commissioner Coletta, I covered some of that and some of the reasons why, but particularly it's important as our program goes out into the estates where we're not dealing with large landowners for the most part and individual property owners, so you have that for ten million along with two acquisition specialists and appraiser to try and get that program movIng. Additionally, we're recommending under UFR for your consideration should funds be available a Sunday service transit, 305,000. Then down under the -- those were in General Fund. Under 111 we're looking at lawn mark conversion program, an additional 5.1 million to allow us to get to what would be the total funding if we tried to move on that program that way. Hurricane reserve in Fund 112, which is the landscaping, and then lastly a resurfacing of Airport Road which, although we have a resurfacing program, the doors (phonetic) not that high. And that facility is about 1.5 million, so we've identified it as a separate UFR or unfunded request. Particularly the right-of-way requests in some of these we'd ask you to consider as Page 79 June 22, 2006 they come forward probably later this fall for consideration should there be budget. Having said that, we've got our capital program. We've done that in detail with you in the past. Again, we work on a five-year program. So we're going to have projects and dollars that are going to carryforward either because we're saving for a project like, for instance, saving up impact fees for Oil Well or because we've committed the dollars to right-of-way but they don't get encumbered until we actually make a parcel-by-parcel negotiation or enter into the court or because of construction as payout curves. So that's why you see some of that from year to year. And that's why our program is basically brought to you in a five-year work program as opposed to just concentrating on the percentages here in the budget. That being said, I and the directors are open for any questions you have on the capital, the operating or the UFRs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning, I believe you have some questions to ask. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Flagg, the Golden Gate beautification MSTU, it's more than -- well, it's 140 or 134 percent. I'd rather bite the apple one bite at a time instead of once. Can we bring that down to, like, 15 percent? I'm asking you to bring it down as 15 percent. MS. FLAGG: The Golden Gate MSTU is -- their ordinance in Naples, the advisory committee to make the budgetary decisions. The advisory committee has requested the funding to fully landscape and put lighting on Sunshine Boulevard. And that's where that funding is identified for its -- their main capital project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You saying we don't have a say-so in it? MS. FLAGG: Well, the ordinance that the board enacted for these MSTUs gives the MSTU Advisory Committee the ability to Page 80 June 22, 2006 make the budgetary decisions and recommendations to the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recommendations to the board? MS. FLAGG: Correct. So this -- this is the MSTU's recommendation to the board for use of their funding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to recommend to the Board of Commissioners who makes the decision, you know, at a 15 percent level, I think it's good enough. And, you know, a lot of working family out there and a lot of them purchased their homes recently at double and triple what -- what I consider their true value is, what the value should be because we all know it's escalated. The-- that's going to be my recommendation. MS. FLAGG: The only thing I would offer is that their millage hasn't changed. But, again, when we get to the assessed value and all the rest of it -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I totally recognize that. MS. FLAGG: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing is the MSTU for Radio Road -- MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what was the total capital improvement for the curbing and alike for Radio Road that we're getting ready to do? MS. FLAGG: What -- what we've decided to do there, because transportation needs to make some revisions to the roadway along Radio Road as we've broken it out into a phased project, so the Radio Road MSTU will be curbing generally from the area of Santa Barbara west to about that first trailer park there. That will be Phase 1. And then the rest of it as transportation finishes the intersection revisions, then they'll be curbing the balance of it. So the budget that's in the budget for this year is for that Phase 1 part of the project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the cost? MS. FLAGG: They haven't finished the cost yet. It's being Page 81 June 22, 2006 redesigned at this point to accommodate just Phase 1. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When will that be done? MS. FLAGG: Probably within the next 60 days. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So before the budget is adopted? MS. FLAGG: Yes. The design should be completed before the budget's adopted, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- okay. So you'll let me know on that. Well, before I go on I want to ask my colleagues if they would assist me in -- in bringing that MSTU -- the Golden Gate MSTU down to a 15 percent increase. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to respond to Commissioner Henning. If somebody else would like to, then I can wait to -- that's okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I thought you were reaching-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I do have my button on. But I hear you and I'll be honest with you, when it comes to the MSTUs, I do have some questions about some other ones too. Usually I would be empowered -- somebody correcting me on something? I thought I heard a voice out there. We -- we take the advice of the committee that comes together for that MSTU. I would say that we would wait for guidance during tomorrow at one o'clock when we have the public speakers come. I really would like to hear from the community. Because, I mean, we have one element of the community saying, yes, do it. And if we've got another element of the community that says, no, cut it back. Then I'm more than willing to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just don't -- I want to -- I want to make sure that we're -- we're doing something that's the will of the people. I think it's admirable that you're trying to cut back on the cost Page 82 June 22, 2006 for people on that, but I'm not too sure. That particular effort that they've been putting forward has been absolutely beautiful for years. And I don't know if it's going to diminish if we cut back on it or not. Now, maybe some members of the Civic Association could come forward and give us their input on it too. I'd feel a little more comfortable. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I -- I can tell you, Commissioner Henning, that when you look at possibly like Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, they've got a general goal in mind. And that is they're trying to accumulate as much -- many funds as possible so that they can bury power lines. So, you know, just to let you know up front what that particular MSTU is doing. Now, I'm not sure what the people in Golden Gate are planning on doing with their funding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Ms. Flagg just stated the bottom line we are responsible for when the people get their tax bills. It's not these advisory boards. And they've done some great things out there in Golden Gate with beautification and been very aggressive of it. And I just feel that those people -- that people within a taxing district need a break. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, maybe what you ought to do is-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, ultimately-- ultimately, I'm responsible when -- when those people go to the polls whether I made a good decision or not. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What you need to do is maybe get with the MSTU group out there and see what their goal is, why they have that money there. If not, then you're absolutely right, but I would give them a chance to answer what's going on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know what's going on. They want to put lighting and -- MS. FLAGG: They want to fully landscape Sunshine Boulevard. So they want to put in curbing which the curbing is going in right now. And then they have scheduled for the landscaping and the Page 83 June 22, 2006 pedestrian lighting. And that's why their funds -- they're using the same mileage that they've used in past years, but that's what they're directing their project dollars towards. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- just on that particular one. Is the lighting for safety purposes? MS. FLAGG: Some of it -- it will light Sunshine Boulevard up more than it currently is. So I guess any additional lighting is helpful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now they have some problems there; right? MS. FLAGG: There's minimal lighting on Sunshine currently. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll tell you the reason I got some misgivings on it. And I'd like to hear from the public. Recently when we -- we're talking about the library for Golden Gate, we changed the design and came forward for the initial look being from something that had a little ambience to it, a curve to it to assign more functional as we called it. And it sounded like a great idea at the time, but a number of your constituents came back to me and said, How could you let it happen? I said, Well, it wasn't -- I -- just going for what I think the people wanted. Maybe I misunderstood. But it wasn't one or two. It was a number of people. So, you know, when those kind of things happen, you start to get a little bit of doubt. Am I going the right direction on this? Am I meeting the needs of what the people want? So when we come up with the public speakers at one o'clock, that would be a good time for them to weigh in. Then, again, too, this thing is going to be ongoing for some time and I personally am going to query some of the people in Golden Gate City to try to get a feeling for what they want. I got no problem cutting back on something if that's what the residents want, absolutely none whatsoever. But going to the other part there since we're on these MSTUs, I see where Sable Palm Road, who is dormant one time then all of a Page 84 June 22, 2006 sudden it accelerates, it's taken a nice sized jump in the amount of money that they're looking for to raise this year. MS. FLAGG: Hang on one second. I think we reduced it. MR. FEDER: On page 29. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe I'm not reading it right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're on page 7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Page 7. MS. FLAGG: Yes. Sable Palm Road was actually a reduction this year. It's a reduction of $98 per 100,000 in taxable value. We actually reduced it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What's the 98.4 percent change at the far end? MS. FLAGG: 99.4 is a reduction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't show a minus or in brackets. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, can I call your attention to page 29 where that's detailed out in greater detail and I think that may help you? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 29 of transportation? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's on page 7? MR. FEDER: What? CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is on page 7 on the overview, general overview? MR. FEDER: That's the basic overview. Twenty-nine then goes into further detail. The numbers will jive in the bottom line, but this breaks it out more so you can see what's happening. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What am I looking at on page 20? MS. FLAGG: Go -- go down to where it says revenue FY'06-'07 and then you'll see that the mileage is 1.0023 mills which reflects a reduction of $98.58 per 100,000. Page 85 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. As long as -- I know that the forestry has stepped in. That's one of the reasons why I was getting a little excited. I was looking at the other numbers. The forestry has stepped in and assumed some responsibility -- MS. FLAGG: Which is why we reduced it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for some of the roads there. And I would assume that their cost of doing business there has gone down considerably. MS. FLAGG: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I -- I give you a lot of credit for that. Thank you very much for that. May I go on with some other questions? Unless somebody else wants to enter something about MSTUs, I can wait. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was your question, Commissioner Henning on -- okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On -- going back to it, we already discussed David -- Davis Boulevard and the projects that's there. I'd like to talk about a couple more, if I may. And -- and all these projects are very dear to many, many people's hearts. Everglades Boulevard interchange and I appreciate very much last year the commission coming up with the -- was it 750? MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the feasibility study. By the way, I'm not all that excited what's coming back so far and I'll share that with you at another time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not. I'm freelancing here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just generalities. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Page 86 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder-- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the people that I represent, they -- they have great concerns that this may get lost along the way, the proj ect for Everglades Boulevard. I know we have nothing planned in money this year. I do know that this commission has made it the No. 1 priority of our federal legislation initiatives that we were looking for. I also know that no money's forthcoming from the Federal Government this year. Weighing all of that, at what point in time would we want to see the next step monetarily as far as moving this to the next level? MR. FEDER: Okay. First thing, the 750,000 previously provided by the board is being utilized for two-phased activity. One, for the feasibility study. And then the second for assuming that successfully -- the interchange justification request which is the first thing we have to do to get federal highway even concurring that an interchange is a viable item to be considered. Those studies done -- when do we expect completion on those? MR. SCOTT: Well, if you're talking about when would we come back for -- say we don't get -- first of all, we'll find out this year if we get federal authorization. We would be asking for money if we don't get anything in next year's budget for a PD&E, study then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And next year's budget we already have that projected in our five-year plan that we're going to need that money? MR. SCOTT: No. If you're -- I'm -- I'm strictly going by timing at this point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we really don't know if we're going to need the money or not next year, but if we do, we don't have a plan in advance to have that money? MR. SCOTT: We were first going for whatever we could get out of federal authorization. Page 87 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course. And we also agreed some time ago in our MPO meetings and everything that if we can advance projects with some of our own money, that the federal and the state government pays attention and fess up and helps to move the project forward that much farther, a local buy-in, as we say. And we're seeing that more and more throughout the state. Thank you very much for giving me the experience with the MPOAC. It's something. That's the new direction it's going. In other words, local community buys in. State and federal is right behind there. The more you buy in, the faster you buy in, the faster the project happens. I -- I think that premise is correct; right? MR. SCOTT: And I think we're doing a lot that around the county compared to what we're getting in state and federal funding too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that. But the truth of the matter is, we can only work what's there, the funding. If we wait predicated upon funding for everything that happened at a certain point in time, then that -- that's the driving influence as far as the time line goes is when that funding comes in. Meanwhile, like Davis Boulevard, if we have the opportunity to be able to advance it and be able to get paid back on another date when the federal and the state funding comes forward, that gives us a time advantage over any other scenario that could take place; right? MR. SCOTT: Yes. And also like we discussed at the MPO meeting. That locks that money in. We get paid first versus some other county's project in that given year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I want to take a minute and talk about the Immokalee Bypass 2982 going around the back of the airport. Something we talked about for a long time and -- and I praise this commission. I praise our state legislative people and all the people that got involved in this process and bringing this forward where we got a strategic and a mobile system. We got a buy-in from Page 88 June 22,2006 Lee County. Things are moving forward, but we're still looking many, many years out before this thing sees any light before we can get a traffic reliever from 75 over there north or about even with Fort Myers down to 29 all the way out to 75. Is there a possibility that somewheres along the line we might be able to influence the outcome of this by some local dollars. MR. SCOTT: Well, at the moment we have a PD&E study that's -- that FDOT has programmed for next year. But we have an immediate problem where through EDTM comments there's concerns about panther impact. And we have to get over that first. I was actually sitting there this morning I had a message where FDOT and their consultant wants to get -- get -- to get -- get together some time in the next three weeks to try to resolve that issue. If we don't resolve that issue, we can't get the PD&E study going. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But then, again, too, we're talking about money to make it all work. And if there's a panther study undoubtedly that's going to cost a lot of money. And judging by the fact that they're willing to charge -- Fish and Wildlife's willing to charge Habitat for Humanity, like, $3 million in Immokalee for panther mitigation. They're probably going to do something to us. Especially since we already heard this morning that the airport is considered prime panther habitat. So what I'm saying to you is that -- do we have enough money in our contingency budget to be able to cover this so that we can move forward when that time does come? MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, the first -- the first portion of it what we do have in our priorities and it's in the MPO priorities is a corridor study in case we can't answer the -- the questions for EDTM and roll for into the PD&E study. Because FDPT will not -- with questions hanging out there, will not start their PD&E study and -- and look at the alternative of the loop bypass. They'll go back to just looking at 29 itself and 29A which is not what we want to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you for that one. If I Page 89 June 22, 2006 may, two more questions or would you rather come back to me? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. Just go ahead and finish them up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. We're talking about in the UFR list $10 million to be able to do advance purchases of property for our right-of-way. And that's very humane. And just approximately how many properties do we have west of Wilson Boulevard that we're going to be concerned about? MR. SCOTT: The total parcel county is somewhere around 350. I guess if you assume it's half and half, it's probably about 150, 175. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: About 100 -- say 150. If there's 150 of them and some of them have homes on it, today a lot that's five acres with a decent home on it is usually worth pretty close to a million dollars. How far will $10 million go? MR. FEDER: Most of those -- most of those are not taking home, rather taking a portion of land at the back of the property. But, obviously, if I go to that equation if it's a million dollar home and 10 million that was requested, that's ten. So, obviously, ten million, while it's a high number, is not going to buy a lot of advance acquisition, but it does allow us to get into that program aggressively. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. But when the money runs out, it runs out? MR. FEDER: That's one option. The other things we're looking at is -- is if we did take a home, can we then lease that back. Or if we take a whole take where it's required to take a whole take, not just because someone wants us to. But if it's required and we take a whole take, could we then sell the remainder back including the house afterwards, replenish that fund for additional right-of-way acquisition? We're continuing to work with our legal staff right now on the lease-back issues, on the sell-back options trying to evaluate those to bring to you whether or not we end up in this program. We're going to have to address some of those issues as we go out into the estates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the -- for the lime rock Page 90 June 22, 2006 conversion, we got down -- you mentioned 5.1. Is that cumulative or is that just the UFR list? MR. FEDER: That is the UFR list. Additional dollars in addition to basically about 1.8 million. There's our current program based on your actions of prior budget sessions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we took that money and we doubled it by having the residents out there, do what they said they wanted to do at our last community meeting and that's to have a 50/50 match, how many miles of road would that get us done in the estates next year? MR. FEDER: We're getting our bids in right now. They're coming in a little better than we anticipated. We thought up to about six hundred thousand, maybe a little closer to five. So, obviously, if each mile, and I've got 97, about 500,000. It depends what we have for dollars. But that get us another 20 miles. And then if you double that, we're -- we're moving pretty quick on trying to get the issue addressed if those funds were available. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. I appreciate you allowing me to go on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- where -- where's the County Road 951 grant that was -- is programmed for -- from the State of Florida? MR. FEDER: Let's show the grid. We'll get that for you. MR. SCOTT: It's in the reimbursed. MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. SCOTT: If you look at the capital-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page? MR. FEDER: Sixty-three. MR. SCOTT: And you look towards the bottom, it has grants and reimbursements. Those are by year. Like, the bottom section, it's right in the middle of the bottom of the section. Page 91 June 22, 2006 MR. FEDER: Page 63. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Wait a minute. I got-- I'm in the capital fund. MR. FEDER: Yeah. That's what this is, page 63. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mine goes that way. It says grants, nothing. MR. FEDER: Reimbursements. In that case it's a grant, but it's one we have to payout and then we get reimbursed, so we show it under reimbursements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it on the visualizer? MR. FEDER: Do you have it on the visualizer? MR. SCOTT: Put it on five years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's one page that I have. MR. SCOTT: In the middle here, grants reimbursements by year. So it's $19 million in the -- $19,036,000 in the first year and then each year after that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't really want to get into this discussion at this point in time, but since we've been talking about specific projects and how we get them funded, with respect to something like the Davis Boulevard and the 951 intersection project, I really don't see any reason why the county taxpayers should advance that money. If -- if there is a need for that proj ect to proceed more quickly, it should be done through developer contributions, end of story. And we ought to specify that up front. And just say, Look, you want that accelerated, don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out. If you want it accelerated, then you step up to the counter and you plop down your money. You advance it. And then when the state Page 92 June 22, 2006 reimburses it sometime in the future, then -- then that's fine. But we -- we shouldn't burden the taxpayers of Collier County with trying to accelerate that road in order to accommodate people who want to develop. And I think we'll find it moves a lot faster that way. It'll get done faster, but it won't get done with -- on the backs of the Collier County taxpayers. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we agree. As I said, we're exploring all options. Our first was to try to get it scaled down to meet its purpose to get right-of-ways provided. The other we've been looking at that with development community if they want to advance it. One thing we're trying to do, though, in both cases is if we can get those dollars advanced, I'm sure that will come with impact fee credit issues. So we want to make sure we've got an agreement from Florida DOT to then provide the monies as early as we can as reimbursement into our program. So we agree. And I said, we're exploring all options. And until we get any of those specified, we have nothing that we've brought to the board, but we're continuing to work with DOT. We'd like them just to fund it outright, but that hasn't happened yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's useful to accomplish our ultimate goal is that earlier we get that word out officially, the better off we are. Because the people are going to think that taxpayers of Collier County are going to step up, pull the money out of something somewhere and advance the funds for that proj ect, then they're not going to be interested in sitting down and talking about a developer agreement. But if they know that nothing is likely to be approved that doesn't meet the concurrency system, then -- then I think we'll get people beginning to look at development agreements. MR. SCOTT: We are -- we've had those conversations. And even particularly that corner, as you know, is a lot of vested development with one of the larger vested developments prepaying Page 93 June 22, 2006 their impact fees and then we get paid back later on so... COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I -- just there's been a lot of conversation about how the taxpayers up front this thing. And I just -- I wanted us to get away from that discussion and say, How do we get somebody else to up front it? It won't change the schedule. It might improve the schedule doing it that way, but it certainly doesn't force the taxpayers to -- to take that burden on. And I think we should use that -- that concept every where we're talking here. And -- and let me -- let me hasten to add that -- that this is not much different than proportionate fair share with one exception. If we have a development agreement, we can also control when that is going to start. So the development agreement is much preferred as a vehicle than proportionate fair share. MR. SCOTT: We've had those discussion with them, too, based on recent board meetings and discussions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just on this Golden Gate beautification MSTU, what is the millage rate we charge on that? And can you tell me how much that adds up to for a $100,000 house? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's half a mill, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Half a mill? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Half a mill. So it's $50 per 100,000 of taxable value. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sorry. For the record, Michael Smykowski on view director. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to expand on what Commissioner Coyle said which I totally agree with. But that's actually advance funding to the state if it's -- if it's their project; correct? Page 94 June 22, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Yeah. But it would still be our -- our share coming back, our federal and state funds coming back in the future. So, essentially, if the county enters an agreement with the developer contribution agreement and then we fund that, we would get paid back by them. We'd also enter an agreement with the state to get paid back those funds. MR. FEDER: And we want to ensure that we have that agreement with the state as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So if we enter into a DCA with a developer like Commissioner Coy Ie is saying, advance funding, we'll get that money back from the state eventually? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And monies like that could be -- possibly to be used what Commissioner Coletta is saying, is the advance right-of-way acquisition; correct? MR. FEDER: Only -- only where the state has a project or an interest in programming. And Davis, obviously, is a state facility. And whether it's right-of-way or construction where we can we're trying to create that advancement, but we want to make sure we get paid back even if it's outside their current five-year work program as I mentioned. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. FEDER: If I understand your question is generally in the advanced right-of-way issues that we're raising around the county, is that what you're saying on Davis? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm saying -- I'm saying if we enter a DCA, it's no money out of our pocket to get that project done. We end up coming back as in a reimbursement from the state, we could use those funds for other things. That -- that's what I'm trying to say. And some of the things that Commissioner Coletta is concerned about maybe we could fund something like that. And it was my understanding that there was some interest into a contribution, Page 95 June 22, 2006 a multitude of -- of property owners for Davis Boulevard and US 41 South. MR. FEDER: Both -- both areas, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So-- MR. FEDER: And, again, we are trying to get those issues brought forward once we feel that we have something, in fact, provides a public benefit -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. FEDER: -- we bring them to the board and we've done that in the past and will continue to do so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you. I just want to clear up any misconceptions that I want to build the roads on the back of the taxpayers to the exception of the developers that are out there. I personally have interceded through this commission many times to get the right-of-way for such things as 951, Immokalee Road, Oil Well Road at no cost to the county. The future roads that are coming down and we work very closely with everyone and we got this through. I never would spend a dime of the taxpayers' money when there's a developer out there that can step forward in doing it. However, with that said, I'm just concerned that we might not have enough to be able to cover our end of it. Because the developer's not going to pay 100 percent for the whole thing. I just don't want to get to the point we get to in our budget year where we have no way to be able to recoup and we have to wait for a whole other budget year to come around to come up with our share to be able to match what's there with the developer. By all means, look at all the options that are out there, but always get the money from the developers first. And tell them if they don't come up with the money now, then they're going to have to wait another five years. And, of course, they'll come up with it because they're not going to sit on that property, the investment they Page 96 June 22, 2006 got. They're going to come up with it sooner than later. But whatever your shortage is after that point, I don't want to wait one year longer. I want to make sure that the funds are there to be able to step in and provide for the taxpayers to what they've been asking us to do for all these years we've been here. MR. FEDER: I think I hear a consistent direction. And I think that's the way we've been seeking to pursue and will continue to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. I guess that's it. I want to thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You understand that our action was we approved the budget with a 20 percent reduction? MR. FEDER: Thank you again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just in their pay -- in their pay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in administration. Just kidding. PUBLIC UTILITIES MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- the next division will be Public Utilities Division. MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator. Good afternoon, Commissioners. The mission of public utilities is to provide sustainable services that meet our customers' demands, ensure optimal value and quality. As a team we have approached that commission by never losing sight of our ever continuing mission to stay in compliance, meet demand with sustainable and reliable resources, to serve the customers' needs with both excellence and humility, consistently building that collective of empowered, skilled and trained team members that are going to serve us today and provide for our future. We operate in your Page 97 June 22, 2006 strict guidance. All that we do is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code, our ordinances and utilization and inventory report and, finally, your approval of our master plans. Now, over the last couple years we've earned a solid reputation for excellence and I'd like to talk about that a minute, if I might. Recently we've achieved two national regional level awards for our operational excellence. We received feedback from peers across the country with regard to our operations of water and wastewater through the American Waterworks Association. The Qualisor (phonetic) report, as you may recall, was very, very complementary of our operation. We have met demand and sustained compliance in one of the toughest springs and winters with regard to dryness, lack of rainfall. And we've not reduced pressures and we've kept potable water available to all our customers per prescribed service levels. And I think that we had an exceptional record of service and -- and response and recovery with regard to the last hurricane season particularly in our debris removal program, but certainly that's just one aspect of what this great team was able to do. And I have an update for you this morning that I'm very proud to report as well. And a couple of you were on the commission, I believe, when we received a consent order in the early 2000/2001 period because we had not remained concurrent both in compliance in meeting demand in our wastewater program. And Dr. Yilmaz has an update for you at this moment -- moment. Dr. Yilmaz. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you, sir. I'm pleased to inform our Board of County Commissioners and our county managers that the -- the consent order that would be in effect till year 2016, we just had the confirmation that will be early closed and lifted ten years in advance due to our continuous process -- progress as well as operational excellence with the support we have received from the board and our leadership. So I'm informed yesterday and I'd like to share that good Page 98 June 22, 2006 news with you. And we thank you for your support. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for ajob well done. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you. MR. DELONY: This is historical in some respects to have a regulatory agency such as the FTEP to take a risk, but I don't think it really was a risk. I believe we built trust and confidence in them and as well as our team to stay in cOlnpliance. And I'd just like to tell you today that we get to run our utility again as opposed to having the state telling us how to run it. And I appreciate your support. And we are certainly looking to staying where we are and even getting better. The division consists of seven departments. They're all represented here. Let me run those through you for the public. We have an administration function, a financial operations function, water, wastewater services, solid waste, pollution control and, of course, project management engineering. All these services are chartered either by a state legislation, county ordinances or working under some state or federal permit. We also were provide -- provide response and instant command management for ESF3. That's elnergency support and three. And ten for the county emergency management function. And we provide those services as required either as in first response or in recovery. Public utilities is 100 percent reimbursable through enterprise funding for all departments within the division with the exception of our pollution control. In the budget you have before you today finds the resources required to deliver quality services that are safe, compliant, that are sustainable in terms of our assets, of our plants and our collections and network systems. It provides for the planning construction of facilities to meet the demand per the AUIR. We provide for collection recycling and disposal of our solid waste as well as operation of our landfills. And, finally, it provides for revenue Page 99 June 22, 2006 collection, financial and (inaudible) service through our revenue department. Now, we prepared this budget from a bottom-up, needs-based approach, then incorporated your strategic direction, the division's goals, objectives and the work plans in conjunction with guidance received from the county manager. And we believe this budget culminates what has been a cycle of fiscal management activities that have successfully -- and just this past month allowed for completion of a master plan that you approved, a rate study which you approved and an impact-fee study that you approved with the guidance to come back two years and do it all over again because that's the nature of our business. The bottom line throughout that process we have right sized this budget to ensure we've met your intent. That growth indeed pays for growth. And our current users do not carry the burdens of concurrency expansion as prescribed through our Growth Management Plan and AUIR. Our constant focus is on commodity product delivery, sustainability ensuring we address the modernization, replacement and renewal facilities and infrastructure. We also seek to ensure that our -- that we have the right size in both the staff and the levels of training that achieve optimal in terms of service, delivery and compliance. The division's FY'07 operating budget is about $97.4 million and represents a 10.3 percent increase over the FY'06 adopted budget, therefore, meeting the guidelines set down by the board and the manager to be under 12 percent. The proposed budget also includes an additional request for in-house personnel resources necessary to achieve the required mission critical in those inherently governmental tasks associated with our mission. And within the budget that you have before you today and before these additional resources in terms of personnel are approved, we've got about $1.3 million in contracted services that could be eliminated Page 100 June 22, 2006 from the budget if in-house personnel are approved and, indeed, hired. In this scenario, the budget, therefore, would be an increase of only 9.6 percent versus 10.3 percent. With regard -- in regard to our capital budget which will be briefed as well as our operational budget, currently we've programmed $97.2 million for new construction starts this year. And we have $225 million for ongoing projects for a total of $322 million in our capital program. With regard to the board's guidance on budget, the only area we're not meeting is in the area of overtime. We have an overtime budget today that we are presenting of about $932,000 which is approximately a quarter of a million dollars more than your guidance. Now, within that amount we have about 56 percent which is budgeted to respond to after-hour calls many of which are recovered in terms of cost. For example, should a contractor or someone bump a pipe and we have to fix it, we charge them to fix it. Yet those costs are budgeted as overtime. I actually recover a lot of this money back. I don't have the numbers in front of me here today, but we do budget all those overtime events, after-hour events as overtime. That's 56 percent of our request. The other 44 percent deal with manning critical shifts in our plants and other areas to make up for vacation and absences associated with sick leave and so on. With regard to this particular overtime target that we've put in this budget, it's about 80 percent below our FY'05 experience and is line with exception of what we experienced during Wilma for our current '06 execution. I'm -- have with me today all the public utilities department directors. And I can tell you without -- with all -- with all commitment and candor, never a finer bunch of folks I've ever worked with in my career of over 30 years of public service. They're professional. They're dedicated and highly talented and committed to this county's success. They are here today to present in turn an overview of their individual department budgets and, of course, Page 101 June 22, 2006 prepared to provide any response to questions that you have. I am prepared for your questions or we can begin with my first director, Mr. Ray Smith, from pollution control. Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Continue on. I don't see any questions at this point. MR. DELONY: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Ray Smith, director of pollution control department, for the record. The department's proposed FY'07 budget is found on pages 4 through lOin the Public Utility Division section of the budget document before you. The pollution control and prevention department is a customer-driven organization. Bottom line, it is our team's focus is on ensuring that the health, safety and welfare of the community and our very sensitive environment are protected from pollutants. The department implements those programs listed on page 5 in accordance with the county's Pollution Control Ordinance 89-20, the Growth Management Plan, state mandates, sludge disposal and transportation ordinance and the ground water protection Land Development Code Section 3.06, all approved by the Board of County Commissioners. These projects are designed to protect the county's sensitive water resources that we rely heavily on for our drinking water and recreational use while also protecting the public's health, safety and welfare. These programs are not discretionary. They are a necessity to meet the demands of one of the fastest growing counties in the state of Florida. In recent years with the increase in hurricane activity, the pollution control and prevention department along with my fellow department -- departments within the division are -- play -- have played a major role with responding to associated pollutant releases and/or needs associated with the hurricane events. During these events, the team works at an emergency operation center twenty-four Page 102 June 22, 2006 hours a day, seven days a week. And also plays a lead role in the first response and clean up of pollutant releases caused by these events. The proposed budget is not based on enterprise funding like the other departments within the public utilities division. The pollution control and prevention department's budget allows up to one-tenth of a mill of ad valorem taxes to be levied towards the Water Pollution Control Fund, Fund 114 in your package. I will now like to bring your attention to page 4, the proposed net operating budget for fiscal year '07 is $2,992,100 resulting in a millage rate reduction from 0.347 to 0.321. There are no requested UFRs within the proposed pollution control budget, though there are three requested items that are needed to ensure compliance and to meet our customers' demands. These items are found towards the middle of page 8 under expanded FY'06-'07 portion of the write-up. And they include, one, a $200,000 study to identify sensitive aquifer recharge areas east of County Road 951. Two, an environmental specialist position that is needed to bring the department back into compliance with the state mandated hazardous waste inspections. And, three, a chemist position that is needed to bring the department back into compliance with the county's Growth Management Plan which requires ground water and surface water monitoring to identify and address pollutant sources. Without the -- without the approval of the requested two FTEs, the only other remaining option is to spend an additional $68,000 to maintain compliance and meet the demand. This $68,000 represents sending an additional $45,000 or spending an additional $45,000 to send samples to a contracted laboratory and hiring a technical temporary help, an additional $23,000. (Phone ringing.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It'll just be a moment. MR. SMITH: Did I get a vote for me? MR. DELONY: Is it like that show on TV where you call in and you vote for your favorite director or is it lifeline? Okay . We just got Page 103 June 22, 2006 a lifeline, Ray. MR. SMITH: In addition -- in addition the department is operating within the county manager's overtime use guidelines. The Water Pollution Grant Fund 116 or 116 begins on page 9. This represents a cost of implementing the South Florida Water Management District water quality monitoring contract that is fully funded by this -- by this contract. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. -- Mr. Smith, some of the performances, the duties that you perform is petroleum gas tank storages, wastewater treatment compliance and inspection monitoring of wells, I think it is? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I would like to see if -- if we can bill those people or actually create a fee for that service instead of coming out of ad valorem dollars. I mean, gas tanks, storage tanks, it's very important they don't leak but, you know, the general taxpayer doesn't create that storage, businesses do. MR. SMITH: The petroleum storage tank petroleum -- excuse me, the petroleum storage tank compliance inspection program is funded by FDEP. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SMITH: We receive funding from that organization to inspect those facilities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about like -- like in Mr. Delony's case where -- where you're monitoring his wells or monitoring his waste? No? You're not monitoring water/sewer? MR. SMITH: No, sir. No, sir. MR. DELONY: These are others, sir. These are others. These are others rather than me, rather than the utility that sits here. The other small package plants in the county. Page 104 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody's going to be monitoring? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. And that's who -- what Mr. Smith does and needs to. That's -- that's who does -- who he does, but not this utility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you monitor the wells at the landfill; right? MR. SMITH: We are paid for those services. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. MR. MUDD: Ray? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on. MR. SMITH: Okay. I will now turn the presentation of the public utilities division budget over to Mr. Wides, Tom Wides, director of the public utilities operation department. MR. WIDES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Tom Wides, operations director for public utilities. I'd like to take -- start to take you through some of the detail of the budget that we're submitting to you. If I can ask you to turn to page 14, we'll talk about the first cost center within the division in your book. This is the administration cost center. And it is -- it is the management and oversight for the entire division, operations and capital programs and administration of all the operations activities. The budget in this cost center for 19 -- excuse me, for 2007 is requested at $413,500. Are there any questions on this, on this cost center? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't see any. Continue. MR. WIDES: At that point, let me take you to page 15. The Page 105 June 22, 2006 mission for the financial operations area which includes my staff and the staff of the utility billing group is to provide sound fiscal and operational assessment to division operations, to work with the county finance committee to provide required external financing for the division and also, as I mentioned, the billing and code enforcement functions for the solid waste department. If I can have you turn to the page 18, this will portray the budget for this department. Again, the proposed FY'07 operating budget for this department is $11.9 million, actually, 11,866,900. Of that $11.9 million, 5.7 million or approximately 48 percent of that budget is for payment in lieu of property taxes for our division operations and the indirect costs that we give back to the other agents or the other departments within the county Inanager's agency for their support, such as the IT department, human resources, purchasing and others. In addition to that information, I have John Y onkowsky here today to talk to some of the other changes in the budget that are related to the utility billing area. Before I turn it over to John, are there any other questions I may answer? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't see any at this time. Continue on. MR. WIDES: John. MR. YONKOWSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is John Yonkowsky. I'm the utility billing and customer service director. The billing and customer service department budget is imbedded in the financial operations department budget on page 15 through 19 of your budget book. The mission of the departn1ent is to provide professional customer service executed with tact, courtesy and respect for all of the customers of the public utilities division. Services include accurate and timely billing and receivable management for water, wastewater and solid waste customers. This Inission statement is closely aligned to the county and division mission. Utility billing and customer service currently has a staff of 44 full-time employees and a proposed Page 106 June 22, 2006 operating budget for fiscal '07 of $4,758,200 which you can see the components on page 16 and 1 7 of your budget book. Division user fees, interdepartmental charges and charges for services fund this department. There are no ad valorem taxes associated with it. The budget's a middle, which includes the addition of one expanded FTE which is funded in the proposed budget and one FTE that's on your UFR schedule. Funding this budget will enable the billing and customer service department to meet the demands from growth and to continue to provide services at the current level of services that exist. The expanded position, which on Chart 1 I want to show you a graphic of this expanded position. That's the wrong one, Joe. This chart that you're going to see in just a minute is a request in the expanded positions for a fiscal tech in the code enforcement or ordinance enforcement section of the department. Rather than ask for an additional code enforcement investigator, what we're doing is asking for a fiscal tech that can take care of the time that the code enforcement investigator is spending in the office. What we're -- if you fund this position, we will be able to have that -- those four code enforcement investigators in the field eight hours a day. Currently, they're in the field six hours a day. They come into the office and they process paperwork. So this -- best value approach is to add -- add a fiscal tech to do the paperwork and keep the investigators in the field. That's basically the -- the overview of this position. The second position which is unfunded is shown on Chart 2 is a request for an automated meter reading -- is a request for an automated meter reading and repair technician, but-- MR. MUDD: Gentlemen, I got nothing to put up there. MR. DELONY: Just a second, Jim. MR. MUDD: Is that it? Okay. Thank you. MR. YONKOWSKY: And this graph basically shows that we have not had any increase in the meter readers since we really got into Page 107 June 22, 2006 our automated meter reading program. We actually decreased two of the meter readers at that time. Since then the bar graph shows that the increase, which we've had a 25 percent increase in the number of installed meters in the ground, and we're asking for an -- which is unfunded -- a position, an auton1atic meter reading position that will allow us to continue some of the programs. Each one of these -- and we'll have over 60,000 meters in the ground next year -- each one of these meters must be visited several times a year. And we just cannot do that, meet that current service level with the number of meter readers that we have. So we are asking for one additional meter reader. If this unfunded position is approved at a total cost of $72,200 annually, contractual services in the amount of$113,000 that are currently in the operating budget can be subtracted with a net benefit of $41,400 to the rate payers. The fiscal year 2007 budget allows the billing and customer service department to meet the demands from our customers to continue the current level of service and is consistent with the AUIR and the master plan. If there are no questions -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question-- MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- from Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. John, it sounds like the benefit far outweighs the cost with this extra meter reader. You say this is on the unfunded list there? MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir. It's on the unfunded list. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Rather than get into a big discussion when the list comes around, I, for one, right now am saying yes. Because, I mean, it makes no sense not to, but it may have to come up for discussion then. I just thought if we could possibly get that out of the way now, it would be one less thing to deal with. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, do we ever -- Page 108 June 22, 2006 when Mr. Delony started this code enforcement system, you were going to say -- see if it was going to be, I'm not sure if the word is "profitable"? MR. MUDD: Well, we want to make sure that there was some cost savings from it when you're talking about meter readings and things like that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not meter, code enforcement. MR. MUDD: For the code enforce -- are you talking about the FOG? He had some -- it's oils and grease. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. He's got some people out there tagging garbage cans because they're out there after hours. MR. YONKOWSKY: Comlnissioner, that -- we really call it an ordinance enforcement. This group of staff member enforce all the ordinances that relate to the public utilities division, not only is it solid waste which is a part of it, we also do illegal connections for water. We do FOG, fats, oil and grease, any ordinance, the irrigation ordinance, for example. So this staff really enforces and provides investigations and citations only for ordinances that relate to the public utilities division. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, does that refresh your memory when we hired -- went from one to two to five to ten or whatever it was? MR. MUDD: Sure. Especially on last year's -- last year's hires as far as this is concerned. Mr. Delony was to come back and he has on a quarterly basis at least two quarter's worth to show that there was -- that there was a return on the investment from the people that got added to the list. That's what I -- that's the part that I remember. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. DELONY: We're good to go. MR. MUDD: You will speak to that particular issue? MR. DELONY: Sure. The -- the -- the area that we wanted to show the value added in terms of cost benefit was in the fats, oils and Page 109 June 22, 2006 greases in particular. Whereby having staff available to work with restaurants and other generators -- generators of fats, oils and greases, we are able to include that reading into our collection and distribution -- excuse me -- our collection and treatment systems. And we have reported that up to the county n1anager. And just actually two years ago we did that, Jim. And we provided that to you over the last -- not last year but the year before last. All that's still good on the cost benefit side, sir. It's -- it's a good Inove. Dr. Yilmaz, I don't know if you have any data here to back up anything for us today, but we can provide that should you have any other questions. I think it's a win-win. It has been a win-win as promised. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager answered the question? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met two of them and they're great as far as interacting with the public. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Sir, they actually have two missions. They have an enforcement mission which is actually secondary through education mission. MR. MUDD: And I -- and I believe that it is -- it has helped us to not have plan upset. We got a little bit of a plan upset in the north end during high season this year. It had to do with the expansion and some other things. And Commissioner Halas was -- was engaged in that particular issue because we did get a couple of odor complaints. But I -- but I will -- from what I've seen as far as the restaurants and the things that have come in, it's helped us stay in compliance because we're basically solving that problem before it gets to the sewer plant. And so to speak we're taking the grease on in digestible doses instead of having it all of a sudden hit us during high season because nobody cleaned out their grease trap waste containers prior to the high season. So they've done a pretty good job in that particular area. So I believe Page 110 June 22, 2006 it saved us in operational expense. MR. DELONY: Absolutely. MR. MUDD: Because when -- when you got to bring a plant back from being upset, you got to add a lot of chemicals and other materials in order to do that. MR. DELONY: John? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions? MR. YONKOWSKY: If there are any additional questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on, John. MR. YONKOWSKY: I will -- I will be followed by Mr. Roy Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Roy Anderson, director of engineering for the public utilities division. Our mission is that we are responsible for executing the capital improvement programs of the division and providing necessary support work to stay in compliance and meet demands. The budget is found on page -- pages 20 through 23. Turning to page 21, you'll see that the adopted FY'06 budget is $2,303,500. The recommended budget for FY'07 is $2,623,900. Overall our efforts are essentially directed to executing the capital programs that you have approved in our master plan and through the AUIR. If there are no further questions, I'd be happy to move on. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not at this time. Go ahead, Roy. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. DELONY: Do you have anything with regard to either UFRs or expanded positions, Roy? MR. ANDERSON: I do. I do. We are -- we are requesting two UFRs in our department. One is for a GIS technician. And the other is for an engineering inspector. In terms of the first one, which is the GIS technician, that comes under our planning department. And that Page 111 June 22, 2006 individual is involved with building our GIS layers for utilities. The present GIS analyst is doing all the work necessary to lead and implement the GIS effort within utilities. And this requires an increasing amount of technical and support work that needs to be completed on a timely basis and takes away from his normal responsibilities of managing and training people in the program. The cost of filling this position is $75,900. The work can be farmed out to a consultant at a cost of $115,000 a year yielding a benefit cost ratio of 1.56. So there's approximately a $40,000 per year saving in that case. The second case for the engineering inspector, that's related to our construction programs and checking water and wastewater, the quality of construction. The increasing workload due to the volume of repair and replacement work with new water and wastewater plants, improvements to collection systelns and distribution networks and the addition of wells and the long-neglected irrigation quality water system necessitates an additional inspector for construction oversight. The cost justification of this position is based on the fact that to hire a new inspector would cost $103,700. And the cost of providing the inspection services under contract is 145,600 for benefit cost ratio of 1.57 or a savings of approximately $43,000. So that -- that's the extent of our -- my UFR requests. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go on. MR. ANDERSON: If there are no further questions, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Yilmaz, the director of wastewater. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you. Thank you, Roy. Commissioners, for the record, George Yilmaz, wastewater director. Please refer to Public Utilities, pages 26 through 31, entitled "Public Utilities Division, County Water/Sewer District Wastewater Department Summary." The wastewater department fiscal year '07 budget that we are Page 112 June 22, 2006 presenting today was prepared using a results-oriented, outcome-based budget and processes to accomplish our mission as stated on page 24. And, furthermore, represents a budget that is necessary for us to stay in compliance, meet the demand with reliability in accordance with the adopted AUIR and the levels of service specified in our Collier County water/sewer district updated master plans as adopted by the board. The wastewater department maintains over 870 miles of wastewater collection mains with over 3,400 manholes to be maintained, 800 wastewater pUlnping and lift stations and advance and out laboratory and 73 miles of reclaimed water mains pumping to over any reclaimed bulk accounts and customers with over 3,000 residential customers. The total number of wastewater accounts is over 52,400. With that briefing, I'd like you to go to page 28 and you will see the wastewater department is proposing a fiscal year 2007 operating budget of $21,991,000 including request for expanded services which total $412,000. The wastewater department requested budget also includes three additional positions which are, one for wastewater stakes and locates. Presently we have 27 locates at risk and 1,100 new requests will be handled by one additional FTE requested. The locates program is mandated in accordance with the Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act, Chapter 556, Florida Statutes. Other two senior plant operators for the newly expanded North Collier Wastewater Plant is desperately needed. We have increased our capacity in North plant from 13.6 million gallon to 24.1 million gallon. Technically, we have two wastewater plants operating at the same location. And for us to have the necessary required and permanent coverage for 24/7, we need to have those two senior operators for us to operate as we have done so far and continue to operate in compliance and meet the demand. Also requested are five unfunded positions, three in collections Page 113 June 22, 2006 and two in pretreatment inspection. This information will be found on pages 30 and 31, County Water/sewer District UFRs for Wastewater Department. This request would add a total of $242,900 in personal and operating costs to our budget while removing $534,100 worth contractual services for a net decrease and benefit to our proposed budget of291,200. The requested positions in very brief summary are two full-time pretreatment specialists inspector for our oil, grease and industrial pretreatment. The need for these positions are based on growth, compliance of industrial pretreatn1ent and all grease programs. Our required inspections anticipated and estimated to grow from 1,300 to 2,600 for fiscal year '07. This will nearly double our inspections in order to stay in compliance. And the pretreatment plant inspection program is mandated in accordance with the CFR 403-A accounting to the state guidelines set forth in Florida Administrative Code 62625. Additionally, we have three full-time utility technicians for our pump stations, lift stations and associated infrastructure. In 1997 the county served just about 22,000 customer accounts. And we used to maintain approximately 600 lift stations then. That's about nine to ten years ago. Using 16 utility techs, we were able to handle this work. Today we serve over 52,000 customer accounts and close to 800 lift stations using the same level of service, 16 -- 16 FTEs throughout this nine- to ten-year period. The objective is to visit at-risk lift stations, manage our assets more frequently and do a much better job in our preventive maintenance to avoid failure, backup and maintaining floats, electrical panels, (inaudible) wells to avoid overflows in our community waterways and more importantly backups into our customers' home. And, also, this is intended to make sure we continue to stay in compliance and we don't receive any consent orders in the near future and in the future for our wastewater collection and pretreatment process. This concludes the wastewater department's presentation. And if Page 114 June 22,2006 there are no questions, I'll be followed by Paul Mattausch, our water department director. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a couple of questions. How does the additional techs, how does that fit into the SKADUS system that we're constantly upgrading? Can -- can you answer that for me? DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. That is a very -- that's a very good question. It gives me opportunity to talk about two things. Our telemetry system is almost 90 percent complete and we have full visibility remotely on our utility techs as well as leadership side. We're able to monitor these stations remotely. And, therefore, there are a lot of avoided costs and future requests for FTEs. These three FTEs we're requesting is simply going after what the telemetry system tells us we need to follow up and fix timely and in advance fashion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the question. I was trying to tie that together. DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we're -- if we're upgrading our -- our telemetry system, why do we need additional people? So you answered the question. DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? MR. DELONY: Paul. MR. MATTAUSCH: Comn1issioners, for the record, Paul Mattausch, director of the water department. It seems if my memory serves me, the last time I presented before the board it rained during my presentation. Given the opening yesterday of the water park and the rainout, I don't want to be accused of a second rainout in a row so I will keep this very brief. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's already -- clouds are starting to form. MR. MATTAUSCH: I will be presenting three separate budgets Page 115 June 22, 2006 for your review. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page? MR. MATTAUSCH: Including the water -- water department operation and maintenance budget, the public utilities operation center budget and the Goodland Water District budget. These budgets are found on pages 32 through 42 -- 32 through 42. And if you would please turn with me to page 34 is where I will start with the water department operating budget. Approximately two-thirds of the way down the page you will see that the water department is subn1itting a fiscal year 2007 proposed net operating budget of $22,335,100. I want to point out that this submittal includes the addition of two FTEs that will enable the water department to remain in compliance and continue to provide current levels of service. The first of two additional requested FTEs presented as unfunded requests is for a quality assurance/quality control specialist for the water laboratory. This position will be responsible for the oversight and the maintenance of the water quality testing program to ensure compliance with all federal, state and local regulations. No staff has been added to the laboratory in over ten years. During that time period there's been a significant increase in the number of tests required to be performed on both the treatment processes and on the water and the distribution system, related both to growth of the system and population served and the changes that we've had in regulatory requiren1ents on laboratory testing. The requirements for laboratory certification now include the necessity for a dedicated QAQC specialist in order to maintain laboratory certification. Without the addition of this position, the water system increases its risk for noncompliance. If the water laboratory were to lose its certification, all testing would still need to be performed, but would have to be performed by an outside contractor. The fully burdened cost to fund this position is $62,500. Without your approval of this position, the cost of the department and, Page 116 June 22, 2006 therefore, the rate payers would be $161,500 in necessary contractual services. Leaving a net benefit to the rate payer through approval of this position of $91,000. The second and final requested position is for an additional cross-connection control device and tester. Annual testing of every device is required by both the Florida Administrative Code 62555360 and by Collier County Ordinance 9733. In the last two years 5,671 cross-connection control devices have been added to the water system. Quotations were solicited for annual testing of these devices contractually. And three contractors responded to our solicitation. The average quoted price was $86 per device. Our testers, our average cost for internally testing with our own certified cross-connection control device testers on staff is $9.65 a piece compared to $86 a piece doing it contractually. The fully burdened cost to fund this position $70,200. The first year cost of doing the required inspections and certification of these devices contractually is $149,400 leaving a net benefit to the rate payer through approval of this position of $79,200. If these two unfunded requested positions are approved at a total cost of $132,700, contractual services in the amount of $310,900 currently included in the budget can be subtracted from the budget with a net benefit of $178,200 to the rate payers. The water department operating budget provides effective management in operation of the county's water district facilities in order to provide the customers of the Collier County Water District safe, reliable and cost effective drinking water. The fiscal year 2007 budget is submitted to you today allows the water department to stay in compliance with all regulations and meet the demand for potable water from our customers and is consistent with both the AUIR and the master plan. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, sir. Page 11 7 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: The cross-connection technician, why is there such a big difference when we go on the outside $86, I think you said, versus $9? What's the big difference here going out? MR. MATTAUSCH: It's not -- it's not a -- it's not a real nice kind of job. It's -- it's a job that requires going from location to location, doing the same repetitive testing over and over again. One-- one of the -- one of the things, that there's a lot of un surety as far as testing. And -- and the legalities of -- of testing and certifying back-flow devices, parts available, so contractors -- contractors charge a fairly high price per device in order to certify each one of the devices. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's what we're presently using at this point in time -- MR. MATTAUSCH: No. No. We are currently using in-house testing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir. Entirely in-house testing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. DELONY: And we want to continue that practice if that's the board's decision with regard to this particular position. I'm not -- I'm not stating that this position's inherently governmental, that it can only be done by in-house personnel. But the cost benefit is significant in terms of it being done in-house as opposed to contractual. The bottom line -- we have to do the mission it appears from the economics alone and not -- nothing to do with the management of this. You know, we didn't even calculate those costs that we'd be better off doing it in-house than out-house. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm just amazed that the-- MR. DELONY: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- contracting that on the outside versus doing it in-house, the price differential is unbelievable. MR. DELONY: Most -- n10st utilities do this in-house, then Page 118 June 22, 2006 there's not a lot of demand for it. That's part of it as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? MR. MUDD: And you just had -- you just had an incident up on the north side -- MR. DELONY: Yeah, we do. MR. MUDD: -- in District 2. Okay. MR. DELONY: We've had some challenges. This is -- this is one of the most important programs we must sustain is to make sure we safeguard our distribution system. And installation and testing these devices is critical to that task. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, for instance, and what I was trying to get at is and I guess he doesn't want to specify the area or whatever, okay, but recently within the last two months there was a residence that -- that had an irrigation person come on and the property -- MR. DELONY: Property firm. MR. MUDD: -- and hooked their -- and hooked their reclaimed water line into their potable water. Okay. And they wanted -- and they called Mr. Delony and wanted to know why their ice cubes were green. Okay. And so we had to send staff up there to get stuff tested and get everything done. And then we had to flush their systems and other things. MR. DELONY: We flushed the entire area to make sure we didn't have any cross-connection, not only for that homeowner but everybody that was on the end of that loop. So this is a very important program to -- to permit -- provide for the inspection and maintenance of these devices. What's our total device count, again, for the district, Paul? Do you have that. MR. MATTAUSCH: We have 51 total-- 51,000 total services. Of that we have about 45,000 cross connects and control devices. MR. DELONY: And we have to inspect those actually per FAC. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Page 119 June 22, 2006 MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MR. MATTAUSCH: If you will turn with me to page 37, the public utilities operation center budget. This budget provides for the operation and maintenance of a consolidated location for utility bill and customer service and water distribution. And the budget total is $108,600. There are not -- are no expanded or unfunded requests in this proposed budget. And I would be glad to take any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's raining. MR. MATTAUSCH: It's raining. MR. DELONY: You're making Marla real unhappy, Paul. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No questions. Continue, Paul. MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay. Thank you. My final budget presentation is the Goodland Water District budget which you will find on pages 40 through 42. The total proposed budget is $759,300. There are two things that I would like to note in this proposed budget. There's a projected increase in the demand for water which drives projected costs for the purchase of bulk water from the City of Marco Island. However, that cost is predominantly offset by projected increase in revenue from the sale of that water. And, secondly, there's a -- there's a one-time cost to replace the generator in that facility which we found during Hurricane Wilma to be unreliable. That -- that one time cost of $88,000 is included in this budget. I'd also like to note just one additional thing, that public utilities division is currently in the middle of a rate study for the Goodland Water District to confirm an appropriate rate structure for the Goodland Water District. And I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Page 120 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Paul. MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you. At this time I would like to turn the presentation over to Dan Rodriguez, solid waste director. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Paul. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I am Dan Rodriguez, your solid waste management department director. I'll be covering the solid waste management department budget which you'll find on pages 44 through 48. Solid waste management department is responsible for providing effective, efficient, reliable and high-quality solid waste collections, processing and disposal services that are strategically aligned with the mission of the division and the county. The key programs to achieve our stated mission are environn1ental compliance, service reliability, customer focus recycling centers and landfill operation, waste reduction and recycling and hazardous waste management. Turning to page 44 and 45, solid waste management overall budget, you will see the proposed net operating budget for fiscal year 2007 is $34,496,100. There are no expanded position requests from the solid waste management department budget. Our net operating budget represents a 7.2 percent increase. Turning to page 46 for the solid waste disposal fund, you will see that the proposed net operating budget for fiscal year 2007 is 18,295. There are no expanded positions request for the solid waste management budget as mentioned earlier. And our net operating budget represents a 5.4 percent increase. Our proposed budget is designed to continue to fulfill requirements of the AUIR, the Annual Inventory and Utilization Report, continue to stay in compliance with no complaints through prudent environmental risk management to meet the demand in our collection, processing, recycling and disposal infrastructure. Page 121 June 22, 2006 Turning to page 47 for the solid waste landfill closure fund you will note a 5.9 percent increase. This is due to interest earnings. This is a closure fund for the current and future closed landfill cells that the county is responsible for. Managing and maintaining a closed landfill is an expensive and potentially risky business especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore, maintaining this current funding level is prudent to cover any costs associated with managing, investigating and/or remediation. Turning to page 48 for the solid waste grants fund, this budget is shown for illustrative purposes only. Weare working closely with the grants coordinator's office for identifying opportunities as well as execution and monitoring of grants-related programs and projects. Grants and subsequent budget amendments will be submitted to and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This is a grant management fund. And if we succeed in receiving any grants, we will reflect the funding through budget amendments. The solid waste management staff currently subscribe to EC Stevits (phonetic), an online grant notification system through the county. Department staff are members of and participate in trade associations that provide information on grant availability on the federal and state level. If there are no questions -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't really know how it works. I know that Waste Management goes out and picks it up and we -- we work out an arrangement whereby we get the lowest rate we possibly can from Waste Management. Do then they bill us each month and we pay them for however much -- MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they weigh in? MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. John, you want to -- John, in fact, Page 122 June 22, 2006 why don't you just let -- we moved John here and let him talk about the collection contract and that -- that aspect of Dan's budget. And I think he'll answer your question. But, John, if you'd like to take that on directly in terms of how the billing's done? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know where that was reflected in the budget. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. It is. Yes, ma'am. John. MR. YONKOWSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, again. This is John Y onkowsky. I'll answer that question directly before I go into the general discussion about the rates. We keep a running track of the number of customers that are collected. We start off with the special assessment roll. That roll has a number on it. And as each new single-family residence or resident that has curbside service comes on line, when they get their C.O., Mr. Schmitt's office collects a pro rata portion of the fee for them. So we meet -- as every month we keep up with that. And then we pay Waste Management not what they ask for, but based on the number of customers that we collected money from. And we pay them 1/12th of that every month. I don't know if that answers your question or not, Commissioner Fiala, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just note where I saw -- where it's reflected in here. Where -- you know, where it says we paid Waste Management. MR. YONKOWSKY: If you look on page -- MR. DELONY: Forty-nine. MR. YONKOWSKY: Forty-nine, 473 budget, it shows there the program expenses, operating expenses -- MR. DELONY: John, get closer to the mic, please. MR. YONKOWSKY: The operating expense about in the middle of the page -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. YONKOWSKY: -- is $16,200,300, that's the payments for Waste Management and Immokalee Disposal. That money is in there. Page 123 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Along with everything else in the operating -- MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- budget? MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, ma'am. MR. DELONY: All those costs associated with collection, both the District 1, the Waste Management District, and District 2, which is the Immokalee Disposal District -- District 1, District 2 are the two districts that are reflected on page 49, ma'am, all those contracted costs. Did we answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to know how much it actually was. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. There it is right there. There is the budgeted amounts now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's -- that's imbedded with a bunch of other things, though. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. Would you like -- we can give you the 1/12th. How do you want us to answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you can just send it to me. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. We can give you what we -- what we project or what we've done year to date, but we'll get to you -- with you and get some specifics to you on that. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Then I will go ahead and make the -- the proposed FY 2007 budget for the mandatory trash collection program on page 49 is $18,222,300. This represents a 13.3 percent increase or $2,136,900 increase over the budget for FY'06. There -- there are three key drivers for the increase. Customer growth, 36,000 new -- I mean, 36,600 new accounts each year. And a consumer price increase for both of the collection contractors, Waste Management and Immokalee Disposal. And a consumer price increase that drives an increase in the landfill tipping fees. Because the rate that people pay Page 124 June 22, 2006 includes a cost for collection and a cost for disposal which is broken down if you look on page 50 of the budget. And the other point that I would like to make is that since the -- it's really growth driven, the payn1ents to the property appraiser and the tax collector for their services which is why we have 100 percent -- nearly 100 percent collection rate at a very low cost is -- is driven by growth also. So as each one of those new customers come on-line, the growth drives up the actual cost of this budget for the . . commISSIoners. The recommended collection rates for the special assessments for Fiscal Year 2007 are on page 50. And if there are no questions about the rates, I can turn the discussion back to Mr. Wides. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't see any questions. Go ahead, Tom. MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioners, again, Tom Wides, for the record. Commissioner Fiala, we've had a chance to research your question on the -- on how much of that is on the franchise. In that budget which is approximately -- which is approximately $16.2 million of operating expense, Waste Management for collection purposes is receiving $9.2 million under contract, driven by contract for what they pick up. In addition to that Immokalee Disposal under contract is getting approximately point -- or, excuse me, $400,000. Okay. And that's for collection side. Now, there's a disposal side, of course, of the landfill that we have to pay for by contract. That for Waste Management is basically 5.4 million. And in the Immokalee area 300,000. So just quickly adding those up, we're up around almost -- almost the entire $16 million in that budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks so much. MR. WIDES: Okay. MR. DELONY: And now is -- again, these are all contractual costs. As you might remember, ma'am, we went through a pretty Page 125 June 22, 2006 extensive negotiation. And this board made a decision to go to multi-year contracts with those contractors. I believe even with these rate increases that we're proposing today, we still continue to be a best-value service provider. I think that we lead the state in terms of both quality and quantity. And I -- I believe our prices are more than reasonable in terms of what we provide. We've got some information, by the way, just to let you know that's going to come at you in the next month to give you even more affirmation of your decision to go to the single-stream recycling, the yellow tops. It continues to be a real winner out there. And we're very proud of our solid waste program and where we're at. And I'm very much looking forward to our workshop in the OctoberlNovember time frame as we set the sails for the next 30 years of our landfills as well. Tom. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, if there are no other questions on the operating side, I'd like to move us towards the capital and debt-service discussion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a 15-minute break. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's take a 15-minute break-- MR. DELONY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and reconvene. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager. We're out of recess. I believe we're with Tom Wides here. Tom. MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioners, again, Tom Wides, for the record. If I at this point can turn you to the Public Utilities section of the budget on page 52. This is the beginning of the discussion on the public utilities capital and debt service. Let me take you to the net operating budget section at the top of the page. The net operating Page 126 June 22, 2006 budget being requested for FY'07 is 1,220,000 -- excuse me, 1 million -- excuse me, 122,109,200. Of that 103,560,300 is for the capital outlay, new money for FY'07. And as you look at the debt service principle and interest, debt service principle is approximately 9.4 million. The debt service interest is $9 million. Those are the funding pieces for the capital program in the debt service for this year. Are there any questions that I may respond to on these pages particularly? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from our commissioners? Commissioner Henning has some questions for you, SIr. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In '06 you had quite a few grants. And I don't see any -- you don't anticipate any grants? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, in our -- in our grant program what we do and, in fact, in '06 we applied for approximately $24 million in -- in grants. We actually received approximately 4.8 million. And I'll -- I'll show you where those are at in just a moment here. However, in '07 we've applied for almost $25 million; however, at this point in time we have no contracts for any grants received. Once the grant contracts are received and approved by the board, then we will include them as part of our budget. But at this point in time, 20 -- almost 25 applied for, none received. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Does that equal out to your impact fees what your capital improvements are going to be or are we going to be short in some of the improvements? MR. WIDES: No. In fact, what you're seeing in this budget, both in the capital and operating side is what we put into our master plans which is reflected in our impact fees and our user fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Project No. 708921, in the AUIR we -- we showed a -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page is this on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is page 56. Page 127 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half -- half the way down in the proj ects you'll see the last three digits 91 -- 92 -- 921. And in the AUIR that was 12 million MGD for 2007? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I'm going to ask Mr. Anderson to respond to this, but I believe what we -- what I believe what we might be speaking to is the 12 million plant expansion versus the 20 million gallon well -- or, excuse me, the 21 -- 20 million gallon well field expansion. But I'll -- I'll let Mr. Anderson respond to that. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct, Tom. This project, Commissioner Henning, is the well field -- is the well field 20 MGD expansIon. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't reported as 12 million in the AUIR? MR. DELONY: No, sir. The plant expansion was reported as 12 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which project number is that? MR. ANDERSON: That would be up -- a little further up 700971. That's the plant itself, the 12 MGD expansion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, on page 57, Capital Project 750101 through 141, and those are -- those are basically studies. And I notice that you program those for the wastewater also? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that is correct. Yeah. The 750101 is the evaluation of the existing Orange Tree system that will be necessary for -- preparatory for us to taking over the system come 2012. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just one study and you're just splitting it out into -- Page 128 June 22, 2006 MR. ANDERSON: Into water and wastewater, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm just -- page 3, am Ion a different -- that's it. Thank you. MR. DELONY: Thank you, sir. Tom, anything else? MR. WIDES: Commissioners, I have nothing else here other than return the capital discussion to Mr. Anderson unless you have no further questions on the capital program. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't see any further. Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Roy Anderson. The capital program is covered under -- from pages 56 through 71. We have our four Funds 411 through 414. And this comprises approximately 192 projects. And, again, these projects are all exactly consistent with what was approved in the master plan and the rate studies last June 6th of this year. The -- I'd be happy to answer any questions on any specific project or anything in general at this -- at this time. If not, I'll turn it over to Mr. Delony for a final wrap-up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. DELONY: I'm ready for your questions, sir. The budget we recommend is contained as outlined. And we hope we've been able to outline our needs to stay in compliance to meet demand with reliability, sustainability to serve that customer. And most importantly or as importantly as those others to build the right team of professionals to continue to do the great work we've been continued -- been able to do over these last couple years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. DELONY: That concludes our briefing, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your staff for their presentation today. MR. DELONY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I have a question to the Board of County Commissioners. Do you want to go till just five or to six? Five? Page 129 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that the general consensus, five? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we get through the county commissioner's budget today? Can we do that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to have to leave at five to be at an appointment at 5:30. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a 5:30 appointment also, so... MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if -- let me give you kind of an idea. We'll go through as much of this list as we can today. And if we can get through Public Services, Community Development's and then the other four are -- are minor briefings. And -- and we can get through those either today or we can do those right after the constitutionals are done in the morning. And I believe the constitutionals will be done around ten, ten-thirty as they were last year. Last year was a little bit more contentious than it is today -- than this year is as far as they are concerned. So at 10:30 we could pick up again and move till 12. And then at one o'clock we have public comments. So I believe -- I believe we can get it accomplished. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So our game plan is to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You wanted to try and get the BCC in today? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if everybody's cutting out of here at five, there's no sense in going on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. PUBLIC SERVICES MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next presenter which is Public Services. And Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Administrator for Public Services, will present. MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm behind Page 130 June 22, 2006 the tab for public services. I'm on page 2 to start with. I just wanted to just give you a really brief synopsis of what we have and a couple of the things that we were looking at this fiscal year that we saw as challenges for 2007. The first thing is that if you'll see that we've brought in a budget that's at 10.6 percent for our division under the 12 percent guidance that was provided to us by the Board of County Commissioners. We did that even though we know that the North Naples -- North Collier Regional Park only had six months of analyzed operation cost associated with it for this fiscal year which is a little over a million dollars that we added to this budget. We feel that the budget that we have before you is quite -- deals with our needs, not necessarily with our wants. There were three items that we placed on the unfunded request list that we have for your consideration. There are two positions that we're asking for as well. And what I would like to do is informally I'm going to pass it down to my directors to talk about each one of their budgets briefly. The first one I have is the university extension. This is Robert Hallman. He is your director. MR. MUDD: Robert, I'm glad to see you here. You were a little sick there for a while. You had us all worried. MR. HALLMAN: My wife worried also. Good evening. My name is Robert Hallman. I'm the county extension director for the Collier County Office of the University of Florida Cooperative Extension. Over the years Extension has provided programming throughout the county. And we are still continuing to do that. This year we are embarking on a more progressive consumer-based diverse programing scheme. What we would like to do is try to target those audiences that we have failed in the past to target, those nontraditional audiences. We have increased our staff with a marine science sea grant agent which you proposed last year. And he's been -- he came on board in Page 131 June 22, 2006 March. And he's been very busy in talking with all the county community groups, the fishery groups, the -- the fishery industries. And he's been trying to get a handle on exactly where he should be focusing his program areas. So those are some of the nontraditional groups that we've worked with. He's also working with Rookery Bay and that group in trying to provide some of the resources that they have to the county. So that we are very grateful to have him on board. We also have in our office our -- our horticulture program which is both urban and -- and commercial and our family consumer science group. The agriculture group which I am an agricultural agent with the University of Florida. And we are trying to provide some programming with our -- our fast decreasing agricultural group there. But we want to make sure that we preserve the agriculture in the county. So I'm working on that also. So what we want to do is do a more progressive type of programming with all of these programs that we have within the system. What I'd like to do is talk to you a little bit about the enhancements that we're asking for this year. The first being the fact that we are looking at the purchase of a new vehicle for our office. We have seven different ag -- we have seven different agents within our office and only two vehicles there. We're finding that with this more progressive and outreach system that we have, we have a very hard time scheduling these vehicles to do this outreach program. We are looking at a -- the advantages of purchasing such a vehicle. And some of those are the enhancement of our off-site programming, transport of our educational programs to other groups. We're doing a lot of collaboration with groups out there. We're also looking at a more effective delivery of our programs. We can do more things within the county if we had the opportunities to get to those places. And the other thing is, we're looking at the reduction in reimbursement from using our personal vehicles. We're finding that this -- this whole idea of the purchase of a new vehicle for Page 132 June 22, 2006 our programming areas will enhance our outreach efforts. The second item in our enhancements is our increase in the disaster preparedness for both our office and for the County EOC. We are -- this is -- 2005 was the first year we've been involved intimately in the county's disaster preparedness program. But we found that we are a partner with DAS in our ESF 17. Weare provide -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have a particular page that you have all this information on? MR. HALLMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That would be -- that would be -- help us out a little bit, sir. MR. HALLMAN: Page 6. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. HALLMAN: Actually, page 9 shows our program enhancements, talks about the university departmental van, the disaster response equipment. And I will talk about the palm lethal yellow inoculations in a second. Our -- again, as I was saying, 2005 was the first year that Extension was intimately involved in the EOC. The department is requesting the purchase of a couple of radios and two GPS hand-held devices for Extension to contact the EOC. Last year what we found what we had to do was to drive out to the agricultural community and then come back to the office. Because as you remember, a lot of the communications equipment did not work when -- during right after the storm. So in doing our ag assessments, we found that we had to drive back and forth. What we'd like to do is use some of this new communications equipment to bring forth some of the ag assessments that we're doing out in the ag community. The other thing is our newly formed sea grant agent is also going to be a point of contact at the EOC and he will need a radio also. He's going to be also working with the marine industry Rookery Bay and some of the fisheries in providing a set damage assessment Page 133 June 22, 2006 information from the gulf side of things. So I will be out in the -- in the ag community and he will be over with the marine industries. In the past the Extension mode for a hurricane, our office was just to close down shop and go home. What we'd like to do now is not only prepare ourselves, but prepare our office for the -- any natural disaster that may occur. This year we have provided homeowner preparedness workshops in the form of hurricane seminars. And also we did a hurricane expo at the office. We would like to take some of our own advice and prepare our office for the -- the -- for a disaster in case we cannot leave the office. So what we're requesting is to put together disaster kits where we may do some in-house. If we have to do in-house sheltering, we would like to do it in-house at our office. Because we're not here in -- in -- on campus. So we need to put together some kits in our office. So we're asking for those funds also. The third enhancement is the palm lethal yellowing. This is a $20,000 request in that this line item expense -- expense was routinely in the reserve for the county and we had to come to the board to ask each year if we could have an emergency declaration for palm lethal yellow which is a disease that destroys palm trees. And after discussions with the county attorney, palm lethal yellow disease is a -- we -- we understand that it's an emergency every year. We have been also inoculating this year for palm lethal yellow. We've done -- we've spent some $10,000 already inoculating over 1,100 trees. Both on the Isles of Capri and around the county also. So what we are -- we would like to do since this declaration hasn't been eliminated, it hasn't been -- it hasn't been declared that it's not an emergency, but what we decided to do is put it in our budget as a line item. We would anticipate more outbreak areas this year simply because of Hurricane Wilma because the vector has been pushed around by the winds. Thus, we will probably have to do more palm lethal yellow inoculations this year. We may have to remove some trees this year. And so we're asking for these types of enhancements. Page 134 June 22, 2006 These are the three enhancements that we have for our budget this year. MS. RAMSEY: Any questions? (No response.) MS. RAMSEY: I will then turn it over to Margo. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a couple of questions. MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you get involved in citrus canker? MR. HALLMAN: Yes. We have -- we have the -- the opportunity to have a specialist that is housed over in Hendry County. He's a multi-county specialist for citrus. And during Wilma he came over also to help us do some of the ag assessments on the citrus. And, yes, we do get involved with citrus canker. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In your budget on page 6 you say a capital outlay. Is that the vehicle that you're requesting, 22,500? And I believe it's on page 6. MR. HALLMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One question. You've been very receptive in holding meetings there for the public and I greatly appreciate that. I was wondering if your budget allows for someone to be able to stay there so you can have the use of the community room there, the large auditorium that you're building to be able to be used for community meetings on a regular basis? MR. HALLMAN: We've -- right now we don't have it in our budget. But what we have been doing is allowing either the staff that's there already and/or the agents that are there to remain over, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and I know whenever I requested it they've done it, but there's a -- the problem is that whole area of the county there's no place for people to meet -- MR. HALLMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- except for that facility. And Page 135 June 22, 2006 if it's during the day, that's fine. But I'm talking about in the evening. People normally like to meet, like, civic associations or whatever, like, seven o'clock and go to about nine. And that -- that usually entails a cost. And I was just wondering if that was allowed for in your budget at this time? MR. HALLMAN: Actually, it's not. What we've been doing is just using the generosity of our faculty and staff to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate that. MR. HALLMAN: We're doing that as a courtesy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And thank you. Thank you very much for that. I -- I know that -- I don't think I heard of anybody being refused in a long time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: You may proceed. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, I would like to introduce Margo Castorena. I do want to compliment Margo and all that has happened in the domestic animal services since she has been with us about a year and a half. There has been a lot of improvements in that particular department. And she has a couple expanded requests she'd like to share with you. MS. CASTORENA: For the record, Margo Castorena, Director of Domestic Animal Services. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Our budget begins on page 12. And I will be talking from page 15 for the overview. First of all, Domestic Animal Services is tasked as the ESF 17 for Collier County. As such during Hurricane Wilma we staffed the EOC 24 hours all the time that it was open. Our facility was never closed during -- during Wilma. We stayed over with the animals and provided care for them and services to the community during the entire time that Wilma came through. Weare also tasked with enforcement, sheltering, volunteerism and the caring for the animals of abused and neglect cases. Page 136 June 22, 2006 Some of the items that we are looking at for the expanded budget are -- are, indeed, staff positions. One of them is an animal control officer. We are looking to add an extra animal control officer because we have just revised our ordinance to be able to use the special master program. As such our citations are being able to really be enforced. F or a while we had no teeth to enforce our citations and our notice of violations. And at this point we can go ahead and make sure that animals that are consistently running loose are a danger to our community are -- their owners are cited. And that we pick these animals up and that the violators are, indeed, held responsible for their animals. If you notice on page 13, back -- even going back to FY 2005 we had a total request for services of 16,464, request for services during fiscal year 2005. In 2007 we expect 17,300 activities. These are not always calls about a stray dog or a lost dog. Many times these are complicated bite cases. Many times they are abuse cases that require follow up. Many times they are enforcement or seizures of animals that are used for illegal gaming as well. So as you can tell, our officers are covering a 2,000 square mile area. At this point, we're doing it with 13 officers. As traffic patterns and traffic especially in the high season, you know, stops travel times, we are really looking to increase our officers and the hours that they are out in the community. For this reason we are requesting an animal control officer along with the van that he would need to be utilized in the field. We're also requesting a shelter technician. Again, if you refer back to page 13, you will see that the facility visitors going back to 2005 with 30,000 visitors per year. Because of marketing programs such as Happy Tails, such as off-site adoptions at Pet Smart and coming soon at Petco, we are having more people visit our facility. By using the internet properly, we are having people look for their lost pets and also coming to us as a source of adoptable pets. For this reason we need to keep our shelter, the sanitation, of course, spotless. Page 137 June 22, 2006 We also need to also market our animals to these people so that they become responsible pet owners. They know how to take care of their pets and what they can expect from each animal that they adopt from us as well. Weare requiring more and more of our shelter technicians. No longer is it just a matter of handling animals and cleaning them, euthanizing them, but it is a matter of marketing. It is a matter of computer skills because these animals are now marketed on the internet. It is a matter of -- of talking to each person that comes in so that they understand, one, if their animal is with us because it got out, what they can do to prevent this. And what our laws are here in Collier County. Or if they are adopting from us, to be sure that it is a good match as far as the family with the pet. Our last expanded conversion is a -- is the -- excuse me -- it's the shelter technician and the animal control officer. Weare also looking -- as far as our capital budget, we are looking for radios, again, for communications during the storm. And we are looking to increase our number of cat-holding cages and to go to stainless steel cages. This will dramatically decrease the number of workers' comp claims that we have. Because the cages will be, first of all, more sanitary and you're not going into a colony environment in which our workers in the past have had considerable workers' comp claim because you cannot control 12 or 13 cats in a colony environment. Those are some of the overviews. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Coletta has a question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I have two. Your-- your organization I know for years had a large volunteer work force come in. And I was wondering, one, if you could update me on that. MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir. In fact, referring, again, back to page 13. If you see at the bottom of the page FY 2006 is really when Page 138 June 22, 2006 we started actually documenting and getting a consolidated volunteer. We have now gone from 4,000 to 4,500 volunteer hours per year. Our -- our volunteer coordinator, Meryl Rorer, has just done an extraordinary job of coordinating the volunteers, to have them walk the animals, bathe the animals, groom some of the animals for us. Again, so that these animals look more presentable to the public. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you ever put a dollar value on this volunteer effort? MS. CASTORENA: At this point our volunteers are providing about two FTE -- a little over two FTEs per year that we -- that the county is not having to provide. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other question I have is -- I hope it's an item that's being worked on -- it has to do with the care of pets during an emergency such as a hurricane. Is there an active effort going forward on that to -- MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm going to -- I'm going to answer that question. Yes, there is. And I'm going to meet Mr. Dan Summers just a few minutes after five today to discuss this draft plan that I read last night before I went to bed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You need to say no more. Thank you very much. MS. CASTORENA: As far as Domestic Animals Services is concerned, we would be tasked with coordinating the effort of preparing the pet-friendly shelter. Of course, Mr. Summers would be tasked and the county manager would be tasked to finding the location. We have already started training our volunteers. We have provided a DART course for 20 hours followed by an OSHA course so that they understand the health risk involved, pet CPR. And the next one in the series will be pet first aid. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. MS. CASTORENA: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. What's a DART? Page 139 June 22, 2006 MS. CASTORENA: DART is Disaster Animal Rescue Training. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. They had -- they had an opening -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you were going to get a new dark horse. MR. MUDD: And, you know, I was -- my initiation was to go there and talk to them at their opening training. And it was -- it was a Saturday. It was a Friday night. It started Friday and went Saturday and Sunday. And I'm going -- I'll probably go out there and there will be about a half dozen people. There were close to 75 people ready to join that program, volunteer their time in order to rescue animals, give first aid to animals. It was absolutely -- I was overwhelmed. MS. CASTORENA: Ninety-three, sir. MR. MUDD: How many? MS. CASTORENA: Ninety-three. MR. MUDD: Well, 75. I was pretty close. And the room was packed. And we had federal and state presenters during that training. It was very comprehensive. My hat's off to folks from this community that came out and volunteered their time during the weekend and Friday night in order to receive the training. So it's not a small group of folks. That's -- that's a very good program there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion that at some time in the near future we honor them with a proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. RAMSEY: Then, Commissioners, the next department is -- even though Barry is your parks and recreation director today, he is sitting in the role of human services director since he prepared that budget. So he will present that budget for you. And sitting next to him is Marcy Krumbine. And she is your new human resources director. MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. For the record, Barry Page 140 June 22, 2006 Williams, parks and rec director speaking on behalf of the human services budget. If I may, direct your attention to pages 18. Eighteen gives the overall summary of the human service budget. And the budget is just a little over $6 million. It is a 3.6 percent increase that we're recommending. And just to talk briefly about the human services department. The department is comprised of three main program areas. The social service program provides help to citizens who need assistance with medical, prescription medicines. That particular program also handles all of the mandated social service programs that the county is involved in. The other program component that comprises the human services is the RSVP program. And that is a program that works with adults 55 and older and connects them with volunteer opportunities in the community. And then, finally, the Services For Seniors Program is a collection of state and federal grants that the county receives to provide care for elders in our community who are wishing to stay independent in their home. So with those programs we have not asked for any expanded requests this particular fiscal year. We do have one item on the UFR list, though, I wanted to talk a little bit about. And I have a visual, if I may. If I may direct your attention to page 20. The unfunded requests that we're asking consideration for is a program called 211. And on the visualizer you'll see a map of Florida. And currently in Florida 211 is -- is represented in approximately 47 counties. There are 20 counties that do not have such a system. And Collier County is one of those counties. 211 simply is a human services information referral system. It is a process where information referral specialists are certified in collecting information about human service programs, resources that are in local communities. And it serves as a clearinghouse to get people when they call this number to the appropriate service. The 211 system is similar to other types of Page 141 June 22, 2006 systems that you may be familiar with. 411. 411 is a general information system. And it operates in much the same way but, again, specifically for human services. The issue that we have in Collier County and throughout the state, throughout the country, tends to be that human services are fragmented and it's very difficult for people to find the appropriate service in a timely way. And often what happens in human services is you'll call an agency that you think can provide assistance. And you're told that, no, we don't provide this assistance, but you can call Agency B. Perhaps they will. And a person who is seeking a service may go through this process multiple times before they find the appropriate human service. This type of system, what it allows is a centralized database that a person can call a simple number, 211. Easy to remember. And get the service that they need in a very quick, efficient way. One other aspect of 211 I just want to mention and one of the things that we're looking at with this particular proposal is that this is a collaborative effort. We have a funding partner, Department of Elder Affairs whose agreed to provide a small amount of money, $10,000, towards this service. We also have a commitment from the United Way to provide us with the evening, weekend and holiday service that's necessary. And these -- with this collaborative -- with this collaboration, what it allows us to do is to respond to people throughout the year in finding these services. But what we've also found throughout the last couple of seasons is that this 211 system in Florida is being tapped to coordinate a lot of the efforts that occur in terms of getting people with needed human services during times of natural disaster specifically the hurricanes. We're hearing from the 211 network in Florida that they are tapped. And when there's a scram blaster, an event, to find an appropriate human service, these systems have been invaluable in helping get people to the right service and also to articulate to the Page 142 June 22, 2006 community what services are available. This isn't meant to take the place of anything that is part of the emergency operation center. But what we've heard and seen throughout the last couple of seasons as it becomes an adjunct to the emergency operation and in particular the recovery efforts. Our department of human services last year participated in a type of 211 service, if you will. We had a special needs -- special needs phone bank that we used volunteers to try to get this information, process this information and keep track of it and -- and get people to the right service. In fact, Mr. Halas, your wife, we appreciated her volunteering and working with our special needs phone bank last year. But in a lot of communities what we see is that this type of 211 system can take that place and work on an annual basis -- on a regular basis in knowing what the resources are and helping get -- direct people at the time of need. So I think I've talked about 211 enough. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is -- I've got a question-- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- before I turn this over to Commissioner Fiala. Looking at this -- the outline of Florida here, is the color code -- does it have any significance? MR. WILLIAMS: The color code reference is in some communities the 211 net -- network might be comprised of three counties. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: So where it's color -- where there's counties with several colors around it, that's a regional -- that's a regional 211 servIce. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So would you -- would we be tied in with a regional service or would we be by ourselves? MR. WILLIAMS: At this point this proposal is for just Collier County. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. Page 143 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is that a personal service or do you have to dial a bunch of different numbers or numbers that sometimes the people are especially are in a very concerned way get confused? MR. WILLIAMS: That's a very good question. You would dial 211. We would market it. It would be marketed within the phone books that are made available to the public. So it would be, we think, a very easy number for people to know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But once they get 211 -- once they dial 211, then do they have to dial one for animal service, dial two for -- you know, and when they get dialed, one if you know somebody in the department or two if you want a different department or three if you got the wrong number. Sometimes you can sit on the phone for 15, 20 minutes just picking out numbers before you ever get to speak to a human being. MR. WILLIAMS: There's a certification accreditation process associated with this service. Certainly calling and getting a warm body is the -- is the optimum. So the goal for this and objective for this program would not be to go through a series of phone prompts to get to the right person. It would be to get to an information referral specialist who would talk to you about what your needs are and direct you to the appropriate service right away. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they get somebody that answers the phone? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the purpose or the need, but actually they do get somebody on the phone? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. That's the objective. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Say "hello" at the other end? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everyone says it's the objective. I'm thinking it, but how does it -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, are you through? Page 144 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does it also work with cell phones? MR. WILLIAMS: That is something that is being worked through. At this point, the 211 doesn't take the cell phone to the -- the number. The State of Florida, though, with the 211 network, they are pursuing a contract within the next few months where that will be in play, but at this point it's not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, in other words, the State of Florida may have theirs together where you could call them with the cell phone? MR. WILLIAMS : Well, this network I'm describing, FLIRS, Florida Information Referral Professionals, they are seeking to get all the cell service in Florida to where if -- if you're 211 in Collier County, you're not going to get Tampa. Nor if you're 211 Tampa, you're not going to get Collier. But they're looking to collect the cell so that the 211 works for the cell -- for all the cell services. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your presentation. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, your next director is Marilyn Matthes from the library. MS. MATTHES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Marilyn Matthes, library director. The library continues to experience heavy use of all of our facilities even at our smallest location in Everglades City. The community in Everglades City was extremely happy to have their library opened again even in a temporary trailer after Hurricane Wilma closed it for about five months. When we compare our library system to other library systems in Page 145 June 22, 2006 Florida, systems that have about a population of 200,000 or better, we find clearly that our library system stands out. We have the third highest per capita circulation of any of these libraries. Only Alachua and V olusia Counties are higher than we are. Even the big systems like Miami/Dade, Broward, Lee County, Sarasota have a much lower circulation per capita than we do. Collier County ranks at the top of circulation per employee. This shows that our employees work harder than many of the employees at other library systems. Again, second is V olusia County, Seminole County . We handle about twice as many circulations per employee as the Lee County library system. And in a third area our library system cost per capita are about average in the state of Florida which is about $24 per capita. This compares very favorably to the cost per capita in Lee County of $44. And it shows again that we efficiently and effectively provide library services to our community. We've also had some very good growth since fiscal year 2000. In -- and during that year we had about 4,000 residents visit a library every day in Collier County. Now, we have about 5,000 residents visiting a library every day in Collier County. And during that same period our circulation has increased by 36 percent. I'd like to also mention the increase in children's services during that same time period. Children's circulations went up about 30 percent. The attendance at children's programs went up 63 percent. And our number of cards issued to children increased by about 19 percent. This is directly related to your support of additional children's programs specialists for our libraries. And brings up our-- one of our UFRs that we're going to be talking about tomorrow. We're planning for the staff that gets assigned to our new South Regional Library. And we'd like to start hiring some of these people during fiscal '07 even though the building doesn't open until fiscal '08. The only person I would like to hire initially is the children's librarian Page 146 June 22, 2006 so that person can be working with the community and start developing programs and relationships in that area. Currently from our East Naples branch we have a children's person who is shared with the Marco Island branch library. And we think that one children's person at least per location does a great deal to increase usage in that children's program. Our current budget request show increases due to personnel and utilities and some increases for library materials other than books. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you refer us to the pages that you're going to be talking about, please. MS. MATTHES: Okay. That was just mentioned on the summary on page 29. But I'm going to go to finally the page 57 where it talks about library capital projects. And we have two construction projects that we're working on this year; the 17,000 square foot Golden Gate structure and the 30,000 square foot South Regional Library. Both library proj ects appear to be on track at the moment. Weare hustling to get our construction contract for the Golden Gate project by our deadline of December 23rd of this year. One final thing I'd like to mention is that both the library and our Friends of the Library celebrate our 50th anniversary next year. 2007 will mark 50 years of library service by a county facility to the residents of Collier County. Can I help with any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Comnlissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When do you recognize the grant from the State of Florida for the South Regional Library? MS. MATTHES: When it's officially awarded to us. They send out no letters until after July 1 st. I -- in watching the legislative session this year, it appeared that they passed enough funding to fund our South Regional grant of $500,000, but I haven't been officially notified yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that -- that will be in Page 147 June 22, 2006 the final budget? MS. MATTHES: Hopefully, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, it was just reported to us that it was funded. MS. MATTHES: Good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. MS. MATTHES: Great. Wonderful news. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please continue. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Commissioners, your next director, Ron Jamro with the museum. MR. JAMRO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ron Jamro, your museum director. The museum has no expanded service requests for fiscal year 2007. We do have a number of major focus areas that we are seeking your support for. We would like to in 2007 continue the video documentary series in partnership with WGCU Public Broadcasting. We anticipate another three episodes next year. Probably I think it's Immokalee and the two Naples segments are expected. We do need some repair work down at the Museum of the Everglades. Incidentally, these are listed on page 37. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. JAMRO: So there's a roof -- a roof replacement in the museum in Everglades City. Weare proposing to -- to work even more closely with the convention and visitors bureau next year to professionally and aggressively market and promote the museum, all four locations, to try to keep even greater number of visitors and residents. We're also requesting some -- some funds to begin restoring the Page 148 June 22, 2006 museum's native Florida gardens which are pretty much destroyed by Hurricane Wilma and -- which were always an important feature of our -- of our educational programs at the museum. And we're requesting $50,000 to complete the design and fabrication of new exhibits. Our new exhibit upgrades are almost -- they're almost completed now at the main museum that was a -- about a three and a half year proj ect. As you might expect the principal project next year will continue to be the Naples Depot and the complete restoration of the northern half of the building. And while the southern half operates as a preview exhibit center, a museum and also a heritage tourism center. And I would like to mention that we had -- we had always planned that the depot would be a hub, an intake valve for the museum system. And I'm very pleased to report to you, that's exactly what has happened. We actually tracked fanlilies who visited all the museums. They stopped at the depot and then visited all the various museums in the system. So we weren't dreaming. That really does work. It really is making a difference. And once \ve're -- we're back up and operational at the depot, I think we'll see some -- some serious changes and -- and for the good there. It will affect the entire museum system. So that -- as always we appreciate your support. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about museums about your request. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Comnlissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Right now you were mentioning about repairing the roofs and some of those projects. Do you have enough money to take care of the necessary repairs to be able to at least hold the equipment from getting -- deteriorating along the way? In other words, if you don't have the roof repaired, you could have water leaking in. You could have all sorts of dry rot, a tremendous renovation later. Page 149 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Blue tarp? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that works too. Blue tarps are a wonderful idea. MR. JAMRO: You mean for the balance of this fiscal year, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Do you have enough to be able to preserve what you need? MR. JAMRO: We'll be fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The assets are protected? MR. JAMRO: Yes, they are. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also like to in this thing, I just want to make sure you didn't forget from last year. Remember I said we were going to take his backlog of over $3 million and we're going to break it down over a six-year period of time, 500 million (sic). I would direct your attention to page 65 of your book. What you have is the Public Services Division Museum Improvement Fund 314. And you'll notice that there's a transfer from 001 of half a million dollars to be added with the 330 that he's got from the transfer of 198 to have a capital budget of $830,000. And you'll see at the bottom of the page those things that's he basically moving those monies to. And that's in accordance with his plan that he broke out for me last year. And I promised you that we would get after it and quit whining about our backlog. And that's by Godford what we're doing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you for that. The other question is Roberts Ranch. Is there regular hours of operation now? MR. JAMRO: Yes, sir, Comn1issioner. Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are they? MR. JAMRO: Nine to five, Monday through Friday. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You get a pretty good response Page 150 June 22, 2006 from the public now? MR. JAMRO: It -- it works better by -- by previous arrangement. You know, they call and make a tour and that's a little more successful. The drop-in traffic, I don't think they're finding us out there yet. Hopefully this whole marketing campaign, some new signs there, but remember we've got one employee holding the fort there. And so he needs some help -- some volunteers to help him out there. But -- and I've always said, ] think that's the site we're going to have to bus visitors to and make a day of it because it's kind of a long drive from Naples. So I might add, too, that this is -- the county manager is, indeed, a man of his word. That's $500,000. And that we -- we augmented that with 250,000 and another 80,000 from TDC funds to make a real impact at the Naples Depot to try to get that wrapped up and looking good. I know there's a lot of impatience in the City of Naples especially what is -- come on, let's finish it. And then it's back to Immokalee to finish our projects there. And -- and so the 500,000 will shift from year. You'll see it track right through from site to site where the improvements are needed the most. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And is there anything new as far as Marco Island Museum coming up to the point where they have it all paid for and would like to come into our system? MR. JAMRO: Commissioner, the -- currently they are still raising the funds for construction. I think they're about a third of the way there. I'm a little unsure about the final price of the facility. And you will be seeing an amendment very soon that they want to -- they want to start construction, but on a different part of the facility. And they need you to change some of the language if you're amenable to that, so... COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the one that would be on our property? MR. JAMRO: On -- on the -- next to the library. So they're-- Page 151 June 22, 2006 they're very serious about that. And I think they have a ways to go with the fund-raising, but they're determined. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. JAMRO: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. RAMSEY: Good. Conl111issioners, we now have Dr. Colfer with the Health Department. DR. COLFER: Great. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'd like to direct your attention to pages 48 through 52. I think I'll start -- I'm going to start from the back and go forward based on your questions. But if you would look on page 52 in the bottom right-hand corner, you'll see the entire amount of our budget which is just over $13 million. You'll recall that we are really a state agency plugged into the county under Marla's direction. I th ink Mr. Mudd said last year we're the best bargain you're ever going to see. Your percentage of our budget if you approve our -- our request this year would be 1.8 million. And you would be contributing 14.1 percent to our overall budget. Included in those dollars is our request for one additional expanded services person. That's for an operations manager for our physician led access network. This is a program that we do through the Collier County Medical Society to help provide care to the uninsured in the community. We have 200 -- over 200 doctors as part of the program. All hospitals are part of the program. We are able to do anything from a simple office -- office visit to major surgical operations in hospitals here in Collier County couliesy of this program. You recently recognized the plan when they reached their -- one of their goals which was for $1 million in donated medical care. So we think that the request for this one position would be money well spent. And I would be happy to answer any questions you have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a comment? Page 152 June 22, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Joan, if you would be so kind if you'd tell the commissioners and the audience exactly what the plan has saved the community one n10re time. I think this is an important number. This is a voluntary group of physicians. This is something that I think this commission set the pace for Inany, many years ago as far as having the community come forward to pick up on the indigent health care and the workers care and those people that don't have insurance, if you would. DR. COLFER: One million dollars of donated medical care. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. And the way it works is the fact that you have many physicians in there. No one carries the total burden. It's shared by many people across the board. It's an excellent program. And I appreciate the fact that the county plays a minor role in it, but we do playa role. DR. COLFER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question for you. DR. COLFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know you were here at a commission meeting talking about a possibility of a pandemic. DR. COLFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how are we going to fund that if there is such a thing? DR. COLFER: Well, we actually are lucky -- lucky in having-- you -- you-all are lucky that we're a state agency, I think, because they are helping us with that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. DR. COLFER: And so at this point you don't -- you know, you don't need to. I do have some bio-terrorism funds. We're approaching panflu as sort of an all-hazards disaster. And so we are able to use those funds and that staff to work on panflu. Some of those people are out in the community, you know, speaking to every community group Page 153 June 22, 2006 that will have us. I was with a group of nursing home administrators yesterday talking about panflu and getting them prepared. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we don't -- at this point in time we don't have to put any reserves in or anything else? DR. COLFER: Unless you'd like to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, no, Ijust -- I was wondering if it's a requirement. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, from the state Department of Health, no. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Good. MR. MUDD: But for the county when we get -- if we get -- I don't even like to talk about it, but Dr. Colfer did mention it isn't if, it's when. So when it does come, there will be additional costs for county government that we will have to go into reserves in order to get. And I have no idea how much that's going to be because I don't know the magnitude of the problen1. Okay. And once that gets identified, we'll have emergency meetings with the Board of County Commissioners and we'll -- we'll get that resolved as we see it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Don't mean to be an alertist or alarmist. DR. COLFER: Very appropriate comlnent. MR. MUDD: And all your divisions and all your separate departments have submitted their pandelnic plans to our -- to the Bureau of Emergency Services. Dan SUn1ll1erS and crew are basically going through those to see if there's any holes or disconnects and to get that done. And once that's done, we'll tie it all together and we'll have our county plan. And it will -- and it will be tied in with the state and the federal plans so that they augn1ent each other and -- and we're in the best shape as we possibly can be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, the second to the last department is parks and recreation. And Mary Ellen Donner, assistant Page 154 June 22, 2006 director, is going to present. MS. DONNER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Mary Ellen Donner. I'm the assistant director of Collier County Parks and Recreation pinch-hitting for n1Y director Barry Williams. On page 36 of your budget docunlent you will see a summary of the parks and recreation department's budget. The funds a little bit down the page if you take a look that we are speaking about are 001, which are general beach and water regional park type facilities. 111, which is parks and recreation comlTIunity type facilities. 119, which is the summer food grant. And 130, which is Golden Gate Community Center. Although the overall Public Services Division is within the directed maximum percent increase, I thought I may perhaps answer a question that maybe all of you are taking a look at which is the overall net operating budget is being requested to increase to 14.4 percent. I thought that rather than -- than not have you in the dark, I'd point that out. And that, of course, is directly due to the impact that having a full year of operation of North Colher Regional Park would have. I believe Ms. Ramsey had mentioned earlier that we had a six-month phase in. And, of course, next year in 2007 we're looking at a full year of operation. So that, of course, is the explanation for the elevated percent for the departnlent. Additionally, we've got eight expanded requests. And two of them are in the 001 category. Five of them are in the 111 category. And one is in the 130 category. And if you would look at your budget documentation, the 001 progralTI enhancements are outlined on page 37. The 111 program enhanCelTIents are outlined on page 40. And the 130, it has a single program enhancement that we're asking for is on page 44. Additionally, we have three unfunded requests that we would like the commission to consider this year and those you would find on page 61. There is a City of Naples request frOlTI Collier County to Page 155 June 22, 2006 assist with improvements at Fleischluann Park. There is -- are two requests from the City of Everglades to inlprove McCloud Park and the community skating center within McCloud Park down in Everglades City. At this time, I'll entertain any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions? Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marla, what happened with the idea of our community parks -- I'n1 sorry -- neighborhood parks maintenance to be outsourced? MS. RAMSEY: The neighborhood parks are what we call a mow-and-go system. All of the neighborhood parks are doing that currently. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're outsourced? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was that done? MS. RAMSEY: We started that in, when, in March? DR. COLFER: Probably February of this past year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This past year? Last February? DR. COLFER: Last February. Dh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How many people did that add to your maintenance on -- on your other parks? MS. RAMSEY: Well, ren1en1ber, Commissioner, when I came last year and presented to you a request for 46.1 positions, I told you that we had done a number of things in order to reduce that number from almost 63 positions that we \vere originally looking at. And so in that request last year we had already reduced our number of requirement based on the fact that \ve vvere contract servicing out the neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think it was 12; right? MS. RAMSEY: No. I don't kno\v that it's 12, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: T\venty-four? Page 156 June 22, 2006 MS. RAMSEY: No. Far less. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two? I'm trying to get an answer here. MS. RAMSEY: I don't have that specific unless somebody else in the department has that specific. MR. MUDD: But you can get that information for him. MS. DONNER: Are you asking the number of neighborhood parks that we're currently contracting out? Is that the question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The personnel that took care of those rolled thenl over to the other parks. MS. DONNER: We can get you that information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: Probably six vv'ould be nlY guess, but maybe three. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- it was brought up Monday night at Golden Gate Con1111unity Center about a fencing crowd control for the outside an1phi theater and that's not being budgeted, but I see that their budget is zero. MS. DONNER: Currently that's not budgeted in this year's proposal. The parks and recreation department has a philosophical view, if you would like, that we don't llsually fence our parks in. We like to have them open so that people can access them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: lZeally? Okay. MS. DONNER: 1'1TI sorry. Did you -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: \Vell, I'm just -- every park that I've been to it has fences. MS. RAMSEY: We have fences on our facilities for health and safety reasons especially around our playgrounds and some various elements like that. MS. DONNER: Pools. MS. RAMSEY: But if you']] notice that even if there might be a property line fence between us and another place, our gates are always Page 157 June 22, 2006 open. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 'vVell, the -- the request was because there was a lot of temporary fencing going -- going up for special events. And I don't knovv if you run into that at other parks? MS. DONNER: Not usually. Just for special events such as Snowfest or Country J alU -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. DONNER: -- those types of things. That's usually all that we actually bring in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's -- that's just it. I mean, even though this is a MSTU that they paid for a portion their selves, they can't use those funds for fencing? MS. DONNER: I believe the BO;lrd of County Commissioners can direct us to take any -- any action. COMMISSIONER HENNI NG: Yeah. And I think probably my colleagues would want some kine! ofp,:tition from the people that entrusted me to give you that message. MS. DONNER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess we'll have to go that route. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, j f you want to add it to the unfunded request for -- for that, I don't know what the exact total of it is. It was somewhere around thi rty to llfty thousand dollars depending on what the development departn1ent \\ould have us put up. You could put up a chain-link fence, then it \:vould be closer to the $30,000. If we had to go with aluminum picket, it \vas going to be closer to the $50,000. If you wish us to put that 50,000 on that unfunded request, I'm sure you can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: ',Vell, I -- they're meeting tonight. MS. DONNER: They are? COMMISSIONER HENNING: ;\nd I don't lmow how they're P., ne 15 \.' . It..... 'I ...') June 22, 2006 going to proceed to get that message to ll1Y colleagues. Not trusting that I would -- MS. DONNER: Would you like n1e to confer that message on your behalf? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. DONNER: I shall. You're velcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue. MS. RAMSEY: Commissj oners, the last thing that I believe that we have, then, would be on page 61, tll e same page that you're currently on. There are a number of requests from the parks and recreation department to do some capital improvements. Rather than go through that entire list, there a re a n un1ber of them, if you have any questions, I'd be prepared to ans\ver or ask staff to help. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, COlll111issioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yea]l. Last year you were talking about the Eagle Lakes Community Parle And you said you only had enough money to build the start of a couple things. And you said, but you had to -- you had to complete those. Is that already budgeted? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am, it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One more thing. How -- how is that -- how is the skate park doing over at East Naples Community Park? MS. DONNER: Doing very well. We have maintained the hours that we had presented previously. And, of course, it's very heavily used during summer as the summer chi ldren are out of school. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So have you expanded the hours then? MS. DONNER: We have not exranded the hours. We have been looking for a volunteer to assist "ith us. And have been unable to find someone who can consistently COlne so that we can actually Page 15() June 22, 2006 publish those hours as every week on (: specific day or time. MR. MUDD: C01111uissioner -- C \)n1illissioner, let me ask a question here real quick. Mary Ellen, you -- you said that in the summer there's a lot of usage, okay, during that time period versus in the -- in the wintertime. And I -- I wOllld assume that during the summertime there might be a daily denland for usage. Okay. And I believe what you just said is you're tryi ng to find the volunteer issue. Now, let me ask the question, could -- ,:ould we hire a part-time employee or use our manpower -- wha1 do you call it, Mike, manpower pool? MS. DONNER: Job bank. MR. MUDD: Okay. The job bank to -- to work that over that three-month period oftilue so that it can open on a daily basis and augment when it is on those evenings i:l order to get that done? MS. DONNER: \\That we're currently doing in the -- the mornings, we're actuall y having summcr camps utilize that facility on specific days and times. Additionally, \ ve have somewhat expanded, not -- not permanently. So, yes, we cou ld possibly look at whether or not the budget will support hiring a job bank person. MR. MUDD: Yeah. How about -- how about, Commissioner, I think that gets at your issue. How about taking a look at that based on what you have right now, vacancies that you've had down during the year, Marla, and see if there's -- there's a way to expand those hours and -- and how about giving me an e-rr:ail back? And then I'll make sure the commissioner gets it to get that particular idea across. COMMISSIONER_ FIALA: That's great. MR. MUDD: But you're not asking for full time. School year it's not open. You got it locked in when you need to be. It's in the summertime when -- when the kids are out that they might -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And -- and these kids a lot of them -- you know, a lot of them are latch-key kids and stuff. It's located in the heart of a low-income c0111munity. There's nothing Page 16() June 22, 2006 surrounding it but that. And when facilities aren't open in the park and they can't get to any other park, then so luetimes boredom prompts them to be doing other things. So the n10re we can give them to do during the day, and our library doesn't have too, too many programs either, they would love to, but they haven't been able to either, so the more we can give children to play with and I think the less problems we'll have in the neighborhoods. Thank you. MS. DONNER: Definitely we'll for\vard an e-mail. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. Last year I went over and looked at the little league field ove:' there near Naples Park Elementary School and that field was in pretty bad shape. MS. DONNER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where arc we at in the renovation of that project? MS. DONNER: There is actually in your package a request in a capital improvement for next year to specifically fix the electrical field house back there. And what we've don e -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a lot of other issues with the bathrooms and -- MS. DONNER: Absolutely. We spent a little bit of time out there. And we've actually -- I recall be!:ause you received photographs of it. We've actually reloc ated where the electrical and pump system was into the garage systeJ11. So it's not in that little area that was down -- down. We've actually worked very, very well with the facilities management and our own staff. We've replaced bathroom doors. We've re -- you know, we've done probably two pages worth and have a very good working relationship with North Naples Little League Bart Zeno and C0l11pany. MR. JAMRO: Comn1issioner, maybe \ve can take some more pictures and send to you some of those improvements. We'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to see where we are on Page 161 June 22, 2006 that. Because when I went over there I couldn't believe it was that bad a shape. MS. RAMSEY: Con1missioner, p:1rt of that if you look on page 61, there's a drainage issue over there tl1at drains out into the tennis courts. And we have $125,000 slated next year to help with the drainage end of it which is, I think, leads to a lot of our problems. We have a lot of sitting water on those loca tions. It n1akes it very difficult to grass or keep the infields in place so... CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: We hope that we'll get some cooperation with the school system to help us with this project since it sits on an elementary school site. And we will be requesting them to partner with us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Good. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just one question. How come it takes $2 million to build a dog park? MS. RAMSEY: That's not a dog parle There is a miss there. That is the manatee park. If you go into the description, it should say development of n1anatee park in East Naples. There's also a misstatement on the fourth one down where it says North Naples Middle School lights. That should say North Naples Elementary School lights. That's Elen1entary I, the new one that they're building this next fall and \ve're looking to put S0l11e lights on their outside field. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the development of the dog park isn't really -- tell 111e what that is. MS. RAMSEY: Welre currently funded for that, Commissioner. So that is not in this request. This is the next phase. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this for the development of the -- of the -- MS. RAMSEY: The second phase of this park. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and that's the -- that's the -- Page 162 June 22, 2006 that's the soccer fi elds in the middle of the retirement community? MS. RAMSEY: It's a number of different things. And you'll be seeing that as we come forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know that I want to fund that one yet because] think that that's -- that's a bad news thing. And I think we ought to be looking at that more closely, quite frankly. Dog park, yeah, but -- MS. RAMSEY: The dog park is already funded, ma'am. COMMISSI ()NER FIALA: Good. I like that. The other part there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you answered all of our questions and I want to than k you very much for your participation. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MR. MUDD: Public Services will be followed by Community Development and Environmental Services Division. MR. SCHMITT: T\vo-minute stretch break? No? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. Just get on with it here. Ifwe can get this thing through, we can get to Comn1issioner Henning's request of BCC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: YOll'1l never make it. This lasts up to two hours. CHAIRMAl'J HALAS: I hope not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If it's going to be two hours, I don't want to do that. MR. SCHMITT: COlTIlTIissioners, good afternoon. For the record, I'm Joe Schn1itt, your Community Development and Page 163 June 22, 2006 Environmental Services I)ivision Administrator. I have seven departll1ents in lUY division. With me today, Denny Baker, my Director of Operations, Support and Housing. Randy Cohen. Randy, Con1prehensive Planning Department Director; Susan Murray, Director of the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review; Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Department. Sitting in for my Director of Building Review and Permitting and sitting in for Bill Hammond is Jim Turner, my Chie [' Plumbing and Mechanical Inspections; Michelle Anlold, Director of Code Enforcement; Tom Kuck, Director of Engineering Services Department. To my left, Ciary Mullee, my Manager of my newly organized Business Managen1ent and Budget Office. And Lisa is sitting behind me, Lisa Koehler, Public fnformation Coordinator. She's here because we're going to be talking ~lbout one position in that organization as well. Also some other mcn1bers of my staff if you have any specific questions in regards to issues in the budget. I'm going to go over a brief introduction. I am not going to have each of the directors go tllrough their budget. I think it's -- because it's a very complicated budget. We can w,llk through it if you wish, but I think I would like to do, given the hour, certainly provide time for questions. Before you today is a $61 111illion budget that will provide the needed funding for this county to continue to provide effective, professional, con1prehensive conu11unity planning and government oversight and regulatory oversight of development in Collier County. Also enforcement of the C:ollier County Growth Management Plan, Land Developn1ent Code the CoIl ier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Florida Building Code. We also provide county oversight of policies and programs to preserve and improve -- to preserve and protect wildlife and habitat as prescribed by fedcra 1, state and local Iel WS. We promote opportunities for affordable housing as well as inlproving the quality of life of those less fortunate in our comrnunity through efficient and effective Page 16if June 22, 2006 implementation of our -- of our Comm unity Development Block Grant Program, our CDBG, and our State Housing Initiative Partnership, our SHIP program. We also fund for the economic de velopment incentives to continue to attract new high-wage jobs to Collier County to further diversify our local econolny and basica lly to reduce the dependence on tourism and the construction industry. And we also enforce the collection and we nlanage all impact fc(~s. I think at this tinle I'd like to -- I \vish to point out that the preponderance of our funding for this budget comes from fee revenue and other external sources of tax and gl'ant revenue to fund enterprise activities and special programs. The principal demand for ad valorem is to fund code enforcen1ent and the stclte planning compliance requirements for long-rallge COl11ll1Unity planning activities within the comprehensive planning department. \.Ve work hard. We worked hard to ensure that our overall den1and by the division on the general fund stayed in line \vith last year's figure. In fact, we're only $900 over last year's figure. As an overvie\v this budget and t]l e services that it -- it displays is projected to provide and is predicated en your guidance regarding the services, progranls and studies identifil d under each of the respective departments. And it also reflects what 'vVe believe is still ongoing and consistent strong gro\vth across all the business activities within the -- within the department or within the division. Excuse me. I also note that this budget is with i n your budget guidance which capped discretionary spending at 4.7 p Tcent and allowed for a total increase of 12 percent. Al1d I would s1 "ess -- and I wish to stress and point that this requires no increase. Tb is budget requires no increase in existing comn1un i ty devcloplnent fees, the building fees or land development fees. This budget meets the guidance with net increases in the following; increases of 3.6 percent in discretionary operating capital and existing personnel expense, and 6.9 percent increase in Page 16. June 22, 2006 adding new personnel. In your budget are 2.5 personnel added as budgeted new FTE or expanded positions and 10 listed as UFRs, but in all frankness, they are budgeted. I IY1Ve the money to fund those positions. They're above budget guidance. Let me just talk a little bit about increased business activity. I wish just to make sure you understand, we understand that our projections run contrary to the popular inlpression that the housing market has slo\vcd down. It hasn't. I h'.lve charts and figures if, in fact, you want nle to go through that. ') au saw that in your executive summary yesterday Of, excuse ll1e, on C 'uesday where we asked for the additional people in the bui Iding depari 1l1ent. The growth in the county population celiainly has led to (, large increase in a number of renovations, improvements and in actu;d ity also the impact of hurricane response and the pern1its assc ciated with that. Commercial building activity is a: historical level in this county, levels higher tha 11 we've seen. And wh' e there is some slowing down in some construction, we expect at a n1 niluum that we will sustain the same level. There are a lot of, as you ".fell know, zoned communities out there with what I would call pent-uD existing zoning and many units or many con1nlunities with what \ve're building now construction associated with sales from a year, yearll1d a half ago. So even considering if th'~re even were a slowdi \'111 this year in sales, just with the communities that are coming on-lir~ both in the north part of Collier County, Park 1 ands, Mi rosol, i t~ in fact, they build that, some of the communities up there. And -- and do\:vn in the southern part of the county buildout certainly of Verona W,tlk, Fiddler's Creek, Treveso Bay and some o!' those do\vn there, \ve -- \:vc just anticipate we're going to have significant demand on -- ,)11 the services we provide. I -- I would like to no\v just walk :lrough each of the expanded-- I'll call them UFR positions. If you ha'c any questions on -- on the specific additional personnel that we're asking for and my directors are prepared to ans\ver 8S to the regards to ~hose personnel and the impact Page 16< June 22, 2006 if, in fact, we do not get those personnel. So I -- first page I'd ask you to open to is page 9 of your budget. CHAIRMAN I-{ALAS: I have a question. MR. SCHIvnTT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: \'es. CHAIRMAN I--IALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISS rONER COLETTA: ] Cound it. Very interesting. Of course, you knO\V, I think you'll find this con1mission to be extremely supportive. Any too Is that we can give you to help you with what you're trying to accolnplish will -- I don't think we're going to refuse you as long as \ve can see 8, you know. a cost benefit to it. One thing that gave me concern, \vhy do \ve have positions for your department on the UFR list competing fro111 the general fund money? MR. SCHIVlITT: They -- they are not, Con1missioner. None of those -- none of lhose positions are COIT1pcting for general fund money. CHAIRMA N ]-[ALAS: I-Ie's got 1 '1e funds. MR. SCHl'vl ITT: There are geneLll fund positions that are expanded positions, FTE, that some of which are -- are general fund. But the ones that are on -- in your bool\ and T -- on the front of your book -- MR. SMY1~O\VSI(I: It's the general overview, page 13. MR. SCH1\ 1 ITT': Page 13. Thank you, Mike. There are positions listed Llat are -- are all Fund 131 \vhich are land use and permitting fees. These are prinlarily -- they are not building permitting fees. Those are land use fees. COMMISS lONER C()LETT A: Just to summarize this for us, for a lay person. MR. SCHrvlITT': Yes. COMMISSrOI<ER C()LETTA: ] f'these positions were granted to you, what wOlLld he the savings in tilne to the public and the savings to the county as generally providing Ollr overtime or whatever other costs would be j ncurrecl? 1)0 you have s0l11ething you can give us an Page 167 June 22, 2006 idea on that? MR. SCHl'vUTT: As far as savings fro111 a cost perspective I -- I -- I don't have a -- I don't have a capture of that. But what I have is basically I require a level of service of 30 days review time. I have charged that I can show you now, if you so \vish, that clearly display we are well with in those 30 days. In fact, in our land use petitions we are down -- COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: Yeah, Mr. Schmitt, I'm familiar with that. MR. SCHMITT: Yea h. We're -- we're down probably below 20 in 20 days. COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: And the thing is that there's always a way we can in1prove our perfonl1ances. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: I mean, anyone. Even the commISSIoners -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER. C()LETT A: -- have ways they can improve their performance. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: Probably by not having me talk so much, right, wouldn't you say? COMMISSIONER C()YLE: That would improve it tremendously. COMMISSIONER C()LETT A: \Vhat would this do for the public? Let's put it that way. MR. SCHMITT: Can I \valk through each one and make -- COMMISSIONER CC )LETT A: Yeah. That would be fine. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get in front of you on that. MR. SCHMITT: Let :ne -- let me turn the page to page 7, which is the first one. That is und'~r 1 he administration office. Because I -- I think I can do it better this '.vay instead of trying to do it in one fell Page 168 June 22, 2006 swoop. Under the adnlinistration office it's a new planning tech. And that is a person that worked for Lisa Koehler. You directed a division to now hold neighborhood information nleetings for all comprehensive plan amendments. And given the addition for comprehensive plan amendments, a requirelnent tbat we believe we're going to be dealing with and dealing with at least the 951 and some of the public interface we need there plus the nunl bel' of neighborhood information meetings that one person now does, this person vvill augnlent that staff and provide that needed infonl1~1tion and an interface for the public out in the public information office. So that's the -- that's the position on page 7. Page -- let me go to pel ge -- page 9 and I'll turn to Tom Kuck. This is an environmental spc~cialist position that is listed under the PUD monitoring. We've ta1:(ed about that briefly during the workshop to assist in PUD monitorinr~, environmental. And, Tom, if you could address where that person \'/ill help you in -- in your 800 series inspections. MR. KUCK: Yes. That person will probably spend 50 percent of their time under the PUD rronitoring and the remaining 50 percent helping us in our inspectiol s, "emoval of exotics and things like that that we are really shorthanc'ecl on novv. So at one time we had an environmental specialist th; t \vas -- spent half the time with engineering and half the tinle at that tin1e with zoning. But -- and it worked out real well, but tllZ1t person retired and then was never replaced. Tom Kuck. MR. SCHMITT: COIT111l issioner Colettn, the workload, we have basically one person, John ). \t1artina, who goes out and does inspections on site plans, let l1c])caping. This person will assist in doing final inspections on declica t ,-'d preserves -- preserves that have been defined. Again, this is to provide service to the developing community so they can close out their -- their projects quicker and we can ensure compliance. Page 169 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER. C()LETTA: I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm just a little bit confused. Y OLl nlentioned that the position went away one day and the person left. Isn't that a vacant position? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. The -- 'vvhat TOln was referring to at one time we had a half a position that 'vvorked -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I see. MR. SCHMITT: -- in his departn1ent 8nd also worked in Bill Lorenz and doing plan revi ew. That person left. But basically I rolled up the FTE into the -- into envirolllllental t\VO years ago because of the workload in environmental. The next page referred to on page 11. These are two management and budget analysts that will be \vorking in Mr. Mullee's section under the business lna'1agen1ent 8nd budget office. And I'll -- I'll turn it over to Gary, but be fore I do just so you understand, I'm looking for some assistance to help provide reports that we need to do and the business analysis that we need to do to improve our processes. Gary. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'nl sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. You probably explained it, but I just need to ask tile question again. You -- you have the money in your budget ~~o it doesn't COlllC out of the general budget? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I have -- I have sufficient fees to pay for all these positions that -- tbat I identified. COMMISSIONER C()LETTA: So, in other words, this is -- the county manager is just putt int' this on the cOl111nission to be able to add this back in to make it sinlple? MR. SCHMITT: The positions 'vvere identified because they were above the 25-person limit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: T see. Okay. Now everything's coming together. Page 170 June 22, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And if I gave Mr. Schmitt or Mr. Delony all that they wanted even though they're -- they're an enterprise-funded position, they would totally devastate -- cither one of them would totally devastate the 25-position limit. So \vhat -- what I do is I try to squeeze them, just like I squeeze all the other division administrators to make sure that they conle forward with the positions that they absolutely need. And they prioritize those and that's what's in my 24.5 positions that you have today. And then thc ones that don't fit, they -- I give the staff the latitude to come forvv,1rd 2nd bring those to the board's attention and talk -- talk to you about bringing them back into the budget. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, si 1'. Gotcha. MR. SCHMITT: Areas of the t\VO man~1gement and budget analyst positions. MR. MULLEE: Yeah. For the record, Gary Mullee the Budget Office and CDS. One of the positions, as Joe mentioned, was to go ahead and consolidate the luanagen1ent reporting within the division so that we could get some Inatrix in terms of performance. The other position is to consolidate some financial opcr:ltions of -- of the business. As we've grown it has become qu i Le the enterprise. And this would provide some consolidated financ; al oversight. And where these really kind of benefit our custoluers is that these are services that -- necessary business services that \ve provide each of the seven departments. And it gives thenl an opportunity to focus more on their core activities allowing planners to be planners and that type of thing. So that's -- that's -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: vVhat page are you referring to here? MR. SCHMITT: Page 11. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 171 June 22, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: On your page 11 dovvn -- halfway down the page. Of course, it's the botton1 paragraph on that page. It says "UFR two management budget analysts, managenlent and budget office." CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Next one, page 35 and that's under the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. And Ms. Susan Murray Istenes will basically talk about the two positions that she's asking for. MS. ISTENES: Susan Murray Istenes. I'm the zoning department director. And these two positions are primarily to assist with the Land Development Code an1endment process. And how this will benefit the public is we've had a goal now for several years after the recodification of the Land Development Code to actually go through the Land Development Code and consolidate it and amend it and make it more user friendly. Right now I have one FTE that handles the entire Land Development Code process and has very little secretarial support as well as any assistance with research and things like that. We've also developed a prograll1 internally where we're bringing department representatives together from various county departments, transportation, utilities, parks and rec, folks from the building department. And we have a coordinated effort when we develop amendments to the Land Development Code. So that's a new process that we started as well and this one individual is responsible for that. The workload is just tren1endous to keep up and manage. Every time, as you know, Randy Cohen h8s a change to his Growth Management Plan, we have to amend the L8nd Developn1ent Code to be consistent. Anytime the state nlandates any ch8nges, again, we're amending the Land Development Code. So I think you C8 n see where I'm going with this. I don't think the work's going to slow down at all, ifnot increase for the Land Developrnent Code anlendments. And we are trying to achieve greater effici encies through bringing all the county Page 1 72 June 22, 2006 departments together to work 011 a cClordinated effort rather than piecemeal. MR. SCHMITT: Susan, if I could add also, we're looking at this person to help us begin to defi 11 e and develop an administrative code. When we separated some of the administrative criteria out of the LDC, when we recodified many of the administrative issues, processes were removed. And \ve're going to -- we've always had a goal to try to create an administrative code which is more procedural in nature, again, to provide the road map to any applicant as far as how to proceed through the process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have -- one commissioner has some questions. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENl"']ING: Susan, I realize how busy your __ your staff are. They're working extra hours. But I can't understand after hiring somebody to fix the code to make it easier, that we have to fix it again and make it easier. MS. ISTENES: I think ycu're referring to the recodification process we went through? No? COMMISSIONER HENl'<ING: No. We hired a specialist, too. It was, what, two years ago? MS. ISTENES: Right. 0:111 E'lzley (phonetic)? Gail Eazley & Company. That was to -- MR. SCHMITT: ThrouP.:h contract. "- MS. ISTENES: Througb contract, correct, to reorganize the code. COMMISSIONE~RHENNING: To make it easier. I mean, I remember sitting there alld he \Vas tllere. And he said, We're going to make it easier for the average person to follow this code. MS. ISTENES: Right. "- COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: We're going to n1ake it easier or what? MS. ISTENES: T hope so, Page 173 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to me it was okay before. It was easier to follo\v then than it is now. MS. ISTENES: The changes that we're talking about that we accomplished through using Contractor Gail Eazley was simply reorganization, the structure of the code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I specifically remember him saying it \:vould be easier to follow. MS. ISTENES: There were no regulatory changes as a result of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I knO\V there wasn't. MS. ISTENES: No\:v, we're looking at regulatory changes as far as eliminating n COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Maybe I misunderstood what you said then. MS. ISTENES: Okay. 'VeIl, \:ve're trying to eliminate -- we find a lot of inconsistencies in the code. We find a lot of language that's duplicative. W c find a lot of 1(1 l1guage that conflicts with other language. We have some really older provisions in there that have not been updated in years, our nor,conforming section, nonconforming uses, properties. There's a lot of confusion every time staff or the public tries to rcad and unders'and and apply that. And that's what we're shooting for this tin1e. Iloes tbat help or luake sense? COMMISSIONER I-IENI"-J1NG: I understand your goals and that, but that's cxactly what the gentleman said when we were having that workshop. CHAIR~1AN H/\LAS: 1 have to agree with Commissioner Henning. I thought that's \:vh8t \ve \vere trying to do because there was some language in there that W:1S old and you \vere trying to bring that up-to-date or \vas I tl1inking 0;' something else? MS. ISTENES: We renlovcd rcgulatory language from definitions. That -- that was one thing that, you know, is different from reorganization, I guess. /\nd, you knO\V, I'm trying to think of Page 174 June 22, 2006 what else. Perhaps you were thinking -- because at the time I've been telling you throughout the years no\\, you know, this is kind of our goal and this is the first process is the reorganization. I hope I didn't -- CHAIRMAN Hi\LAS: I guess what \ve -- I guess where I'm coming from on this is that I thought this was going to be, like, a one-time affair. But, obviously, wh8t's happening here, it's an ongoing situation. MS. ISTENES: It really is, Conlmissioncr. And I think one lesson we learned in the recodificatinn was that was an absolutely humongous project. And I'll be honest with you, we just don't have the resources -- resources to devote that much time to a one-fell-swoop project. This is going to be -- I mean, it's ongoing only from the nature of the beast. I nleanc your comp plan is constantly changing. Your comn1unity's goals ;lnd objectives are constantly changing. The cOlnnlunity's desires and wishes are constantly changing. So there is a forever 111airtenancc requirement of your LDC. And I'm sorry if -- I didn't mean to 1118ke it, you know, so you misunderstood or I spoke incorrectly. But our goal the first time around was not to make any regulate lY changes. It was just to reorganize to make it casicr to find things, casier to use, but not from a regulatory perspective, mostly from ln org;ll1izational perspective. There were sonle -- like I said, \\'e renoved regulatory provisions from the definitions because that was conI Llsing ~lnd that wasn't the proper place for them. That \vas on the advice of Gail Eazley, but that was our goal during tl1at process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: C01l1m:ssioner Henning. COMMISSIONER ]-IENNTNG: WelL I -- I remember we want to take some out and put it in the orcinance. MS. ISTENES: Right. The -- i he adlllinistration -- COMMISSIONER ]-IENNING: I tOUllly remcn1ber that and that was stated during the adoption of the new format. MS. ISTEN RS: lZigl-:t. l\:ge : 75 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONE R I-JENNING: But when do we hold people accountable for \vhat they get paid for? MR. SCHMITT: Th0Y were -- the contract was specifically-- specifically for Gail Eazlcy was to reorganize the LDC. They did take a lot of the administrative minutia Ollt of the LDC. COMMISSIONER lIENNING: Was the contract different than what we were told at this \vorksllop? MR. SCHMITT: I believe \ve Inade that very clear. And I thought Gail did \vhen she briefcd you-all what -- what it was. Because there was no i ntcnt of changing -- in fact, \ve were prohibited from making any substantive ch8nges to the -- COMMISSIONER I rENNI~G: I understand that. And I understand that you "rant to slo\\' do\vn those LDC changes too. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we've slowed it down. Last year we had four LDC amendn1ent cyc les, t\VO ard thcn two intermixed with those two. So we had four. Th;s year is about a ten-month cycle. Because it was -- it's just becolTl in~) too cbaoti c. And the second posi l ion you wcre asking for is the administrative secretary? MS. ISTENES: j\drninistn:tive Secretary. Again, we're trying to reduce some of the adlnin 'strativ8 nLlctions a lot of our principal planners are performing, .iust sinlple duties like filing, scanning, things of that nature. We're finding they're spel1ding a lot of their time doing that type of\vork rather than revjewillg p1ans and reviewing applications. So we're try ing to clim inate son1e of that. CHAIRMAN Hl\Ll,S: Wl~at are these people being paid versus what it would take if you 11ad all :ldn,inistrative aide? Are you telling us it would be verv cost efective? MS. ISTENFS: To ,lire -- yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALl.S: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Next position) page 38, under Environmental Services Departlnent, t\VO UFRs, one environnlental specialist and one '). ae ~ 76 I c.;::> I .._..,~~ ._..._~_..~""e.' June 22, 2006 environmental technician, Bill Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. The two positions as Joe indicated, one is an Environmental Specialist and the other -- other is an Environmental Technician. As you know that we've been behind in our reviews. I think we just caught up with tl1C existing con~plerr:ent. We're still looking at about a 10 to 15 percent i 11crease in revi C\VS for next year. So we wanted to budget the environmental specialist to be another reviewer. That will take up our anticipated in!~rease ;n the nUluber of reviews that we expect to have for next year. In addition, this posi Lion \vculd also allow for us to make some more inroads into some p:'ocess ;lnprovelnents and also -- also some customer service cnhancen1ents ::UCll as better checklists for the reviewers to havc. Currently we have bcen spending our time catching up, getting -- tak ing C3r'~ of the revie\vs. But I think there's a lot of process inlproveme:1ts and increased productivities that we can do as long as \ve 11 ave sorn e adc1 i I. i on ~ll t1111e for staff to be able to work on those activities. So this incrc':sed enviroll111ental specialist will help us to take carc of these functions. The environn1ental t 2chnici' ,11 position \vill be somewhat of a new slotted pos:tion. We curren'ly Lave eight positions. If you agree with the envirOl11TIental sreciali~;t, th;lt \vould be nine positions. We do not have any arlministrative s: 'pport for this section. The environmental tcchnician \vill be ab1 ~ to take some of those administrative clut;es off of the c'lvironn1ental specialist, allow them to focus in on revic~ws, sitting dO\Vl \vith the customer, working on exactly what necds to be providcJ in -- in thc plans that we are reviewing. An~1 ;11so be ahle to t'lke carc of general inquiries. Be trained for sonl'~ :Jctdition~d wor],<ng \vith -- for instance, we get a lot of inquiries fr01l1110nleowners tl-at Ci)n1C in for \vhat -- what they need to do for veget2tion removal per'llits, rlaving a person to spend a little 1) 1ge 1 77 June 22, 2006 bit more time with individ uals sllch ~ s this will be helpful with -- with regard for the environmental technic' an position. MR. SCHMITT: If I could poillt out -- out Mike Smykowski's shop, Ms. Kim Grant at the direction of the county ll1anager spent somewhere around four and a ha If nlJnths doing a process improvement review speci fically foe Jsed on the environmental staff. And these are the results, 1 hese t\VO ] ositions \vere the result of -- of that analysis. These were process in provements that were briefed to the county mana:cr and identified a~ needed positions in order to implement those process i 111prOVcnlelts. CHAIRMAN FfALAS: COr11111;Ssioner fiala, you have a question. COMMISSTONER FfALA: D( you have any vacancies in your department right row, Bill? MR. LOREl';Z: No, \ve don't. MR. SCHl\1 fTT: Ma'anl, I h~v ' currently 17 vacancies within the division. Nine ~:re open position~'. And, of course, you just approved another 12. So 1'11 be -- I a ,ready directed to start recruiting for those 12 for n1'.~ building depar' IT:nt. The next O'lC 1S on page 46 and 'hat's a luanager of plan review and inspection. T~lis is in my buildilg departlnent and Bill's not here. I'll speak about 'h;s. This departlre::t has grown to 100 folks. Bill does not -- Bill 11:'s nve direct repcrt'. He operates the -- manages, of course, the intakc process in the lobI '{ and A lamar -- oh, on page -- I'm sorry. I lost 111c page there. 0'1: our page -- on my page 46. It's on -- in the mic1r'1c of the page. It'" t Ie botto1l1 of the page. It says UFR, one mana~:rr, inspections, b. 'il ling review and permitting. Currently I 'l'lve three chiefs. I i1ave a chief that oversees the electrical inspee<c~n'~ and review, t'lt' mechanical and plumbing electrical-- mec1lanical and phlllll<l1 ~ revie\v and the structural plan review and insp(>ction. This perso'l ' ,rill basically be a supervisor over those three. Th" organization is bc'c( lning so large. This will, quite Pa~)c 178 June 22, 2006 frankly, provide an additional person. Bill Hammond in the last two years looked back at his calendar. H ~ has had in excess of 800 meetings where he has met with app1 icants, custonlers, resolved issues, as well as the chiefs and three of -- two of the chiefs are here in regards to discussing the impact oftl e workload. This person will basically help reI ieve some of that re ;ponsibility off of Bill so Bill can do what he's suprosed to do and tl:at is to run that organization. This will be my deput/ building chicf as \ Tell. Bill Ham1110nd is 111V buildilv' d : rector and he's also the chief ..; , building officia1. This person \vil1 seve as the deputy building official. A 1 OO-r~erson organizatic 11, [ think it's certainly warranted. The next -- r -- I \vant to take a 'noment just to point it out. In the middle of that p~ge as \vell and sircc I'm talking thc building department. W c're including in th: s: -- identifying $250,000 in the budget for contr:1ct services. And r l' 'lOW COlumissioner Coletta mentioned this yesterday about outS( urcing. This is our intent to use a private provider to augnlcnt my ill"p\ction staff to do those kind of inspections that zre less technically c'~manding. Of course, this would be a certified pri vate provider qua 1 ifi ~d as far as the international code council. And thc'v would do -- \vevc uld have the111 do such less technical inspec' ;ons as storm shu ~e;'s, HV AC ch1nge-outs, reroofings, those kine! of inspections. And -- and they would also in peak periods, \Vc could use then1 a'~ \: 'ell to do plan review. And that __ that -- that th i~~ is in the budget. Al '~ain, there's no demand at all on the -- on the -- 0" the 8d valoren1 dol ar. This is -- \vould be paid for out of developnlent fces or pen11it fet s. In th is case the building permit fees. The next and the last one on 1 he UFR list under the engineering service departnlcnt is the senior engil:eer. And I'll, again, turn over to Tom Kuck. MR. KUCl:: Cu:-rently we (111) -- we l-;ave four senior engineers that are revie\v1l'g in th~ neighborhoc d of 80 subdivjsion plats a year, PaL ~ 1 79 June 22, 2006 135 -- the 200-site development plans. I have it kind of broken down that we have one engineer revie\villg the utilities, one the transportation, one the plats, and one storm\vater n1anagement. And it's just -- we don't have any backup for those positions. And I -- this position to provide backup and then to do SOlue coordination between the plan review and our inspector people out in the field. And that would be kind of a d1121 purpose for that person. CHAIRMAN HA r j\S: Are you getting to a point where you're starting to burnout SOIT1 . ()f these people? MR. KUCK: I've g )t a very dedicated staff that's been with the county, most of them 1 5 to 25 years. MR. SCHMITT: T don't want to lose any of then1. I mean -- you know, people \va lk. ^ nc1 I think Stan probab ly gets a call a week for an offer. So that's -- tb'1t'S what we're facing right no\v. And we lost our surveyor. I do not 1::~: ve a registered professional surveyor. And we've -- we've had cxtre:,IC difficulty to replace -- fill that position. MR. KUCK.: Did y,Hl have any questions? CHAIR1\1AN HALJ\S: It's totally unfair to the \vorkforce there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just thro\v one -- CHAIRMAN H!\f":\S: Sure. COMMISSIONS:Z !1'IALA: -- if they've all been there that long, that says a lot about you. 'rOnl. They stayed there because they must like your managemen t st: '1 e. MR. KUCI(: \VelL \ve've got a good te3111 and \ve all work together pretty close. 'ThJllk you. MR. ~1UDD: 1\11". Cl1airnlan, I want to -- I got to tell you that Tom's worked for a lol1~ ~j1ne for this county. He's been a county engineer. He gets 11P thc"c and I can't tell you ho\v lucky this county's been to have hilll. ~^, nd, 'olnmissioner Fiala, I'm glad you took the opportunity to singl(~ hin Clut because he has been a stalwart, pillar-- pillar of excellence for r is COnl1TIUnity for a long time. Thank you. CHAe:~vfJ\.>J FTAL. \3: Commissioner Coyle. Page 180 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to go back a little bit to an earlier con\'l~rsation we had. There's probably been no other departn1ent affected so heavily by actions of the Board of County Commissioners over the past several years because we have been changing lots ofthil1gs. And it's very -- always very difficult to keep up with changes and develop new regulations and make sure they're consistent and clc",u'. Even we argue with then1 within weeks after we've enacted thenl" So it -- it is a difficult thing and I can appreciate fle \vorkloac1. But th~ one thing tb'l~ -- that -- and I'm going to wait until the county manager gets off the telephone before I continue because -- because this is primarily ;()r the benefit of the county manager. This -- this division has -- has an :'111azing scope of activities. And in addition to all of the things that -- ~'.at you're doing that arc absolutely essential to -- to approve bllilding n!~ln1its and do reviews and all the things we've been criticizing YC' 1 :'lbont for not doing on time or doing quickly or doing efficient l:r, you know, you're also responsible for affordable housing, sea t!. :'Je 1110nitoring, natural resource grants, invasive exotic removal, :; ~onomic diversification and development. What are you guys (!( ing involved in that stvff? CDBG state housing initiativc~, franc1,: 'C administrations, utility regulations for privately owned t'tilitie~:. . To\v, this is -- that's crazy. It really is crazy. And -- and -- anc: [don't know how a division can focus on the __ the things we really al\.~ conlplaining about a lot of times which is getting those penuits processed when we've got you pointed in so many different djrection~'" CHAIRMAN HAL.\S: Then we have workshops all the time. COMMTSSI/)NER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah. And then we're changing things as we g along. CHAIRMAN HALi\S: I'lU ~luazed you get your work done. I'm amazed. COMl\IfISSJONER COYLE: That's right. You can't possibly Pa oe 181 i:::> June 22, 2006 spend -- spend anywhere near 50 percent of your time on the job. You're -- you're here doing something with us a lot of the time. So it seems to me, County Manager, and I would hope -- I don't know whether we have guidance from the commission or not to do this, but I would really like to give some -- have you give some serious consideration to silnplifying this process and maybe realigning some of these functions so th:lt -- CHAIRMAN HATJi\.S: I think we've got to break up some of this organization. It's \\'~lY too much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But that's the county manager's job. Vol c're 110t going to tell him how to organize and do this. But I \vould just encourage you to give some thought to it. Because when people 8rc torn in so many directions, it's almost impossible f')r thcln to dcal with a lot of the prin1ary problems and to get those problems sol\'cQ in a timcly way. So -- so -- ar~ci I br:ng that up now because I am -- it's unfortunate I wasn't here yestcrday i~)r the discussion on the renovations of the building and that 50rt of stuff. But I would be very, very reluctant to spend money doi n g thi n gs like that until we dealt with the fundamental orgZ1llizaticn of -- of -- of the division to see if there's a better way to org8nize it so that they could focus on the things we consider to 1")e of prima 1'y importance. And then at that point in time start looking at \vays yell might want to invest in capital improvements wllich n::ght help get the job done better. But -- but that -- that's lUY purpose for bringing it up at this point in time. I think it's an almost unr.l'lnagc'lble range of activities and conlplicated with __ with pressures ,ve've hcen putting on the departlnent and -- and the problems of retaining pr:'Dple. I don't -- I don't know that you dig yourself out oftll~:t hole :lnytime soon without doing sOlnething fairly dramatic. CHAIRMAN I-IAL/\S: I think we're burning people out. COM~HSS1 )NEl;>, COYLE: Well, you're certainly burning me Page 182 June 22, 2006 out. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COM~1ISSIONER COYLE: It's getting harder and harder to keep track of all this. COMMISSIONER I-IENNING: Yeah. I agree. I think you're burned out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Huh? COM~\nSSTONER I-IENNING: I concur. I think that's -- that's a great suggc~t:ion. It is very busy do\vn there, very diverse. I think Jim Delony cou~d use a little extra work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Particularly the utility regulation. I don't know why he's not involved in utility -- MR. SCHMITT: lIe legally -- he legally cannot. MR. ~!rUDD: Cannot do it. COM! ; ISSIONER COYLE: There's a conflict of interest, huh? MR. SCI-IMITT: That's why \vhen Blue and now Jamie French runs ads saio bas:c~111y a one and a halfFTE right no\\'. COM1vHSS10NER COYLE: Give it to Len Price. MR. SC:T-IMITT: It used to be in the manager's office. It moved. It -- COM\nSSIONER COYLE: Or to Leo. Leo can do it. MR. S :r-IMTTT: It's only -- it's one person. And Jamie and -- COM1\1~SS10NER COYLE: In that whole area I count almost 54 people. MR. SC:HMITT: vVcll, Jamie also nlns my records room and also works for my emergency management business. MR. ~!: UDD: \\That r owe -- \vhat I owe this board over the summer mon ths is we'll get at the organization and we'll scrub it and come up wi' 11 a rCC0111n1endation in order to get that done. The reason I'll come bac k wit 11 a recol1lillendation if it requires another division, I'm going to need ~ 'our concurrence for that. If not, I can blend it and I will. But 11". _Te's no sense 111aking another division -- Page 183 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever makes sense, yeah. MR. MUDD: So I'll -- I'll get that. If that's what the board's direction -- that's \vhat I would like to do to come back to the board on. MR. SCHMITT: And much of it is integrated as \vell. And just like when I \vorked with other departments -- COM~/:ISSIONER COYLE: That's even worse. \Vhen it's integrated \,,': th other functions, it clogs up those functions too. MR. SCHMITT: But I mean as far as the flow process, the SDPs go through engineering, go through environmental, go through zoning. And when you move that to another division, it n1ay become more problematic. I do send th i ngs like the transportation, public utilities, parks and rcc:, they all review plans as \vell. So let l~~e -- let me 1110ve on, tben, to the t\VO expanded positions, page 39 is tl-.~ one expanded position under Environmental Services. That is the C':1e th8t is listed in Fund 111. Bill, you want to cover that? However, you can cover ,vhere -- how those funds are covered as well. Page 39. MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is the environmental specialist position wif'in Fllnd 111. Quite -- right now \ve have 8 lnost immediate 1 ,--ed e5'iccially what we sa\v \vith Hurricane Wilma was the waterw2~ls program. Part of what we -- what \ve do in the natural resources sc:tion of -- of the departluent is watenvays ll1anagement with regard to the posting of the navigational signs, the luanatee signs, removal of d crelict vessels. We have all of that within that one section. WI' really need to have -- \ve have one person doing -- doing that kind of york 81 ong with artificial reefs. We get requests from -- from boatef'~ with r:?gard to navigational signs are do\vn. We really need to havl' assist:. nee with -- witb an individual that -- and I'm roughly looking at 8round 40 to 50 percent of that person's time would be doing th:, ~ kind of \vork to assist our existing position for that. Longc' term \Ve are also working on gathering dat8 for potential Page 184 June 22, 2006 revision of the manatee protection plan. You authorized some contractual services from -- from last -- within this year's budget. We want to brins back that information and assess that data. That's another effoti that we would be doing within next year that would -- would work -- would require some 1110re effort froln my staff to work with, potentially a stakeholders group and work through that effort. Curren4ly what we do is we have a team approach \vithin our natural reS011rces section. There's only -- there's 5ix positions within the section. Two oft]lem are admin. That's myself 8nd an administrative secretary, and the rest of the work is -- is -- is blended across the four other positions. Next year we expect to have a considerable -- a considerable amOllnt of\vork th8t's being generated through the EAR aluendments. You recall my C01lservation coastal managemen' element. We're trying to work thr011~11 S01l1e alternative methods to -- to create some more flexibility for project- -- projects in terms of en"ironment81 design. Th8t's going to re(~uire a lot of effort for develop:ng Land Development Code an1endnlcnts to implement those polici-'s. So I'm going to have a fairly large :J1110l1nt of impact on my staff 10 -- to -- to work through all of those efforts. We ha~'e the listed species stakeholders grOll]1 tl18t the advisory committee flat you h8ve appointed. \Ve're some\v>~!t g ~tting behind in terms of sta Iring that. They're -- thcy're on track, but -- but we're -- but it's diffJ 'ult to break free my staff to \vork on t'lat ]J1rticular effort and so we'rl' working through that 8S well. I'm not sure Joe has mentioned it yet and he tl11Y 1l1ention it as a UFR, but in ~nticirating the watershed manage1l1ent rl~lns, although that's not go:ng to be in my section as the lead, \ve \vill have -- need to be able to provide sonlC support staffing for that \vhole effort. So I see that as bein~~ a very large effort that's gOillg to come -- come -- come through. So looking at 811 of those, that range of activities that I have within the natural resources section, I just -- we -- we ~1 re starting to Page 185 June 22, 2006 get overwhelmed and I need to pull on another position to help staff with those -- those efforts. MR. SCHMITT: And the last expanded position is on your page 52. That's the one and a half person, one and a halfFTE in code enforcement. Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. Both positions are for custon1er service positions. One would be for the main office. The other one would be for our Imnlokalee office, a half-time position out there. The -- over the years we've added programs positions and not rcall y added the support. We've secn a great backlog in the data entry, the responsivencss to the public. And \vith the added position we feel like we can at l~lst try to keep on top of things. When the public calls for status reports of cases and those types of things, they're -- they're back __ they're lltc lnd they've not been entered into the systcm. So we frequently lre unable to provide the public with up-to-<.1ate information. Thesc positions will help inlprove Up011 t1iat. In addition to that, we just, as I said, added so 11181lY different things over t he years and expect for the saIne five personnel to -- to take on all (I f the \vorkload. And it's put a tremendous strain on -- on that part of IllY per<::onnel. MR. SCHMITT: I'd like to just before I turn it over to questions, two unfunoed reqllirenlents, not personnel but listC(l. C)ne is on page 16 of my pClrtion of the book. And that is a UFR asl~ing the EDC. And my buc:gct as you \vell know I fund a portion oft11C EDC. That comes directly out ofnlY budget. And thc EDC is on the UFRs is asking for 11l additional $160,000 to offset target industry marketing and promo~:()n. So that -- that is one item. And I kno\\' Ms. Tammie Nemecek ic:: hcre if you have questions regarding th~lt. And I know you're goin'T to get to UFRs evenhlally. The ot 1 ,cr UFR is on page 16. It's not in my blldgcts on -- in your front portion of the book. And that is dealing with \Vhelt Bill Lorenz Pag'~ 186 June 22, 2006 mentioned. That's the \vatershed managenlent plan study. That's-- primarily will be an engineering work, Bob Wiley -- Robert Wiley will be looking at least putting together the RFP if, in fact, you direct -- if you fund this. This was a directive as part of the EAR-based amendments. And we'll be looking at trying to meet that date that was -- you specified as part of the EAR-based amendn1ents and that's listed as a UFR. And tllat pretty n1uch g')CS over quite a bit ofhighlights. I'm -- we're 110\V open to your que~,tiol1s. Thank you. CHAIR1\1AN HALAS: Are there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess there's no questions. Outstanding job. MR. SCHMTTT: Thank you. MANAGF~/rENT OFFICES (PEL I CAN BAY) MR. MUDD: C01111nissioner 1-lalas, if I have tl1e l~oard's indulgence. We've got eight minutes. You're done, Joe. Thank you. I'd like to do Pelican Bay because Kyle Lucas sho\ved up, came. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: And instead of have hinl go back -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: See if we can get that out of here. MR. MUDD: -- conle back to you. I~Ie runs tl1e road crew that's there. Plus it goes through a series of their advisory bO;lrd. It gets scrubbed about ten tin1es before you get it. So he's here in order to do that. And then in the remaining five minutes, we'll try to get at those three questions tl1at ComnlissionerHenning had this morning about impact fee deferrals, carry-forward breakdown and revenue projections as [;11' as sales tax and gas tax. The stafl'ls ly'cn working on those particular issues. So, Kyle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So \ve'll be just running a little bit over five. Is tl1at okay \vith our court reporter? Page 187 June 22, 2006 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 5:02. MR. MUDD: Kyle, tell then1 \vhat page you're on, can you? Can you do that? Page 46 of -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of the nlanagement. MR. MUDD: Okay. If you go to the managelnent office's tab which is th ird fr01u the back and -- 8nd you go to page 46, Mike; is that correct? MR. ~vrYI(OWSKI: Yes, sir. MR. ~1UDD: If you go to page 46. CHA1RMAN HALAS: Which tab are we on? MR. MUDD: We are on management offices, sir. COl\;f\1TS~IONER COYLE: Okay. Page 46. MR. MUDD: Page 46. MR. LTJC^S: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Kyle Lucas \vith Pelican Bay Services. Pelican Bay Services budget consists of nperating programs with the water managen1ent, communit~r be111tific8tion and the strectlighting pr0grall1. In addition to these ore1':1' il'g progr31us, \ve also have some C~l pital project funds outlined fcq- t ~le Clam Bay Restoration and also for the irrigation and landscapin ~ 1 :nprovenlents. In the In7 budget it is proposed that the funding for the streetlight program \"it11 reserve funds that have been made 8vailable with the elimination (1f the security progran1 that had bcen provi ded by the sheriffs dCYl r' 111ent. Both thc streetl ighting and t1, (~ sec11rity program are usually r lnded by ad valorem tax levy. All otl1cr programs are funded thr ". !(~h an aSSCSSlnent which is in this proposed budget to be formed in $23.80. This is an increase 0f$272 above last year's assessment which is 111ainly due to the -- to the decision that was made last year to use our reserve funds tow8rds the '06 budget. And that was because 01' the Pelican Bay annexation issue ~lt the tlme. This budget has been revie\ved in detail by t11:-, Pelican Bay Page 188 June 22, 2006 Budget Committee and the Pelican Bay Services division. A full board -- it was voted on by the budget committee in Ma y with the recommendation fron1 the full board to approve this budget at their -- to approve the budget for your consideration at their next meeting. And if you have any questions I can -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only question I have is the citizens in Pelican Bay realize th:lt you ran the reserves do\v11 and that now are you going to have a s:)ecial assessment in reg8rds to th8t or not? MR. LUCAS: The Pelican Bay ~ervices Board h8s decided not to reestablish those reserves. CHAIRMAN H/\LAS: Okay. MR. LUCAS: They were basically in the case of 811 emergency and they decided not to go ahcad and replenish. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In regard to that -- for the record, Michael Smykowski. At the (1181 budget heari:lg last year whet: you were to set the assessments for Pelican Bay, M r. Chris Sutfen, \vho was, I believe, the chair oftl1e budget committee was here and spoke before you adopted their resc 1ution for the special asseSSlllents last year. And Mr. Mudd was very specific in having him address that very concern recognizing that the decision to reduce the assessn'ent last year would have a rebound effect in the -- in the ~., Ibsequent ye8r and -- MR. MUDD: If th(~~ annexation (1 id not transpire. /\nd what they basically did is they -- tllCY pulled do\v11 their reserve because they were fearful that ifthl'rc \vas reserve tllere, that it ,"auld go back to the general fund in the county and they \vouldn't have that lTIOney. So they pulled it down, got it so it zeroed out. And tn '11 they let the annexation question ~'o.And \ve all kn)w ho\v that tunled out. So now they've got themselves vvitll no F .'erve in thcir particular fund and they need to get it b~1Ck where it needs to be. Did I miss anything, Kyle? MR. LUCAS: No. That pretty 1l1uch covers it. CHAIRMAN HALA.S: COlunl1ss:oner Coyle. I'age 1, l) June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1'111 a little confused. If you go to page 51 it says revenue FY'06-'07, it says no tax levy is required in FY'07 due to residual cash being transferred from the Security Fund 110. Now, I suspect we're talking about the same thing. But when you say no tax levy, that means no increase in the tax levy or no tax levy whatsoever? MR. LUCAS: No tax levy. MR. SMYKOWSI(I: C0111111issioner, if you'll -- let me help you. For page 50, for street]ighting ~nd sccurity, the security function's been eliminated due to the change tl~at the sheriff l'l~de with the policing. If you look under Ad Valorem Taxes on page 50, Commissioner, the adopted 2006 was 779,800 and current is zero. So that note is referring to there is no proposed levy. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tl'c share will volle\' back. .,I COMMISSIONER. COYLE: It's only with rc~pect to the Pelican Bay Streetlighting Fund. MR. SMYKOWSlCI: Yes, sir. But that's the only ad valorem tax levy within Pelican Bay. The balance of their budget is funded via special assessment. COMMISSIONER. COYLE: I see. I undersl1nd. Okay. Good. That answers my quest" on. Th8!l k you. MR. SMYKOWS1(I: You're \velcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very mllc'1. I think we accomplished that. I appreciate you" indulgence. Thank you. MR. MUDD: Thanks, Kyle. CHAIRMAN HA T--IAS : 01 'ay. And we'll a c1 r1 rcss a couple of items that Commissioll"r Hcnnillg h2d. MR. MUDD: Ye"~ sir. One of the items that Con1missioner Henning had this Inonl:ng \vas the iClpact fee diffL"'cncc. And -- and he basically talked ab011t the i111pact fee difference. And if the impact -- and it was a velY good question that basically talked -- slide -- on impacts fees. P:lge 190 June 22, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, \ve've go! two minutes. MR. MUDD: Yeah. I know we do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, if they're not interested, I'll stay. MR. MUDD: No, sir. I believe we'll get to it. The -- and I'm going to put it up. And, Mike, I'IU going to ask YO' 1 to hand it out or, Sue, if you would do tl1:1t, that \vQuld be great. On the -- on the vi~;ualizer you have a breakdown of the particular issues that Comn1issioner I-Ienning br0113ht up this morning. Again, very good question. And I also want you to -- to know that we changed our -- our way of doing the budget this year because we use a thing called Gov Max \vhich is -- the first year is ~: \vays tough, but it really did simplify the process fOf us. And we \Ve'lt from hard sheet spreadsheets to 8 datab:'se \vhere \ve can pull repolis and get the information Conlmissicl1er I-Ienning had some things about carryforward. I have al t those dctai 1 (~d reports a nc: I'll pass those out. And you might \vant to take a look at those this e\'~--'ning. But that's the -- that's the beauty of Gov }'1ax 8nd \vhat \ve're lIS: 19. His question this rnorning '''as, well, if -- ify )u had an adopted budget in '06 of$75 nlillion in in1pact fees, \Vll)' is it going down? And my response this l1:orning i~ I said, Some of it can be attributed to the transportation fund. But I d;dn't even Imow tll's morning when I answered that q11estion that the \vater and waste\v~'ter piece, which was in the '06 adopted budget, is not in the '07 ac1(y,ted budget, but rather it is in the service charge piece oftbe bud~t"o So what you did is you took $31n1illion 011t ,)fthc comparison. To try to make a comp2rison on '06 adopted to '07, you need to have that particular item. So to answ\';o C0111missioner l' I,--'nning and you were -- you were intuitively absolutely correct tll~' it should have gone up and it should have gone IIp in a large W'lY 8nd it has. It's gone from $75.9 million to $103.3 n1i111011. What I also mentioned tbis l110rning ~lbollt n'lds is the fact that, Page 191 June 22, 2006 yes, the adopted '06/'07 is do\vn about $600,000, hut you also know that on the increased impact fee we're expecting a revenue of 25 million. We don't expect that right otIthe bat. It \vill come in -- it will come in slowly. And \ve also have that phenonlena that I described this morning about roads where a lot of the 50 percent pieces are already in, okay, and we've got a three-year period to find the next 50 percent that COll1CS in. And W~l1.t \V,~ get outside ('fthat are individual permits for those particular itc1l1S. But I've a Iso done is I've 10 ken th::l ~ service c l1arge revenue -- you have to peel it back. Once you get 1:1e service chargc, you go, okay, it's in service charge. Now, just show ll1C -- sho\v nle the difference in service charge. Well, in the scrvicc charge picce \vhat \ve had last year -- last year in your -- in your it"nl on -- on -- on service charges -- and I'm pulling off my -- my rage No.3 under General -- under GeneraIOvervie\v. If you take ::lloc;~ 0t 111e Ser'/ce Cllarge column right here, you'll -- see it doesn't shc\v up. No\v it clocs. The service charge that's right there, you'll notic~ tl.at the lOG 80nptcd was $159 million. And now the '07 total is 204 nlillion. .1\11(1 in tllat -- in those papers that Ijust gave you with that rol111p, you'll '~ce at the -- almost the second to last page or the last p( ~~e ill that grol1p, you'll see that the impact fees from water and sewer af ' c'~fin1tely 1n tll:1t particular packet and are counted. And that \v:11 ;11so sho\\' YOll that the increase from 159 million to 204, that $31 nl itlion aCCOt1nt~ I'ilr 'llat large piece of the increase. Ano I believe that ~_' ets at the i1l1P' t fec question that Commissioner Henning had this morni:lg. And 1 lve SOlne additional roll-ups for hilu and some other iss' l','S. He also asked 111C or asked us te' talk :1b011t C;l1Tvfc1nvard. And-- and so I had Susan Usher go and filn tb ~ carry-fi)r\v1rcl breakdown. And what I'm going to do instead of go i l1g cvC'r~' r: "C 1 here, but this basically takes the carryforward and -- and brc;' ks ')\\'11 -- and breaks down that $205 million total for the '07 bl1dgc~-, S -- so you'll have -- there we go. Yau can -- you can see \vhere -- and \vhat encompasses Page 1 'X~ June 22, 2006 that 205 versus \vhat was in the 2006 budget. A.11(l ~TOU can basically get that breakdovvn as far as the carryforward is c(!;cerned. And -- and I believe the other piece that the Ct111missioner asked for, Mike, was -- it had to do with revenues. And he wanted to see the grants from the airports. And that's another report that you have. Okay? And that has to do with intergovemn1ental revenues. And, Sue, if you cOlllcl give that to the com1l1issioners,' lld that had to do with an airport qlJestion. And the packet t11:-,t 've'r ' ;~roviding right there basically h~lS the recap of that -- of thai 1 artit' .lar item on page 3. Intergovernmental-- intergovernnlental is $47 llli l;on, And you will __ you will notice that it's $47 million. The -- thc c' '~ck on the airport for its -- for its contribution is on the fourth p~gc 0 (' 'hat particular packet. And ynu -- you'll see the -- thc 1.1 1l1il1iol~ -- or, excuse me, the $11.1 mill ion in their airport capit'1 in t11c t\\'0 'nds. One point -- almost 1.3 in the 496 Fund and $9.9 n"illion t(~tal i 1 the -- in the 497 Fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not onl~r tl'~I', ~11 the grants are in there. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMl.SSIONER HENNING: That'~ ~;rc~t. -['hank you. MR. MUDD: Sir, no problenl. That's 11v~ bc 'l Lit of the system that we have vvith Gov Max. It's good. You C~ln gl't a report pretty easy versus -- if those questions th~t CommiS5tOne1' Pl>nning asked today would have taken us all night long tonifTht to " J1110rrOW morning to work with t~le spreadsheet systems in order to pull it out. So it would have becn -- it \vould have been Inajor. I .il'C:t \vant to make sure we got it ~1l1~ carryforward, rcven\'e proj ,(,tin' Mike, you \\'ant to talk about sales tax ~:; I f':' ~ tax and I believe that will get at the l~st question tl'8t thc comlvis~'ion 'r 113d? MR. SMYIZO\VSl(I: Comnlissioner 1-1e'1nin'~ 'lel -- we had discussed this, the differences bet\veen what i 'b11C1( etcct What the Collier County e:-)tin13te is verSllS the s'ate e~:j ilTI211',"r both revenue Pa~~c 193 June 22, 2006 sharing and sales tax. Commissioner I--Ienning had ~ concern relative to differentials bet\veen this year. This shows poin' , l1cre half-cent sales tax budgeted at 33 million. The state e~;'inl:lL' for Collier County last year was 36 -- approximately $36.2 million. What we do, we track revenue on a monthly basis and have for a number of years. This provides the historical revenue stream on a cumulative basis showing what percellt. So t1~roug} -- through April we typically h:l vc 62.2 percent of the revcnue stn''l' 1 it shows. Based on the current budgct of 33 million, the budg '1 t1""( ~h April would have been 20.0 111illion. We're at 21.6. So we ';rc slightly a million dollars a head 0fpace as illustrated in l'lis gr;Ji 11 th~' shows where we're at currently relative to -- rel:~tive to budget. f11 take that one up. What we then do is -- is annualizn the infom""tinn . 1sed on the year-to-dates to C0111e up with the :1nn'l:Jlized '~S-11:'''1c1 compare to budget. And it's "anged from a lo'v of 3.1.1 to 3!:) "~d on the most recent information that was just rc~eivcc1 due 11 1,lC : 19 period in these sales tax collect ions. Our budget \vas 33.1 million. 01 " forec8st \V~' . $34 million this year. It looks like we may do sli?htly better t1l811 t1 t. I hedged our bet a little bit. Ohviously, there \\"'S :J r1rop in tlli" , '(\nth going from 34.8 to 34.672. So, again, I hedge:l Ill)' het a l;tt'. ". \Ve forecast $34 million but r:-lative to the initial st'i~ esti 'l:Jll':' \vere at -- we were at 36.2 Juill ion. So we're not goiJl g to re'lch, 0 )viously, that full 36.2 million. But \ve \vill probably 11:" 'C a 1 itt! e bit 'f 18titude. Typically wh8t \ve've done in tile past i~ ac1justir~. n the August time frame we Upc18tC the capital projects' 1~'I/'C'cast. \' T , ' ko update revenue. Obviously, we only h8ve a1" \ 11' ten f:10" 'vorth of actuals. Your crystal ball a:ld having to p;'ojc'~)nly t1,e' ;ining two months is typic811 y a \vhole lot better t;", n it i~ ,,; tl1 'our or five months ofactual8ctivity. So that ex~" :'lS th:.t diP' "cntial. There \vas also a question about, "S tax I'd 111 to address. We'll get rid of this 0'1('. The adopted budg '~ 'vas $20.'! 111illion. Our Page 1 \ i June 22, 2006 forecast at this point is $20.5 million. Cnlnmissio'; "oJ-lenning, you had provided this luorning the state es' iniates frolll l;lSt year were $20.8 million. So \ve're, you know, 300/)00 apart. .\gain, we're-- we're very close overall. We are fairly conservati' 'I' in that. Obviously, we'll be updating those estinlates alon~' ' ':\h the impact fees in the August time frame for Sep:ell~ber. If, ( , ':ously, it shows that we will be col1ecting more than 20.~, we ',vc'" '~Jjust not only the forecast revenlle, but also what is 1)1I 1geted Il"" "car commensurate ,v:th that change. So \'e Jgain, tr:' 1( l1udget conservatively, but realistically. And Wl' try to 8 . I, \ our estimates later on in the process to update them ba 'ed Oil 1" 1 ,-:t current information \ve ll~ve and the most Cl1r:oel t collc,-'~; "ctivity. I hope tllat ~L 1rlresses your questi )n. sir. COMMTSSl()NER HENNING: ft loes. It - "'1nk you. The-- what percel't:lgc ()f conservative do y( II -- do Y011 [.K'or in on these-- these funds? I rlC'~n, you don't want to -- you do' " \'~nt to overestimate it. '!'C1U don't want to say, v J\V, \ve';' .' 'l1g to get -- we got 20 million tllis year. Next year \vc'rc going' ,,1"13 Inillion. I mean, there's -- f' '-.'re's a buffering in l11e 'C I W011 (~'lgine; correct? MR. S1V1YI<" )WSKI: Th8t's COlTCC' . And> ' ;llso provided some level nf C01~lfort. The state says YClJ C8n 0", . lpropriate 95 cents on the doll"r. That's that negati'Te ) percent '1" Ill' revenue reserve. So thu: nrovides some built-in f"otecti(1' 'nst overly aggressIve -- COMMfSS10NER HENNING: Fi"e perc' MR.8MYKOWST(T: Yes, sir. COMI'1IS~!ONER HENNING: (J, od. MR. SV1YI<:OWSKT: Tnank YOll. MR. }\!lU: I): Commissioner, th:lt':' ~11 \ve 1~: ' ,;\ nd we -- and thank you fnr your 11 minutes. We will-- CHAr~M!\~ HALAS: Reconvene at nine (' ,'k in the mornIng. Page 195 June 22, 2006 MR.1/TUDD: -- at the board's djrection reCOn\'l"1e at nine o'clock and we'll start \vith the Constitutional Officers. An( '\hen they're finished, we'll start where we left off today with tile 'ce. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Page 196 June 22, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the Budget meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:11 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~?~1i&r FRANKHALAS, CHA AN ATTEST: DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK ~~~~~ $1 ~{; ,~tJ~!'":1i:' These minutes approve~ by the Board on -::;-1&~t6~ as presented ~ or as corrected , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY LYNN BROOKS, RPR, AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR Page 197