Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/29/2007 B (Budget Workshop) June 29, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, JUNE 29, 2007 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 has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle Frank Halas Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jacqueline Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney Mike Smykowski, Office of Management & Budget 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 28, 2007, Friday, June 29, 2007 and (if needed) Monday, July 2,2007 at 9:00 a.m. Workshops will be held in the Boardroom, 3'd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida to hear the following: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2008 BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 9:00 a.m. General Overview Courts and Related Agencies (State Attorney and Public Defender) Airport Authority Community Development Transportation Services Public Services Administrative Services Public Utilities Debt Service Management Offices (Pelican Bay) County Attorney BCC Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:00 a.m. Constitutional Officers: Elections Sheriff Other Constitutional Officers requesting to address the BCC. Preliminary UFR Discussion 1 :00 p.m. Public Comment Monday, July 2, 2007 - 9:00 a.m. Wrap-up (if required) June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back. This is the continuation of the June 29th workshop -- budget workshop. Please stand for pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Fiala, would you do the honors? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly will. (Pledge of allegiance recited in unison.) MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so we know kind of where we are with the menu on yesterday -- yesterday, the 28th of June. You went through the county manager's agencies, the county attorney, the Airport Authority, the CRAs and we went through that particular part of your agenda. Today, the 29th of February (sic), we'll-- we'll work on constitution officers, the supervisor of elections, the sheriffs got presentations or are here to answer questions, I believe, and any other constitutional officer that wants to come in front of the Board. We can talk about the UFR discussions preliminary. You normally make those decisions in September, but I believe there'll probably be one that you'll want to talk about today because it has everything to do with the supervisor of elections and new voting machines. In order to do that, you'll notice that there's $2 million that I didn't talk about rolling for reoccurring and nonreoccurring on your UFR list. And one of the reasons for that was I knew that there was a __ there was an outstanding issue to be decided. And then at 1 p.m. today there will be public comment. It's been advertised for public comment. I don't know who will come to talk, but -- but we put it down there so it would -- so they would have kind of a time certain in order to make statements in front of the Board of County Commissioners. And that -- that will be basically it. I don't see at this particular time the issues on the table in order to have this -- this meeting continued to Monday for a wrap-up. I believe we have plenty of time today to get that done. Page 2 June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Not that I want to use the Naples Daily News as an ultimate source of my information, but they did state the fact that the Clerk of Courts won't be coming, supposedly told them they wouldn't be coming. Now my concern is that is part of our budget based upon the turnback we get from the Clerk of Courts? Can he withhold that money from turning it in? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we can -- we can have that -- it can be okay. You have constitutional officers here in order to discuss the particular budgets that are waiting and that might be a long conversation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my -- here's my concern is we're going to be talking about a whole bunch of money issues and we're basing it upon the budget that you have given to us and what monies you expect to have. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Smy -- Mr. Smykowski put -- I -- I asked the question in my May correspondence with the Clerk to please tell us what he projected for this year to be interest and to project into next year what the interest payments were -- were -- interest would be. I have not received a reply. I have not received a reply to that letter at all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But a budget is predicated upon -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Smykowski has $20 million in next year's budget for interest. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All right. So we're very uncertain even now what we're going to be doing for our -- our cash flow may not be there if the Clerk can withhold it or try to withhold it; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's the question. I see Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's from yesterday. Page 3 June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. Do you remember what it was you wanted to talk about yesterday? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We already got it covered. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, good. Okay. Please continue. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS MR. MUDD: I believe that the first constitutional office to present is the supervisor of elections. Ms. Edwards, would you bring your staff up to the table, please? Thank you. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Good morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to introduce my staff. I have with me Melissa Blaisier. She's my executive assistant. Gary Beauchamp, chief deputy. And both Melissa and Gary worked closely on developing the budget with me as well as monitoring the budget. And I also have Tim Durham who is deputy supervisor. And he's going to talk with you about any possible legal implications of long lines at the precinct as well as the state's minimum standards as it relates to equal protection -- protection issues. In the spirit of conforming to the state's property tax reform and the adverse impact it has on providing services to our community and, of course, adhering to the statutory requirements that I have, we have analyzed our budget. And we've looked at both the operating and the capital, the 301, and I'm prepared to offer to you today a total reduction in my budget of 23.6 percent. That's across both the operating, the 080 fund, and as well as the 301 fund. This reduction is in part a result of the Secretary of State's negotiations with the vendors which has created a reduction in the cost of some of the equipment. As well as I told you the other day, the Page 4 June 29, 2007 retrofitting of booths rather than buying new booths. And I'm also representing deferring some items into subsequent budget years. In operating I'm recommending that we defer until the '09 budget year a new van. We have it budgeted because the fleet manager said it's ten years old. It's not dependable. You need to replace it. So we think we can use that van another year as well as the graphics on it. That's a total of $28,500. We've also adjusted our equipment replacement plan. So to defer purchase of computers at $20,000 as well as a server at 5,000. We have in -- in 2006 we had eight early voting sites. And prior to that 2004 we had seven. We're going to eliminate the one we added in 2006 which was at the central library and that will save $10,000 in early voting payroll. And the City of Naples has decided -- it's not finalized, but tentatively, we haven't received the resolution from their council, but tentatively they've decided to place their election on the ballot with the PPP. So that will save an expenditure out of our budget of $45,000. So that's total reduction or deferrals and reductions that we're recommending in the operating budget. And in the -- and the significant deferrals in the 301 capital budget include the purchases of what we refer to as our electronic poll books. If you will recall, last year you authorized us to purchase enough of the electronic poll books to use for early voting. Now, that's where we swipe. You take -- we ask the voter for their driver's license and we swipe it. And that's a very efficient piece of equipment; however, giving consideration to the fact that we need more equipment for the elections, more than what the state is funding, I'd like to trade out this year and differ the electronic poll books and budget those across the next two budget years. So we'll have them countywide in 2010. And use that money that I was going to spend to purchase the electronic poll books to apply towards the additional equipment we feel we need. So that's one of the significant cuts in Page 5 June 29, 2007 301. And, in addition, we have deferred the purchase of some of the tabulator for the precincts until the '09 budget. And we can do that because we've identified the number of pieces of equipment we'll need for the primary. And we feel that the turnout for the general election will be even greater than the primary turnout. So we will have to purchase 20 tabulators in the '09 budget to be prepared for the general election. So that's the significant deferrals in the 301 fund. And as you will recall, we did enter into an agreement by which we will receive from the Secretary of State $675,015.41, it's estimated. By recognizing this revenue, the -- and with the deferrals that I just mentioned, the net impact in the 301 capital budget in 2008 will be $516,553. Now I'm going to ask Gary to explain to you the analysis that he's done as it relates to equipment. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Good morning, Commissioners. Gary Beauchamp for the record, Chief Deputy Supervisor. What Ms. Edwards asked me to do is to go look at the -- the way our precincts are placed across the county. As you know very well our county is a large county and we have certainly in Commission District 5, it's not just around the corner. Many of the impacts to voters would take place in Commission District 5 and some in Commission District 2. We looked at the number that both the Secretary of State's Office and the manufacturer said number of voters that these one tabulator can process. Just, for instance, at the University Extension Service we have two precincts and that's approximately 8,500 people in those two precincts. If we use the state standards of one machine per precinct, they're saying and so is the manufacturer that approximately fifteen to sixteen hundred voters can use one machine in a day. Most of -- in using the University Extension Service as an example, most of the people there vote in the afternoon and in the Page 6 June 29, 2007 evening. That location in 2006 we still had people voting on the electronic machines at 8 p.m. If we put one machine in each one of those precincts and they're precinct specific, we can't share machines because of the way the state law is, if that machine goes out, then you know Murphy's Law, it's probably going to be at four o'clock in the afternoon during season, how long will it take us to get an additional machine to the -- the University Extension Service? Voting stops. There's nothing that can be done. No tabulators -- if the tabulator's not reading the ballot, no ballot can go through the machine. There are people standing there with ballot in hand that's voted and voting comes to a complete standstill. We looked at locations in Immokalee. We looked at the high-volume precincts in Commissioner Halas' district right near the Lee County line. We have to look at what happens if a machine goes down, what's our recovery time if we would have to take a machine from here to there. We know to get to Immokalee at four o'clock in the afternoon in season or at rush hour is -- is a good hour and a half. And that's ifthere's no accidents on the road. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Med-flight. MR. BEAUCHAMP: We know it's 45 -- pardon? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I said Med-flight. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right. We know it's 45 minutes. We've already studied the times that it takes us to get to the precincts like that. We know West Winds out on the East Trail, although it may not appear to be a far distance, we know that that takes time to get a machine there. Precinct 158 is another one, very high volume. Those are the reasons that we would have more than one machine based on voter volume at any -- any of the precincts over and above what the state is funding at their minimal standards of one machine per precinct. They're not even applying their own standard to what they're giving us in their minimum standards when they look at our precinct population at the University Extension Service, two precincts out there Page 7 June 29, 2007 with over 8,000 people. They say 1,500 is adequate or one machine is adequate for 1,500 people. And they're not even supplying us what their -- their standards are. In early voting we know if we look at the 2004 election cycle, this one will be heavier. There's no incumbent Republican on the ticket and no Democrat on the ticket. So we know that it's going to be a hotly contested election. At the 2004 election we voted early voting which is well-liked here in the county of 44,155 people. Now of that __ now that's not taking into account absentee. That's just early voting walk-up at the seven sites that Jennifer indicated that we had. At Orange Blossom where we need five tabulators out of 44, 155 people that early voted, we had over 19,800 people vote just at that site. So we can't budget a machine for the lowest days. We have to budget a machine for the highest days. And so that's why our total purchase of the machines that she's indicated on the 301 budget is very important to go above -- minimally above the state's minimum standards. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. You woke me up. I'll come to you, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got your light on. We've got Commissioner Henning next. Just a couple of observations. If you had one per precinct, and I'm not saying that's necessarily the right idea and I appreciate the fact that you use some examples out in District 5, when it came to early voting you'd be able to condense those machines for the early voting place. So you'd have way more than one per voting location. MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, sir. Because of the way -- the early voting we have to have machines that contain all ballot styles. Because anybody from any precinct can come and vote at any early voting site. Now, that data at the end of early voting, which ends after Page 8 June 29, 2007 we deliver equipment for election day, that's about a four-day difference or overlap in -- in delivery time to the end of early voting, those machines and the data on those machines must be retained on those machines until the election is certified. That is state law. So we can't take the early voting machines and use them at precincts. We couldn't with the electronic machines and we can't with these machines either. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard of. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Well-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, this is -- we set this whole thing up to serve purchasing machine, that if we did it right, we'd never need. You know, it's absolutely insane. You know, the fact that you can only use them. You got to keep the data on them until the election's all over with. Who wrote the law, the people that made the voting machine? I almost think they did. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same people who passed the property tax reduction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I don't know about that. (Multiple voices.) MR. BEAUCHAMP: Certainly written by the legislature. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But now also, too, now is it one per precinct or one per voting location that they're paying for? MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, it's one per precinct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, in other words, where you have the one -- two precincts in the same location, you do have two machines there; right? MR. BEAUCHAMP: That's correct. Because we -- we can't share machines between precincts because they have to be precinct specific on Election Day. MS. EDWARDS: And we're required -- excuse me. We're Page 9 June 29, 2007 required to report the results by precinct also. So those -- we can't share machines. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that. And precincts are broken down by all sorts of reasons. And, you know, for whatever, you know, it is. Is there any way precincts could be condensed together to make this work better? In other words, have less precincts -- MR. BEAUCHAMP: Well, we-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- just -- just I try and understand. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Certainly. Less precincts doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Because if we move to, say, 1,800 person precinct and if we look at approximately 75 percent turnout, we're looking at the number of -- approximately the number of people that one machine will service. If we condense two precincts we have, in fact, at that point doubled the capacity of that precinct of voters, we would still need two machines there. So condensing precincts in this case does not necessarily lessen the need or the demand for a machine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if! understand correctly, these machines that you want to purchase are not certified? MR. BEAUCHAMP: No. They're currently going through the certification process as we speak with the Division of Elections. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that -- that process will result in what time in a favorable outcome? MR. BEAUCHAMP: The machines would be certified we expect based on the schedule from the Division of Elections within the next 30 to 45 days. And at that point once the machines are certified in Florida, then they go into full production and machines are available this fall. They've already met the federal certifications. They do have to go back for one minor certification after they get the initial one from the Division of Elections. And we're one of the causes for that Page 10 June 29, 2007 because currently the machine only communicates to people in English. And, as you know, we are a county that's required for election laws to have both English and Spanish. So they've got to go back with the language change, but that's a minor change and that's -- that pretty much just sales right through. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't envy your job at all. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'm concerned about deferring your needs to do your job for next year 30 I budget. I guess I need to ask the county manager. Are you okay with the recommendations? MR. MUDD: Well, that's what I'm going -- that's what I need to ask. Because I've got their -- I've got their request for $2,601,100 on the UFR list as an item because you needed to discuss it. Okay. So it's not in the 301 budget. If you want to put it in 301 budget, it means it's going to come -- the monies got to come off the UFR list and go there. So what I'm trying to get at is I heard some savings and stuff. So I need to figure out what the demand is going to be for 301. And-- and if you don't have -- MS. EDWARDS: My -- my total request in 301 is 1,191,568. MR. MUDD: One -- $1.2 million? MS. EDWARDS: Correct. And that, again, is offset by the 675,000 in revenue that we're going to get from the state. MR. MUDD: The 2.6 was -- had the state's revenue in it so we could deduct that off. MS. EDWARDS: No. Two point -- we reduced from 2.6 to 1.2 on the expense request. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the 1.1 is going to be in 301 next year or this year? MS. EDWARDS: This year. Page 11 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: This year. And-- MS. EDWARDS: The current budget we're about. MR. MUDD: It's going to be -- it's going to be in the '08 budget, SIr. COMMISSIONER HENNING: '08. So you're deferring some stuff for the '09? MS. EDWARDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What are you deferring to '09? MS. EDWARDS: We're deferring 609,125. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a big deal; correct? MR. MUDD: Well, it -- you need -- you need to ask the question, just dollars and cents, no. In the general frame of your budget, it's not a big deal. But may I ask one question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have to ask this guy -- that guy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: You -- you talked about when we -- when we had the article that comes -- comes in front of the Board where the state's going to give us money or they're going to buy the machines for us. Are they going to give us any -- you talked about some revenue from the state? Are they -- is there anything else in there outside of whatever we get out of surplusing those machines that they're going to try to surplus? MS. EDWARDS: The funds that we are aware of right now that we're going to get from the state is the 675,000 number. The state is going to attempt to sell the old equipment and place that funds that they receive in a trust fund and then allocate some of that back to the counties. I have no idea how much it will be, but -- MR. MUDD: Okay. But the 675 really doesn't come to us. They're just going to send us machines. Page 12 June 29, 2007 MS. EDWARDS: No. No. We get the money. They're going to send us the money. And we'll recognize that as revenue in the general fund or 301 however -- MR. MUDD: Okay. So the $1.2 million you're going to buy the machines with? I'm just trying to -- MS. EDWARDS: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- figure out how we're going to get the new machines. MS. EDWARDS: Well, we have -- my understanding is, I have to appropriate funds to make a purchase and then I can recognize revenue. We're recognizing that 675,000. And we're going to -- and we're appropriating the expense which is 1.2 in the '08 budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But the net differential is the only amount that we're going to pull out of the UFR money. MS. EDWARDS: Correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Six hundred -- call it six hundred and six hundred. MS. EDWARDS: Six hundred thousand dollars. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So you're only pulling -- MR. MUDD: So I guess -- I guess what I'm going to say to you in a different way, in a different manner the way I like to think about it is this. You're going to spend $1.2 million. Sometime next year the state we hope is going to send us six hundred and whatever thousand dollars. So we would bring that in as revenue and that would cover her expenses for '09. I just look at it in a different way. So it really -- you basically said in there in the realm of the budget it's not a big deal. And I'm just telling you based on what she just told you, that revenue that's going to come is going to cover her '09. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. I just want to make sure that we have enough funds in '09 and, wow, what a difference. I commend you for -- for really sharpening up the pencil. Page 13 June 29, 2007 Of course, we're going to defer things like recommendations like replacing a van and minor stuff, but your budget is -- is -- is insignificant compared to the overall picture. MS. EDWARDS: Point two nine percent of the whole county budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When are you going to get the machines? MS. EDWARDS: Weare required to have the machines in place for the primary next year. Just to make it clear to the public we will be using touch screens in the PPP, the Presidential Preference Primary on January 29th will be voted on the current touch-screen equipment. Weare supposed to be again receiving machines in the fall and after the first of the year. So all of this is contingent on us working with the Secretary of State and with the vendors. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and what is the first election date that -- where you have to use the new machines? MS. EDWARDS: August 26th, 2008. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you think you'll get the machines sometime by January, no later than January? MS. EDWARDS: I do because we've been told that, of course. But it's -- the vendors, the Secretary and the Secretary of State understand the importance of getting this equipment in here so we can learn how to use it. We can train our staff and we can train the public. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they're not giving you enough machines to do the job in your opinion -- MS. EDWARDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or even according to their own standards? MS. EDWARDS: Correct. They're funding minimum standards. Page 14 June 29,2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think what -- what we can safely assume is that the next election for you will be pretty much a nightmare and probably for a lot of voters, not because of anything that you have done or failed to do. But as Gary points out, you know, if -- if it can go wrong, it will go wrong right in the middle of that election. And people are going to be complaining about having to wait for long periods of time to get their ballots cast. I just think we need to prepare them for that eventuality. Things are not going to go smoothly. We know that. Even under the best conditions when you have everything under your control, it's difficult sometimes. Things break down. But when the state is swapping out machines and they're supposed to be sending us money, we know they've never sent us the money when they've said they were going to give it to us. And they've never given us all the money that they said they were going to give to us. So it -- it's -- we need to prepare people for -- for the potential problem and let them understand that. This is an absolutely insane process. It is really dumb for the state to do this during this very, very important election. And my -- my final question is: Do you have with you the governor's telephone number? MS. EDWARDS: No, not at this time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would like to make sure that it's posted on our government channel during the elections and before the elections so people will know who to call if there -- they are dissatisfied with standing in line to cast their ballots -- ballots. MS. EDWARDS: Well, I appreciate your comments. And, believe me, I along as well as our association in communication to the legislature and the governor emphasized that it would -- if, indeed, they wanted us to change back to a paper ballot, to please consider deferring it until 2010 because we're ready. Page 15 June 29, 2007 We have been working since 2002 to get our procedures and our processes in place and train the voters as well as our staff. And we -- we are prepared for the 2008 cycle with touch screens. And now that is all gone away. So we'll all be learning together as we go through the next year. But the first time we will use this new process will be the primary election. And, of course, that's been moved up a few days. And it's before Labor Day in 2008. So it's August 26. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. EDWARDS: I -- if! may, ifthere are any more questions-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there is. There is. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. We have Commissioner Halas. MS. EDWARDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right now the state's going to guarantee us -- we think they're going to guarantee us $675,000 which will purchase 94 machines; is that correct? We have 94 precincts? MS. EDWARDS: Ninety-four plus the early voting sites. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Plus the early voting sites. MS. EDWARDS: So a total ofl02 tabulators. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, 102. What is it going to do __ how many machines do you need to get your job done? MS. EDWARDS: One hundred forty-five. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's minimum; right? MS. EDWARDS: That's what we feel we need to move forward and have adequate machines to address the number of voters and the precincts in early voting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you believe that 145 machines at 94 precincts including -- well, the 90 -- the 102 that you have, but you got to tie them up and they can't be used in the primary Page 16 June 29,2007 if you use them in the early voting site. And you're saying from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., if you don't have any glitches in the system, you feel that you can take care of between fifteen hundred and sixteen hundred voters at one -- for one machine; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: That is our opinion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your opinion -- MS. EDWARDS: Now, please keep in mind, we've never used this equipment in this county before. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. EDWARDS: So we're following standards that we've learned from the vendor as well as from the supervisors that have used this equipment before. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's a little -- I think your estimate is a little high of the amount of people that can use that in an eight-hour period, especially with a new process. People are going to be going in the voting booth. And it's going to take them some time to get acclimated to figure out what's going to take, how they're going to do this, the voting and going through the process. Voting is a right in this -- in this country. And I can see that -- I think I've got the same concerns that Commissioner Coyle has. And that is we are going to have a lot of voters that are going to be disenfranchised. I think we need to figure out the best way to approach this problem and get it taken care of. I think that -- what do we have in the UFR fund? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have about -- well, you have two -- you have $22 million. You haven't made a decision on -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- MR. MUDD: -- how you're going to do it. But based on -- based on my recommendations yesterday, you have about $2.4 million that's -- that's unaccounted for. The one question I have for Ms. Edwards is she mentioned 145 Page 17 June 29, 2007 machines and I didn't hear you ask her the question: Does the $1.2 million give you enough money to get the 145 machines that you need? MS. EDWARDS: (Indicating.) MR. MUDD: And the answer she gave was "yes." MS. EDWARDS: And, remember, we're deferring 20 into the next budget year that we will purchase in time for the general election because we expect turnout to be higher in the general than in the pnmary . So we have analyzed this and we do feel that we can meet the needs and the demands of the voters with the number that we are requesting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm trying to make sure of is that we don't put this county in a state of chaos where we have people coming up and saying "I couldn't vote. I was waiting in line. The polls closed. I was disenfranchised." MR. BEAUCHAMP: Commissioner, we wouldn't have that in-- in a situation that anybody is in line even outside the polling site at the official close time of the precinct which would be 7 p.m. Our poll deputy goes to the end of the line, stands there and walks the line in. Nobody gets disenfranchised. If in the case there are and -- and I mentioned at the University Extension Service people were voting at eight o'clock. Nobody gets disenfranchised if they're at the polling site by 7 p.m. in Collier County . COMMISSIONER HALAS: But here's the other part of the scenario. People are waiting in what line to cast their vote? There's a point in time when people are saying it's not worth staying in line for two or three hours for this. And that's going to cause a problem. There's going to be backlash on that. So what I'm looking at is what we need to do to help you to make sure that your job is taken care of, the people here in this county have Page 18 June 29, 2007 the ability to vote and they do it in a reasonable amount of time. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And in analyzing the machine when Jennifer charged me with that, we looked at turnout in each one of these precincts. And, of course, if a precinct is 1,800 registered voters, not the generally -- unfortunately, we don't get 100 percent turnout in there. And she had the same sentiment that you basically had. What do we need to do to make sure that the people in X precinct and all precincts have minimum wait time? And I think as -- as she indicated in the request for the 1.2 million, that serves the citizen, the registered voters in Collier County adequately. There is a margin there for increased turnout. And then the additional 20 machines would be adequate for the -- the general. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are you -- are you also looking at or do you have a reserve where one machine will go down or three machines or five machines may go down in the course of voting so that we can replace those machines? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes. One of the things that we would have would, say, I mentioned chairman -- or Commissioner Coletta's district in Immokalee. We would have in the -- at the recreation center we have two precincts there. Just, for instance, one machine would be operational all day in each precinct. The other machine that is there, because the volume doesn't dictate to have two operational machines there -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you got -- you got two different precincts. MS. EDWARDS: -- one would be-- MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right. One at each precinct. But each precinct would have an additional machine with a technician that services the Immokalee area. So that if that machine goes down, the other one is started up. So there would be minimal delay time in that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you telling me, then, you're going to have four machines at that precinct? Page 19 June 29, 2007 MR. BEAUCHAMP: I'm going to have -- we're going to have four machines at -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two would be on line and two will be reserve? MR. BEAUCHAMP: That's correct, at those two precincts at Immokalee. Just like we would have two at the -- and the church escapes me on the North Trail. Because we don't want to have to delay taking a machine from here. So they will be staged throughout the county. And with this 145 machines in this budget request, we have adequate reserve to stage the machines to effectively service any precinct within our -- what we call our eight election regions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you got any -- any particular precinct will have a spare machine, if need be? MR. BEAUCHAMP: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I think what the point is is very simple. There's still some doubt. And when the time comes and the election happens, whatever factors may enter in, there's still -- we hope that everything will all work right. So you go through the first time with them. You don't know for sure. So my suggestion to you, and I know you're already doing it, encourage people to vote early. Encourage people to do absentee ballots. And those diehards that have to go to the poll and stand in line, those people can go. And hopefully the numbers will be few and they'll be handled in an expedient manner and it won't be to the point it'll discourage people from voting. And with that we're going back to Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning. And I think you got what you need. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- I'm a little confused. You have funding in your budget for 145 machines. And that's how many you're going to get. Page 20 June 29, 2007 You're going to be using 102 machines roughly; is that correct? MS. EDWARDS: No. We'll be using more than 102. One hundred and two -- what -- we're using 119 in the early voting in the precincts and we're going to have reserves for the situations that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reserve is the difference between 119 and 145? MS. EDWARDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the state standard? If -- if you were to get the state standard for the number of machines, how many machines would you have? MR. BEAUCHAMP: We would have 102 machines, 94 for Election Day. That's -- now one of the commissioners, and I can't remember who, you know, identified that -- and it -- and it might very well have been you that said the state isn't even using their own standards. Because they fund the -- their funding standard is one machine per precinct. Yet they and the manufacturer say fifteen to sixteen hundred voters per machine. So we have -- when you look at what they're talking about, we have Unity of Naples Church on Unity Way has 3,546 registered voters. Yet their funding standard is one machine. Their service standard can't be met with one machine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now I still need to know: How many machines would you have if you had the funding to meet the service standards? MR. BEAUCHAMP: The total machines with what is recommended to be deferred into '09. But to answer your question, the total number of machines would be 170 machines. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So in order to meet the service standard, you would get 170 machines? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Approximately, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're getting only 145 Page 21 June 29, 2007 machines? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes. Actually it's 165 machines rather than 170, but -- and we're looking at the 145 to purchase this year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Or in this -- MS. EDWARDS: Close. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or you can defer the others until the next year? MS. EDWARDS: The general election. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Right after the first of the fiscal year, then we would be able to purchase the additional machines. Have those. We have to acceptance test them and -- and stress test them locally. And those machines we would receive in adequate time to deploy for the general, which will be a high-voter turnout. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still don't get it. If you're deferring it into the next fiscal year and you're going to have to buy the machines before the end of this fiscal year, how are you dealing with the funding? It -- did I misunderstand? MR. BEAUCHAMP: The 301 submission that Ms. Edwards has listed at 1.2 to round up or to just -- is supplies enough money and enough funding for the 145 machines? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. BEAUCHAMP: Okay. The deferral of $609,125 for the next fiscal year, which starts October 1st, is for the additional machines? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. MR. BEAUCHAMP: And we would be able to purchase those 10/1 of'08, which is the '09 fiscal year, and have those in acceptance tested and ready to deploy for the November election. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So 30 days is -- is enough time for you? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Yes, sir. Page 22 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I got it now. Okay. Now, the last, I've got a telephone number for you. Write this down. MS. EDWARDS: All right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 850-488-4441. That's the number you call if you're a voter and you're dissatisfied with waiting in line to vote. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning and come back to Commissioner Halas and then hopefully we can move on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you. I don't see anywhere in your budget of who does your financials. I don't see any department here that does your financials. MS. EDWARDS: The Clerk of Court does our payables as well as our payroll. That's been tradition in this county rather than the Supervisor of Elections Office having our own stand-alone finance office. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we budget for that? MS. EDWARDS: We have in the past, but actually we're not being charged for that service in -- in our individual budget. Why? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe this is something that we're charged for. MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just find it -- find it interesting. I didn't see anything. I think that's part of the monies that we give the Clerk of Court, too. MS. EDWARDS: Probably is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh. Because we budgeted in the past and now it's not budgeted in ours. Page 23 June 29, 2007 MR. BEAUCHAMP: Commissioner, we -- the Supervisor of Elections Office generates about what the Clerk generates for our office maybe 1,000 checks a year. And because our office is funded with 101 dollars -- general fund dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. BEAUCHAMP: But because that's part of the Board's money, we're audited through that -- that process. It takes them about 50 minutes to do our audit probably because of our, you know, the 0.29 percent or, you know, 0.3 percent that we are of the budget. So that's why that's part of it. But we generate with payables and payroll maybe 1,000 checks a year. So, you know, we're pretty insignificant even with their workload. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it? Okay. Commissioner Halas, I hope we can wrap this up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yup. I want to get back to where we are today. How many touch-screen voting machines do you have in inventory today? MR. BEAUCHAMP: Twelve hundred and fifty-five touch-screen machines, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And why do we have that many if we can get by with 145 machines you're telling me? I just -- it's hard for me. Do you use all 1,100 machines? MR. BEAUCHAMP: No, sir. And, generally, in a general election, which is our heaviest turnout, we use approximately -- we stage approximately 1,200 machines -- I mean, excuse me, 1,000 machines. And we have in reserve several hundred in the event there are any mechanical issues. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So why if we come up with new-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's a different technology. Okay. Page 24 June 29, 2007 The touch-tone screens you have a little cassette you plug in. The new voting machine is gonna -- we're going to do things on paper. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know. MR. MUDD: And the machine -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The hanging chads. MR. MUDD: No. We're going to do it on paper and votes going to be optically scanned in. And these are optical scanners that they're talking about. It's a -- it's a completely different technology. Okay. And, so, when you get your paper vote done -- and I can only -- and I can only think of this in my own mind. I know when I optically scan in a piece of paper into my computer, I have a written piece of paper and I scan it through the thing and it goes into the machine and I've captured the vote. Plus I have the piece of paper as a receipt. And I believe that's exactly how this voting mechanism is going to work. So you have one optical scanner. You have multiple people voting on paper ballots. And those paper ballots are optically scanned into a computer. Plus you have the receipt of where they voted and probably signed their name at the bottom of it. Did I miss it pretty much or -- MS. EDWARDS: Well, it's not quite right, but it's very close. MR. MUDD: Close. Thanks. And I didn't -- MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. It is similar to when you -- when we used to vote with punch card. You walk into the polling site. And __ and now we'll continue to use the paper poll books. You'll -- you'll sign the register. And you'll be handed your ballot style and you'll go to a booth and you'll have a pen and you'll mark your ballot. And then those voters will determine how many booths we need based on anticipated turnout. And those voters, then, after they vote their ballot walk over to that one machine or depending on size of the precinct, possibly two machines, and insert their own ballot into that scanner. Now, ifthere's -- and I need to add because it's tongue in cheek. Page 25 June 29, 2007 There's a touch screen on that scanner that tells the voter that they voted successfully and "Thank you very much for voting." Or if there's a problem and there's an overvote, which is the way it will be programmed, it tells the voter that they have overvoted and would they like another ballot. And they touch it and say "yes" or "no." So we -- we're actually using combined technology. But that's where we're concerned about, if that line should grow or if that line -- or if that machine should go down. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will the scanner be able to tell what the voter's intent was? MS. EDWARDS: No, of course not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we -- we spent a lot on this subject now. I don't believe there's any opposition from this -- on your budget from this commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure you have enough money to take care of the citizens here in Collier County. That's my biggest concern. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've taken a very responsible stance not only to have enough money to make sure you didn't have too much money and that's equally important. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you very much for being here today. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we have a consensus -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as submitted. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As submitted, yeah. And that -- that goes without saying. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: With the amendments you proposed on the floor, I Page 26 June 29, 2007 believe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the amendments that the Supervisor of Elections will -- MS. EDWARDS: We will -- we will work with Mike and make some changes we need to make. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. I'll sit down with them and we will concur and make sure that we're all on the same page and we'll all be at the same end product when we're done. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. SHERIFF'S OFFICE MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The next presentation is from the sheriffs office. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. MR. SMITH: I'm Greg Smith. I'm the chief -- excuse me, Chief of Administration representing Sheriff Hunter this morning. With me are my finance staff, Jean Myers, Laurie Sam and Michelle Diaz. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Excuse me, Greg. You may need to pull that microphone a little closer and make it a little easier on the court reporter. Thanks. MR. SMITH: Is that better? I'll try to speak up, too. We -- we worked very hard on our budget this year given the early guidance by the county manager to come in at 6 percent. Wernet that target goal. Of course, no one really foresaw the events that were going to unfold in Tallahassee. The sheriff has made his on-the-record comments regarding that subject. We have had discussion -- detailed discussion with the county manager and his staff regarding the direction that may need to be taken to meet the will of the legislature and the possible effect on Page 27 June 29, 2007 services at the local level. Weare committed to working with him through the summer to try to obtain that goal. But it's going to take a lot of work and it's going to take some diligence, but we have the will to do both of those. So we're going to be working through the summer to try to find out where those cuts can come from. I can't commit to you this morning whether those cuts will be operational or whether they will be in the forms of capital or rescheduling replacement -- replacement equipment inside the agency. But, needless to say, whatever we do, will have some type of effect on service. And that's what we're trying to mitigate. The county manager has been very good in trying to identify measures, we think, to help mitigate some of the effects that's felt by the public with regard to public safety. And, of course, this is our primary concern, but also a concern of each and every one of you expressed to us. So we -- we are willing to go forward and try to deliver effectual service at the reduced funding level. With that I'll stand for questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you anticipate a hiring freeze in your department? MR. SMITH: We have already begun to hold vacancies open much similar to what the county manager is doing over on his side of the house. We're going to have to look at every single vacancy that comes open and make a determination on if that's one that should be filled or one that can remain vacant. But it's -- certainly vacancies is the first place you start to examine when you have to get a budget shortfall such as this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you know approximately the -- your budget, the size of the budget that is used to pay the officers? What percentage of your budget is -- MR. SMITH: What percentage of the budget is personal services Page 28 June 29, 2007 related? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Eighty percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, obviously, there's only just so much that you can cut out of operations or replacement equipment and the rest will probably be in regards to a hiring freeze or, as you said, leaving positions open and not filling those particular positions? MR. SMITH: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This -- the effect is statewide. So, I mean, if you get to the point where you had to layoff somebody, and we hope that doesn't happen, it's unlikely that the officers or probably your EMS people would be able to find employment in other locations within the state. It's pretty universal. Am I correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. For instance, I believe there was an anecdotal study that was relayed to us from -- from your deputy that sits on the dias this morning that last night the sheriffs office was inundated by at least 310 phone -- or people from Jacksonville. It could be a little less. But there were many phone calls from Jacksonville where they're laying off 300-plus deputies because of this cut and they were looking for jobs. So as I mentioned to you yesterday in my comments, this is going to affect every agency; municipality, county office and constitutional or whatever all over the state. And I -- and if people are looking for a job where they're laid off and they have a certain skill that fits into government, they're going to be looking outside of the state of Florida for -- for -- for employment. Because the next couple of years is going to be very slim as far as -- as far as our agency is concerned. And that's one of the reasons that I mentioned it to the sheriff yesterday when I was talking to him in the back of the room. Be Page 29 June 29, 2007 careful on your -- on your forecast of what your vacancy rate's going to be. Because I don't believe it's going to be anywhere where it's been in the past. Because there's no place for the folks to go in the state of Florida. So it's going to become inherently obvious to us that the vacancy rate that -- that's happened in the past is not going to transpire. So don't weigh heavily on it and be very conservative in your approach. And you'll probably hit it on the head and be closer to it if you were -- if you very -- if you were very aggressive in your forecast. So -- and we're doing it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Lieutenant Smith, would you like to comment on that? LIEUTENANT WELCH: Lieutenant Welch from the sheriffs office. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. LIEUTENANT WELCH: Chief Smith's down there. Just to clarify. That was -- that was not 308 phone calls or e-mails. That was actually one e-mail from an officer in Jacksonville asking if we had a hiring freeze on because there is a potential there for 308 officers to be laid off. And he was one of that 308. So they're -- they're starting to e-mail and ask if anyone has implemented a hiring freeze so that they can start processing in the event it looks like they may get laid off. So that's not a set-in-stone number from Jacksonville. It's just one individual that e-mailed that number saying that that's potentially what could happen from this legislation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But whatever shakes out of this, there's not going to be an inventory of jobs out there for people to go to. And probably we're going to have a drain of resources -- of physical resources going to other parts of the country. MR. SMITH: That is one thing that concerns us greatly. But at the same time when we talk about budget cuts, obviously, the low Page 30 June 29, 2007 hanging fruit will be any monies that you have allocated to recruiting and advertising to get people in. Because I think there's going to be a lot of people who -- potentially who could be looking for positions. So if we did have vacancies, we would probably be very easy to fill vacancies. That's one of the things that we have been comparing with some of the other agencies in the state. Also, to build on the county manager's comments. In the past, you know, our attrition level isn't where it used to be. We've done a very good job over the last year, possibly to our peril now, of recruiting and retaining quality applicants and quality staff. Our current attrition rate is down to 3.5 percent. Of course, we've been issued the budget guidance that, you know, the attrition be carried up to 4 percent. So we may be back very soon unless there's some natural attrition fall off to seek that additional funding. So I just offer that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the things I would hate to see you cut back too much on -- on the people that you need to protect us and keep us all safe. I was wondering in -- in many, many years ago about the overtime was a big factor. And I think that you've cut that down dramatically. Is that part of your cost-saving measure here? MR. SMITH: That -- that's correct. One of the things that we are looking at is overtime. We think that we can substantially make reductions in that area. We have been able to fill positions. And, of course, you know, there -- there's a direct correlation between filling a position and the overtime's going down. But, as you know, you know, we don't have the luxury of just working short if someone calls in, you know, sick or whatever the reason for the absence. Whether sporadic or long-term is, we have a certain number of posts for assignments that we must fill. So we do incur overtime, but we think that that's one area where we can reduce substantially. Page 31 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to mention to you that the county manager and I were -- were fortunate enough to spend a bit of time the other day while we traveled together. And he sang the praises of the sheriffs office and how diligently you have worked with him to reduce your budget to a point where it isn't a problem for us. And I just want to let you know that all of your efforts do not go unnoticed. Thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. I'm sorry. MR. SMITH: I -- I do appreciate the sentiment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chief Smith, I -- it's obvious that with 80 percent of your expenses being personnel expenses, your decisions are going to be pretty tough. You're going to have to decide where you allocate personnel. And -- and I would just ask that -- that you take into consideration when you're deciding where your most rigorous enforcement actions are going to be directed, that they be directed at the crimes that cost us the most. And -- and certainly very serious crimes like homicide we have to deal with and I'm sure you will. But -- but illegal immigration costs the people of Collier County a minimum of $57 million each year and probably well over $70 million each year. That there are indications that there are increases of human smuggling of illegal aliens into our county. And -- and the sheriff has been very vigorous in trying to stop that. I would hope that you'd continue to place a very high level of emphasis on stopping illegal immigrants and apprehending illegal immigrants and getting them out of here. And I know that the task force is working on that. I hope there will be no dilution of -- of the staff and resources for that particular effort. But I know you've got to struggle with this whole effort. And I know you don't have the details worked out yet, but I Page 32 .--_.~~.,,--------_._._- June 29, 2007 would ask that you take that into consideration in making those final decisions. MR. SMITH: I -- I can offer you that that is a high priority. I think that the commitment of Sheriff Hunter is without equal in the state with regard to that being a priority. He understands the implication. He understands the costs that are borne by the local citizens. And we have been very successful to date with our -- with our task force, with our interdiction effort regarding human smuggling. We've been very successful in partnering with immigration and customs enforcement to develop some programs here locally to have an immediate impact. We -- we have to date turned over to them for deportation dozens of those who we've identified that are having that adverse impact on our county. We will continue to do so. Yesterday the sheriff in his comments related back to the UFR list. You know, we can discuss that for a second. You know, we -- we had a number of positions that we thought would be more appropriately placed on the UFR list so that we can discuss and set priorities. We've been able to eliminate that entire submission. But we haven't eliminated the intent. Ten deputies were on there to -- to specifically target illegal immigration and to identify those members within the county jail and to set about to deport them out of our system. And we -- we've withdrawn that funding request, but we haven't depleted our desire to do something about that. We're just able to now transfer that over to another funding source and obtain those services and that's what we're going to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One final request. Is it possible, and perhaps you already do that, is it possible to identify whether anyone who is convicted of a crime and in our jails has been determined to be in this country illegally? Page 33 June 29,2007 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. That's what this program is all about. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and -- and you -- can -- you can report that information to the press, I hope, and the press, when they report on these, can point that out? MR. SMITH: I think the press is in the -- in the process right now of doing a very detailed story on this initiative that may see publication this week. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Chief, I -- obviously, I'm not here to micromanage, but is there any thought or maybe you're already instituting this, whereby petty type crimes instead of responding to them with the sheriff deputy where people can go to the sheriffs office or to your satellite office and fill out reports? MR. SMITH: We -- we do have a number of crimes, for instance, larceny that occur that someone just wants a report for insurance purposes. We've instituted a program where we have what's called an Alternative Response Unit where they can just call in on the phone. They take the information. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. SMITH: We've also identified a program for possibly implementation we're still in the -- in the planning phases of to have that available on line so that someone doesn't have to drive to the building. They can just go on-line and we can service them in that regard. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I -- I just want to make sure that because of the budget cuts that we try, as Commissioner Coyle said, that we keep officers on the street and in a high-crime area or in areas that you feel you need to have surveillance that that's the pnmary concern. And other stuff! hope the citizens would realize that there's going to be some changes in -- in your mode of operation as far as Page 34 June 29, 2007 addressing, like, petty crimes or purse snatchings and things of this nature. Maybe you can't get to the scene, but they need to report it. And -- and come to one of your satellite offices or whatever to fill out the necessary paperwork, make reports. And there's also people there that basically can administer to their needs there. MR. SMITH: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SMITH: The sheriff instituted a process some years ago. And not wanting to get into a whole lot of operational detail, but let me assure you that he carefully analyzes with his command staff on a biweekly basis what types of crimes are occurring, where they're occurring. And he deploys and redeploys assets to meet those needs. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think you have sufficiently answered all our questions. I believe this commission agrees that your budget as is will be amended, of course, working with county manager between now and our meeting on the 24th? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty-fourth of July. That you'll work with him to be able to bring it to within the state's guidelines so that we can proceed with it past that point. We thank you very much for being here today. I don't think anybody disagrees with what I just said. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. We appreciate all the hard work. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, sir. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS MR. SMYKOWSKI: In regard to the Property Appraiser's Office, I spoke with Mr. Skinner this morning. His budget submittal Page 35 June 29, 2007 to the Tallahassee is 4.4 percent based on what Tallahassee actually approved last year. The increase is 3.98 percent. Obviously, they make their final budgetary decisions after the Board deliberations, so that accounts for that differential, but he has endeavored to -- to meet the guidance. The tax collector's budget is not submitted until August 1 st. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, would you like to go back to the proposal and talk about where we left off and -- and we were going to take -- we were going to talk about it a little bit about how we get to 35.5 million. And there was about a million dollars that had to do with beach stickers that you took off the table and make some decisions on that particular issue or what would you like to do or would you like to do it after public comment? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. No. I think that we can probably keep everything on schedule by going forward. I think we do need to make that announcement again, that public comments will be at one o'clock. And we invite anyone that would like to participate at that time. Come forward, fill out a public speaking slip. And at one o'clock we'll be hearing those comments. Mr. Mudd, I have no problem. I think you're on the right track as far as what we need to do next, but first let's go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to expand upon the topic that you brought up about the interest returned back to the Board of County Commissioners and other things surrounding that whole Issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're talking about with the Clerk of Courts? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. I believe that we had an agreement with the Clerk of Courts that he will turn back that Page 36 June 29, 2007 money. County manager, do you remember that? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'm -- and I'm prepared to discuss that and I have the documents here, if you'd like, because I kind of thought it was going to come up this morning. Yes, we do. You have a -- there was a resolution that was passed by the Board of County Commissioners. And -- okay. I'm going to -- the signatures are there. It was signed by Commissioner Coletta as the chairman the second time around, sir. The -- and it was signed on the 14th of May 2002. And it's a Resolution 2002-227. And it -- and, again, I'm going to -- I'm going to try to get it enlarged even more. Basically it talks about a Section 28.33 of the Florida Statutes existing as of May 22nd whereby the interest earned by -- by your funds that are invested by the Clerk of Courts basically go into this particular fund that he controls. And at the end of the year, he returns that interest to the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to this period of time, all the interest that was -- was done prior to the -- this resolution being passed and your agreement with the Clerk of Courts, all the interest monies went to the accounts, the funds where the interest came from. The principal was invested. So if it was an impact fee, it went to an impact fee account. If it was TDC fund, it went to the TDC fund. Ifit was an MSTU, it went to that MSTD. No matter if it was fire -- fire or not. In this particular case, all those interests have been put in -- put into one account and been blended and they return back to your general fund. Now, why did you do that in 2002? In 2002 you were in great straits because the half penny for roads had -- had been killed. And you as a Board and this county in particular and your manager at the time, Mr. Oliff, were trying to figure out how they were going to pay for the backlog of roads knowing that the half penny died. And -- and Page 37 June 29,2007 that -- and that particular process has been going on. And I've -- and I also have a chart that talks about the turnback the Clerk has done over a series of years and where that interest transpired. And I believe it -- it -- it basically gets at your point. And it does it in -- and pardon my -- my spill of water on this particular pIece. But if you look at the historical general fund expense and you look at the Clerk's turnback, you can see those numbers and the years are over to the side on this -- on this column. I'll get it wider, if you'd like. And you'll notice in 2002 on that line after the resolution passed, that every year subsequent you have been receiving interest back from those particular accounts based on -- on -- on that memo. I have the minutes of that meeting, if you would also like. And-- and during those meeting minutes the Clerk is quoted as he would not spend a penny of those particular monies as far as interest are concerned and that would be returned to the Board of County Commissioners. I believe, Commissioner Henning, I just answered your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have an agreement with the Board of Commissioners and the Clerk to the Board to go along with that resolution? MR. MUDD: Outside of what the public document has to say with the Clerk being present and making those comments to the Board as this resolution passed, no, not a formal agreement, sir, outside of this resolution. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I do have some other questions similar to this topic, but I'll wait if others want to talk about the turnback money on interest. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle is next. So we can go to him. And if you like, Commissioner Henning, we'll come back to you and I'll leave your light on. Page 38 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I don't have anything specific. I was going to bring up the same issue Commissioner Henning did. I -- I think that what we have to do is make sure we understand what that resolution was designed to do. To -- to use very, very crude terms, it was a money laundering scheme. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is crude. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is crude. It was a money laundering scheme. What -- what -- what we -- and against my better judgment what -- what we were asked by the Clerk to do at that point in time was to take all excess funds and let the Clerk invest them. And then when their interest came back to him, it came back to him and he could distribute it to us as general fund revenue which gave us greater flexibility with -- with respect to how we use it. So -- so here's what happens. The developers pay impact fees and those impact fees are invested rather than having the interest. Is that true or not? MS. HUBBARD: I was just making a comment to Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. Rather than having those impact fees earn interest and the interest go back into the impact fee account that would have to be used on roads, using this scheme the Clerk would invest the money, return it to the Board as general fund revenues and then we could use it as general fund revenues and spend it on anything we wanted to spend it on. I didn't like the idea then. I don't like the idea now. But -- but I believe I voted for it. So I don't want to pretend like I was opposing it. But I believe I did vote it. I didn't like it, but I voted for it. It -- people thought that this saved us a lot of money. It -- it appeared to give you money, but really it didn't. Because what we then had to do was take that money that we had as general fund money and put it back into transportation for building roads. And that's how it got to twenty-five to thirty million dollars in our contribution to general fund Page 39 June 29,2007 money to -- to build roads. So it saved no money at all, but it did give us greater flexibility. And -- and that was -- that was an effort that was an idea that was initiated by the Clerk, consummated by the -- by the county government. And, as I understand it, it's a resolution which at any point in time can be withdrawn. Am I correct, county attorney? MS. HUBBARD: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners and county manager. I just want to -- MR. MUDD: State your name. MS. HUBBARD: -- one other-- MR. MUDD: State your name for the record. MS. HUBBARD: Jacqueline Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney. Yes, my understanding and Mr. Weigel's understanding of what you said was correct. I would like to bring to your attention, however, a fact that you may -- mayor may not recall. And that is that shortly before you approved that resolution in April of 2002, you had been sued by the Clerk on this very issue. And the Clerk had filed a lawsuit against the county in 2002. And in the minutes that Mr. Mudd was referring to, the Clerk agreed that that lawsuit against you would be dismissed and that a stipulation would be entered into between the county and the Clerk which would permit him to essentially invest the interest income. The resolution was then passed by the Board on that same day. So I just wanted to give you that additional background material. And my understanding is that it was an idea that was precipitated by the lawsuit that was filed against the Board by the Clerk. And I personally did not receive a copy of that complaint until yesterday; right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. That's not all right. I'm lost. Exactly what did you receive yesterday? Page 40 June 29, 2007 MS. HUBBARD: A copy of a complaint that had been filed by the Clerk shortly before you had the Board meeting in which you passed the resolution allowing him to invest the interest income. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2002. MS. HUBBARD: In 2002. The Clerk -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You received a complaint yesterday? MS. HUBBARD: I received a copy of it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. MS. HUBBARD: It had been filed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Got it. MS. HUBBARD: It was probably -- it was one of the background items that led to that meeting in 2002. And led to -- and on the record, the Clerk indicates that the county and the Clerk was entering into a stipulation and the lawsuit will be allowed to just die. And as a result of that stipulation and the conversations that occurred at that meeting, the Clerk agreed not to use that interest income, to give it back to the Board and the Board agreed to pass the resolution. I'm just supporting what Commissioner Coyle said by additional record evidence in the matter. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle, you got anything else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm -- I'm not -- not sure what the understanding of the Board is or even the public on this issue. It -- it's curious and I don't know how much time we -- you want to spend on it, Mr. Chairman, but we're in a position here where the Clerk is not here to present his budget. We're -- we're not here to approve his budget. That could have serious ramifications for both the Clerk and for us. The county manager has expressed a position. The Clerk disagrees with that position. And we have tried to get -- let me boil it down a bit and let's see. And please correct me if I'm wrong. Because it's necessary that we all get a good understanding of what's happening here. Page 41 June 29, 2007 It -- it's because there's a disagreement about whether or not the Clerk is a fee officer. In other words, does he fund his operations from fees he collects from people or is he a budget officer and funds his operations for money which we approve for him to expend? We've asked a judge to tell us in accordance with state law whether he's a fee officer or a budget officer so we'll know what to do. We've asked the Clerk to go to the judge with us jointly and seek this determination so that we'll know which one is he so we'll know how to conduct our affairs. The Clerk says he is a fee officer. And if he's a fee officer, then he funds his operations from the fees he collects. So he has no need to come to us for funds at all. If that is the case, we have no budget that we can approve for him. And he is not authorized, however, to expend money which is not approved by the Board of County Commissioners as a -- as an authorized expenditure. So we can't do anything until this judge provides us all an opinion. Is the Clerk a fee officer or a budget officer or is he a little bit of both depending upon what he's doing? And we can't get this decision expedited because the Clerk is, in fact, continuously delaying this decision by conducting extensive depositions of county commissioners that are videotaped for whatever reason. It -- it takes taxpayer money to do that and time to do that. And it delays the decision by the Court which is not dependent upon the opinions of county commissioners. It depends upon the law. It is merely an interpretation of the law. Now, have I essentially described the situation -- situation correctly? MS. HUBBARD: Yes, Commissioner. There are only a couple of items in the proposed 2007 budget proposed by the Clerk of Courts that as we understand the law if he is a fee officer, you're entitled to fund. And those would be costs for capital construction such as the Page 42 June 29, 2007 building. And he has asked in his noncourt-related budget -- at least the copy that I had that's dated -- it's actually not dated, but the letter -- the transmittal letter to Commissioner Coletta is dated May 1st, 2007. In that budget, we're talking noncourt-related, he has asked the Board to fund $5,117,000. He also maintains in his budget transmittal that he is a fee officer. Now, ifhe is a fee officer, as we understand the law, most of his budget requests could not be funded by this Board. It would have to be funded from the fees that he collects because the Florida statutes are pretty clear regarding what the Board can and cannot fund to a fee officer. So on that, I would imagine that is something that the Board could discuss at a later point when the Clerk is here, perhaps. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If -- if I could, I'm not going to belabor this anymore. I think we -- we've covered it fairly well. But I would like to point out that -- that -- that as we saw here today with -- with the Supervisor of Elections, there are things that the Clerk does for other Constitutional officers that are valuable. There are things the Clerk does for us that are valuable. And I think those things are going to suffer if we don't reach some resolution to this as quickly as possible. And I think we all agree on that. So we need to resolve that issue. And I'm disappointed that -- that we don't have the Clerk's office represented here to -- to discuss this issue and try to resolve it. But it's my concern that -- that we're going to have a deadlock here that results in -- in some operational problems. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the Clerk by being -- claims being a fee officer in the document that was submitted to you, has a requirement to submit it to his budget in August just as if the tax collector does. At that time we'll know what that budget says and what's in that budget. And we'll know exactly what -- what the issues Page 43 June 29, 2007 are in order to get some specificity on those. In my transmittal letter to him on 7 May, I basically asked ifhe could please -- in his submission, if he could please tell us those things that we're -- that we're obligated to do, that you're obligated to fund based on the law. I asked the attorney for an attorney opinion to layout the law as we could find it, what this Board is required to pay. I did that and submitted and I'm still waiting for a response. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But, see, the problem is that if the Clerk is going to ask us for funds, we can't wait until August to find out about it because we set the millage in July. Our budget is finished in July. It -- it's all over in July. And if somebody comes in in August and says "I need 5 million more dollars, what are we going to do about that," there's nothing we can do about it. So -- so the Clerk has an obligation to tell us before we fix our millage if he is going to ask for any funding approval from us. And-- and if -- if he is taking the position that he has the unilateral right to take all of the general fund money and invest it and then keep the interest that he wants to keep and spend it as he sees fit without our approval, I think he's in violation of the law. And -- and so we need to resolve this issue, but nevertheless apparently we won't. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move along here. We're getting bogged down in -- in an issue of, well, it's important. But, go ahead, Commissioner Henning. We -- we took it away from you a few minutes ago. We have two other commissioners want to speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. This -- this is very important. And Commissioner Coyle has concerns -- raised some concerns and I have the same -- same concerns. The Clerk to the Board submitted his budget to all of us. The county manager is recommending that we cut this budget $5 million. But I haven't heard the duties that he does for the Board of Commissioners as a Clerk such as taking minutes of our meetings, not Page 44 June 29, 2007 just our meetings, but other meetings also. He -- he is the financier for the Board of Commissioners. He writes the checks. He has all different accounts that these monies are allocated. So I don't know if the recommendations are to -- to take basically all his budget for those out to perform those operations where he's going to get those funds to do the board's business. So I think it's worthy for the Board to have that answer. And who's going to answer that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the Clerk's not here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. He's -- he's saying "I need $5 million." Okay. Commissioner Halas -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's he at? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, he said it right here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. The county manager is recommending different. So I think the county manager needs to tell the Board where he's going to get the funds to do those operations. MR. MUDD: That -- that's -- that's easy, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Your Clerk of Courts on the first page of that submittal says he is a fee officer. According to Florida statutes, a fee officer lives off his fees. Okay. He doesn't live off his budget. He lives off his fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. MR. MUDD: No place in that document have I seen a fee schedule or anything to provide Board services. It's not in there. And the Florida statutes are also quite clear. If the Clerk of Courts decides that he can't pay his own salary as a fee officer, then you as a Board must. And if he can't pay the retirement end or the Social Security benefits of his employees and he stipulates that to you because the fees don't cover it, you must fund that also. Page 45 June 29, 2007 I believe that the funds that you must fund for him based on the Florida statutes is a little less than $900,000. I have not received a reply that say that he needs those dollars in order to do that. And I am still waiting. When I -- when I get that, then I'll be able to provide that to you based on the document that -- and I'm not going by the Naples Daily News, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- I can only go by what his attorney-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that he should charge us a fee for providing those services, you know, take the minutes of our meeting, records them? MR. MUDD: And he also has to show where the fees that he collects from the public don't cover those costs already in his particular issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: He has to do that. And -- and so the Florida statutes are quite clear about what your minimums are for a fee officer. And I basically specified those to him -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- MR. MUDD: And I'm waiting -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- MR. MUDD: -- for him to identify those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You said two things there, so I just want to understand. Are you -- are you saying that he should charge us a fee for -- for doing those services or are you saying he ought to take those fees that he collects on other things to do the board's operation? MR. MUDD: I'm -- I'm saying he has to show you where the fees that he collects doesn't cover those charges. And, oh, by the way, when you charge a fee, you get to -- you get to negotiate that fee for servIce. And you also have the opportunity, ifit is in a requirement by the Page 46 June 29,2007 Florida statutes for a particular service, to go out to an outside vendor and also get that if you can find it at a cheaper rate. Now you have lots of options in that particular thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm -- I'm really glad we're having this discussion because I think we all need to understand. So just to give you an example. He collects fees for marriage licenses besides other things; right? So you're -- are you saying that he ought to take whatever money he has left over from those -- those marriage fees and -- and -- and use that to take the minutes of the Board of Commissioners. Write the commissioners' checks. Do his financial -- he's a financial for -- for the Board. He should use those type fees. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm -- what I'm trying to tell you is every year he has returned money after he's told you what he needs. Okay. And it's obvious to me he's asking you for more than he needs. And he's returning that back every year and he's been doing so since he's been in office. So I guess what I'm saying to you is it's a little bit of both. And he has to apply that in order to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And -- and he -- he decided he wants to be a fee officer. And he's stated it emphatically in his letter at this particular time. He just needs to run his office off his fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With all due respect, I haven't gotten an answer to my question. I can't -- I can't support the budget as recommended because you haven't told me where he's going to get the money to -- to do the Board's business. MR. MUDD: And I -- and I told you what the Florida statutes say your minimum cost to a fee officer are. And I've laid that out specifically. And it's up -- and it's up to the Clerk to determine ifhe needs those dollars in order to continue his operation and do his statutory requirements. Page 47 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he submitted his budget and you're recommending not to approve his budget. You're taking 5 million out of it. MR. MUDD: No. He made a statement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He -- he needs -- MR. MUDD: He made a statement to you in that budget office, in -- in that letter that said you must fund those particular issues. And I basically, in my reply back to him with the county attorney's opinion basically said, I believe your statement that the Board must fund those particular issues as being erroneous. And I believe that's the case, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I just want to tell the Board, I can't support the -- the budget. I -- you know, I -- I don't know if it's legal or not to use other fees to do -- to fund other functions. I don't know the law. I'm not a lawyer, but I know one thing. If -- if -- if he can do that, then we ought to be able to take community developments' fees and water and sewer fees to use to fund parks and rec. And I think we were told previously that was illegal. So I don't know if that applies in this case or not. I do -- I would like a copy of those documents, please. MR. MUDD: Which documents? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The ones that you just showed. Because I didn't get a chance to study it. MR. MUDD: Certainly. You're talking about the letter I sent or you want the spreadsheet? I got it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, anything else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Back to the whole Page 48 June 29, 2007 spreadsheet, I just had a question. Would you put that back up there about the turnback and interest? On that last line, I noticed -- I noticed there was a huge drop in '06 from the Clerk turnback even though the interest turnback was, indeed, a great deal larger. I was wondering why we had a $2 million -- approximately $2 million drop in the Clerk turnback that year. Do you happen to know that. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe -- I believe that's the substance of the -- of the suit that you have with the Clerk being a budget versus being a fee officer. His -- his projection on -- well, first of all, his budget came in $4 million higher than what you approved. He unilaterally increased that. He spent some $3 million of that increase in his budget without coming to you in order to get approval in order to do so. And I __ (Phone ringing.) MR. MUDD: Somebody out there probably seeing if their phone works. Can you hear me now? The -- I'm only kidding with him. And, Commissioner, I believe that that's the substance of why we're -- why we're where we're at. Okay. And the estimate of turnback was significantly less than what actually got turned back last year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas is the next one after you, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's where none of us up here are attorneys. And I believe that's why we've asked that this be placed in a court of law so that -- excuse me -- so that we can get an understanding of where we stand. If we come up and say that we're going to pay the Clerk the $5 million, then obviously we've got a shortfall and we've got to do some other cutting; is that correct, county manager? Page 49 June 29, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. So I would hope that people realize that we may have to do some further cuts. I would hope that we can get this thing directed to court -- to the courts and get -- I think it would serve the public in Collier County to the utmost to determine who is right and who is wrong and get a -- and get this taken care of as quickly as possible. And at that point in time, I wish that somebody from the Clerk's office was sitting here to basically let us know, since he's a fee officer, what obligations that we have as the Board of County Commissioners. And, obviously, he's not here to tell us what our obligations are. I would hope that he studied the Florida statutes so that he understands that he's got an obligation to let us know exactly what -- where we stand and what we need to do to -- to address his concerns. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, if you're through talking on the phone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it's going to ring again, ever. Yeah. This -- this is not a jurisdictional spat. You know, I really don't care which way this goes. Just -- just give me a decision. We can't have the confusion. And it has to do with us performing the duties, the fiduciary duties that we are charged with performing. You can't approve a budget for someone and then -- for any agency -- and then let that agency spend the money as they wish. And, in fact, increase their budget without approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Weare constantly told by the Clerk that he will not cut a payment for anything that the Clerk -- that the Board of County Commissioners has not voted on as a valid public purpose. Time and time and time again we're told this, but yet the Clerk is spending money that we don't know anything about, haven't approved in his budget and haven't approved the expenditure as a valid public purpose. Page 50 June 29, 2007 We can't do our business like that. This is taxpayer money. And -- and the fact that the Clerk invests it and earns interest off of it, doesn't mean he can just grab a bunch of it and use it as he sees fit. And we believe we have some responsibility here. And -- and if the Court rules otherwise, then that's fine. We understand what our responsibilities are in this respect and we just go on and we -- we do our business. So the problem is that the Court decision is being delayed; delay, delay, delay. And -- and it would serve everyone's best interest if we could just get it done and have somebody decide it. And we'd all be happy, then. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very well put. We're going to take a ten-minute break. We'll be right back. (Short recess was taken.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody take their seats, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look who's here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager. PRELIMINARY UFR DISCUSSION MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we're -- and we're basically talking about how we want to come to a point in time where we want to decide how we want to come back with a rolled out -- the rollback amounts of money that -- that the Board needs to do in order to meet the state statute that was passed and what -- and what the Board decided to do during the Board meeting this week. My recommendation -- and we'll do the first part and then we'll go to the second part of the recommendation. The first part of the recommendation was to roll back $10 million. That it's -- and reduce that reoccurring road funding by $10 million. So I'm basically moving $10 million of reoccurring out of Page 51 June 29, 2007 Norman's capital out of that $24 million. And I'm substituting nonreoccurring monies in that particular account. So a '08 budget will still be at $24 million. And you'll be able to roll back ten million out of that particular fund. So that juncture, your UFR fund is now $10 million less. So it's now at $12 million instead of 22.4 million. Next recommendation was to re- -- reduce the reoccurring stormwater capital by $5 million in the same kind of mechanism. It's got 12 million in the account. You'd leave seven million that was reoccurring. You'd move five million of reoccurring monies out. And you'd move $5 million ofnonreoccurring money off the UFR list. That would reduce the amount of UFR funds available by another $5 million. It comes to the next line which was of some discussion here in the last hour. And it basically talks about the Clerk saying that he's a fee officer. He submitted a budget that was a little over -- or a document that was had -- had his request for a little over $5 million. The recommendation here is to cutback on that particular request by $5 million. And, therefore, reduce your UFR funds by 5 million. And that would leave you around $2.4 million left in the UFR fund. You had a discussion this morning with the Supervisor of Elections whereby she had talked about her fund requirement being reduced from $2.6 million to $1.2 million. That requirement was on the UFR list. If the Board so desires to fund that particular element, your UFR fund balance in -- in -- in the general fund would be some $1.2 million. That leaves -- now, does the Board want to vote on that particular issue before we get into the $15 million cuts that we still have to make? That was of some discussion yesterday especially when we talked about beach -- beach pass fees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you saying do we want to vote on Jennifer's request? Page 52 June 29, 2007 MR. MUDD: No. Do we want to vote on this rollback piece, some $20 million right now before we get into the 15.5 million or I can go right into that and we can discuss that, too, and then we can __ whatever the Board desires. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, I got -- I hate to keep going back to the Clerk and all that, but if we cut the Clerk on one end, he's going to take it as a fee officer out of his fees at the other end. And there'll be the turnback that we're not going to get. So it's kind of washing out one way or the other. Is that correct or no? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're talking about something that -- that I can't tell you. I have no idea how he's going to react to __ CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, but one way or the other. Either, you know, as a fee officer he's going to take it out of his fees and that won't be a turnback. If we're -- if the turnback that we're expecting is something that does not include -- MR. MUDD: The turnback we're expecting, sir, is your interest money off the principals off the county funds and reserves that are sitting out there. That's what you're expecting back. You're expecting no turnback from him at all as far as his fees are concerned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. That's what I needed to know. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager, the -- the highlighted 22 million out of the unfinanced request monies, you're saying that we have that. And when you reduce it ten million to -- to the roads and then five million to the stormwater, that's fifteen million. That's leaving us a balance of seven million. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So those figure are not quite correct? MR. MUDD: No, those -- those figures are __ COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 53 June 29,2007 MR. MUDD: Those figures are-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other one is under that. MR. MUDD: Under -- if you reduce just those fifteen, you'd have seven million in the UFR list that I'm still looking for cuts of another $5 million on top of the fifteen that's there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The line below it, you're saying we're -- we're not funding the Clerk and that's reducing the budget by $5 million? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The $5 million unfinanced request is basically nonrecurring dollars; right? MR. MUDD: No, sir. If you take a look at your general-- at your overall section, and I'd like to get you to the page. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three? MR. MUDD: I'm looking for the part where it zeroed out. No. I'm looking for the line under General Fund and then we'll go back to three. Pardon me for a second as I find the page. Commissioner, if you look at page 6, and I want you to focus down toward the bottom of the page where it says, transfers, slash, the constitutional officer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MUDD: You'll notice on that line, you have a '06 adopted budget for $5.1 million in the Clerk of Court. And you'll notice that in the '07, '08, that you have the quantity of zero. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MUDD: Those $5 million are now on the UFR list. Okay? That's where they're sitting. And if you also look at the dynamic that has transpired on page 3 where it says expenses in revenues and variance. It's over to the side ofthe page at the top of the page over to the right-hand column. And Page 54 June 29, 2007 it's -- it's got a highlighted box that says the variance is $5,424,000. Okay? That's basically the variance that has to do with the Clerk's request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, these -- these unfunds -- unfinanced request is really turnback money and that's what you're saying. Am I correct? You're -- you're funding him with unfinanced -- un- __ nonrecurring funds. MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm -- I'm stating to you as I stated yesterday that I believe that $5 million is reoccurring. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Cleared that up yesterday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- these funds are historically what we used, what -- what's -- what's called as tumback money which is nonrecurring funds. MR. MUDD: No, sir. And this -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of this -- the turnback of this money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- go ahead and finish. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I said, no, that is not the case. In this particular case, the Clerk has declared that he is a fee officer. And we went through that this morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, but I -- I'm not talking about that. MR. MUDD: And in this particular case, you had $5 million or less that you'd been funding him over a series of years on submissions. And in this particular year, you are not funding that. It is zeroed out. Therefore, sir, that money is reoccurring money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the $10 million into the transportation fund. That we took $10 million from the general funds, we're replacing it with these -- these other funds. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Page 55 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what I'm asking is, those are non-recurring funds? MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: And that's why you're swapping them out. You're bringing the reoccurring out of the $24 million. And I went over that yesterday which showed you basically paid off your $257,000. And you'll do that in '08 in order to do that. So there is a risk, sir, that the monies won't be there and you'll be less than 24 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's my point. And that's -- that's the risk that I don't want to take. Because I think the community's goal is to build roads and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to build roads. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Wait. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and what I'm saying is __ COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to build the roads, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If I could finish, please. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's put your light on and then __ COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- if those are nonrecurring, that's a risk in the future that those monies might not be there. And I don't want to take that risk. And besides the fact is the third line item is the $5 million taken away from the Clerk. And, you know, I'm fine with your opinion, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope you __ COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is Republican values. We're trying to cut this budget back to where it should be. I know you're a very -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you -- Page 56 -<-.----.- June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- conservative person. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Respect my opinion. That's all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's try to avoid too big of a dialogue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Wait. Hold it. Hold it. Let Commissioner Henning finish. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to say I respect everybody's opinion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that -- that's great and that's the way it should be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have something else, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. I -- I won't support any motion to approve what's recommended. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion that we approve the rollback so that we can move on and -- and get this budget wrapped up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rollback of $20 million? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rollback of $20 million -- MR. MUDD: Submitted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because we have to have 1.2 million, I believe, for the -- yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Elections Office. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Elections Office, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to second that with the understanding that we still haven't got the devil in the details -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- where we're going to be coming with some of this money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Page 57 June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you're on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I merely want to raise a concern here. And this is not the time to discuss it in great detail, but we are providing some funding for transportation out of the general fund money. I do not share the -- the staffs optimism with respect to being able to complete the roads that we have identified in the time frame that we have established with the money we have. Norm Feder is, I think, right now meeting with the Department of Transportation people about a wide range of issues that relate to their unwillingness or inability to provide us the funds that they have promised us in the past. And that issue continues to -- to -- to interfere with our ability to maintain concurrency. But the -- the -- the transportation staff has -- has assured me that -- that in the short-term they're going to be okay. I -- I believe that we're going to have a trailing off of impact fees. I believe that gas tax revenue is not going to be as high as we thought it was going -- think it's going to be in the future. I think we're -- we're going to have a problem meeting concurrency requirements with the money that we have in transportation, but that is an issue to be resolved later. I don't see an alternative to approving this -- this budget. We have to reduce it. We have to notify Tallahassee pretty quickly. Don't we have a reporting requirement on July, what, the 5th? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. So we have to -- have to do something with this. And absent other alternatives, I have no -- no option but to support it. But I'm still uneasy about its ultimate affects upon Collier County and our ability to serve the citizens of Collier County. But we have to approve it. And I would vote in favor of it unless the county manager has other alternatives that he can recommend to us that are less onerous than what we have. Page 58 June 29, 2007 MR. MUDD: No, sir. And what I've tried to do is -- is maintain the lowest pain level that I can for the sheriff, that I can for EMS, that I can for libraries and other parks. And we're going to have a degradation. We know that as employees leave and we'll adjust. And I mentioned that yesterday. We'll know that as the year progresses and I'll keep the Board informed of that progress. And I think that's important. But I want to make sure everybody understands. This is the first year of a two-year-cut program that we could possibly have. And-- and you've got to be prepared for that, too. And I believe if -- if the amendment passes, I believe we're going to get in -- we're going to get into some -- some more serious cuts. And I believe that the vacancy issue is not going to be a -- is not going to be an avenue. I think you're going to have to let some people go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we just close down local government and let the state handle it all. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Getting rid of big government. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're just starting in the wrong place. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not; they are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, if there's no other comments we have a motion before us made by Commissioner Halas, seconded by myself, Commissioner Coletta to move forward with this. All those in favor -- or any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none. All those in favor indicates by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 59 June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that Commissioner Henning was in opposition. What's next, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- that brings us to how we get to $15.5 million. And that's -- that's the other piece that we need to talk about, but we're not there yet. And then we'll talk about the III piece after this. Yesterday, I -- I laid out a chart that basically talked about eliminating job bank positions, $2 million fees, the open positions, freezing on vacancies, CRA decrements, retirement adjustments placed by the Florida legislature, the sheriffs cuts, other constitutionals at 1.6. That's -- that's another issue that -- that's unknown right now. I heard -- I heard the Supervisor of Election talking about operational cuts, but I didn't believe they were anywhere near what the pie piece was. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I'm going to have to collect the information. So we -- we're -- we -- that's not a firm number, but we're going to work on it. Additional revenue, we talked about $1.2 million and that's discussed over to the side. Expanded positions reoccurring cost and that cut on the -- on the particular process. And I basically came up with where I got the $15.5 million. I also mentioned to the Board of County Commissioners the later part of yesterday that to set ourselves up for the 2009 cut, we should take -- we should take steps now to make sure that all merit is done as a bonus and it's not put into pay. That will not be a savings for 2008, but it will be a savings in 2009 of $1.3 million. And to reinstate the maximum salary cut in each pay range __ salary cap in each pay range in FY '08 for that budget. And that, Page 60 June 29,2007 again, sets us up for '09 for some savings to the tune of about $250,000. Now we went to the revenue piece, that $1.2 million on your slide. And we talked about instituting a $50 annual beach parking pass. And that was -- and that -- and that was -- was denied yesterday by a vote. And then there's the health department increase and death certificate fees, increase in library fines, rental rates, card fees for nonresidents and to institute an emergency management plan review fee of$99,000. The latter three did not receive much discussion, but the $1 million piece did. And I'd like that Mr. Smykowski to provide you a -- a menu, so to speak, of places where you could entertain that $1 million replacement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I -- I know it's kind of soon, but is there any way you would have a chance to review that possible proposal of -- of getting fill from the lake behind Orange Tree to be able to offset the road program that __ MR. MUDD: No, sir. No, sir. And I believe there's all kinds of stipulations about what you can do in that lake that -- that are with Mr. Bolt and Mr. Paul in previous agreements. And we haven't got the lake yet. So, sir, no, I haven't. I haven't done that at all. It's too soon. And, sir, I will tell you there's enough -- there's enough fog in this budget process that any revenues that were gained could be offset by changes to the Clerk's budget that the Board approves, and whatnot. And I will try to get those numbers and our best guess with some geology over the summer and be able to get that better back to the Board. But the answer to your question, sir, I do not have those numbers off the top of my head. I have -- I have not had a chance to do that analysis and if it's legally possible. Page 61 June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you go down these by line item by line item? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Absolutely. The beach parking sticker revenue to offset was $1,012,000. The county attorney met with me yesterday and said that -- that he has a position that's vacant and that he could -- he could cut $100,000 off his particular budget. And so that is on that line, the next line down. The Court fund on retirement adjustment, we got with Mr. Middlebrook yesterday and worked those numbers for their retirement based on what was actually passed by the Florida legislature. And that's a $15,000 reduction to their particular budget. So we're looking for $897,000. On your expanded list, one of the things I mentioned that I -- that I didn't recommend to -- to cut the new bus routes and/or -- what did you call them? I call them counter -- the counter -- the reverse. Why can't I remember that? The reverse bus routes that were sitting there, but those new bus routes and/or new buses added to provide service would be some $231,000. And that's reoccurring. We could reduce by one-half the fuel adjustment reserve. That is -- you know, we're talking about risk. There was a million dollars that I had Mr. Smykowski put in there because it looked like fuel costs were going right through the roof. And we're going to -- to exceed the money that we had budgeted for fuel. And I asked him to do it not only for our agency, but also for the sheriffs agency, okay, to have that reserve. And it -- it was -- it was over a million dollars. My recommendation is reduce it by -- by half. I still think we -- you know, it's some risk, but I think you've got money to -- to counter it. And if -- if -- and we'll have to see what the turnback is at the end of this year to see if there's any dollars in case we get ourselves in a problem as the year progresses. All I can tell you is -- is a barrel went from $70 yesterday. To reduce economic development incentives, limit the incentives Page 62 June 29, 2007 and -- and -- and to tell Ms. Nemecek or her agency to -- to -- we're going to reduce your particular either initiatives and/or your -- your contribution to her office without reducing the area that she needs to focus on, I believe would be disingenuous. And you were asking her to do -- do -- do more with less. And I don't think that works out very well. Right now you have $1.5 million in your incentive program. Mr. Baker came before you a couple of weeks ago and talked about removing those folks that didn't -- that didn't live up to their promises in order to get your dollars. And you removed about a million dollars worth of your obligation. You have obligations in '08 and in your -- you have 1.5 budgeted, but you have obligations of around $450,000 in '08. It rises to $600,000 in '09. And then it starts to level down to around $300,000 in '10, 'II and '12 and those are years. And those are monies that you've already made promises with, prior agreements. Now, in those agreements, you have language that basically says these agreements are valid based on funding -- funding levels. Okay. So you have a way out. But that also talks about what you promised and -- and what -- and the promises kept. And -- and this Board has been very good at trying to keep promises kept. So if you have an option, my recommendation is if you're looking for some monies, that you reduce your incentives from $1.5 million to 500 -- or, excuse me, to a million dollars next year. And if you're going to do that, you focus those incentives on a particular area that you would like redevelopment industry manufacturing your __ your businesses that you've -- that you've -- that you've focused on; clean, high tech type businesses into a particular area. And in this particular regard, I would say if you're going to cut $500,000, that you focus either into the eastern part of Collier County and/or into the Immokalee Enterprise Zone. If you did that for Ms. Nemecek, I believe her workload would be reduced because she's Page 63 June 29, 2007 going to be focused in a particular area. And then you could look her straight in the eye and said, Yes, I want to reduce the $400,000 contribution we make on an annual basis to your office by $100,000. Now, total expense reduction options in that particular scenario that's there is $1.4 million. And I'd go back to the line above that's in bold that says you're only looking for $897,000 right now. So another -- there's another option that you could do, but that's based on raising fees. In public services division and I did a -- and I did a cursory check with Marla yesterday. If you raised her fees in her division by 10 percent across the board, not only in parks but in -- but in senior service and all through all the things that she -- she -- that she applies fees to, DAS, Domestic Animal Services, or whatnot, that could increase your revenue in that department by $480,000 and decrease the amount of supplemental money that you have to supplement her organization within the general fund and actually cut out $480,000. We added the -- the expense reductions above and/or the option to increase that fee, you're sitting at 1.8972. I just wanted to give you some options. You could cut all of the fuel adjustment reserve. If you do that, that's over a million dollars. And so you could get at that particular shortfall in that manner, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I -- the difference between the 897 at the top and the 1.4 down at the building, almost at the bottom there, it's that middle there, is almost a half million dollars. Is there a reason why there's such a difference there? Why we __ MR. MUDD: Sure. I wanted to give you options. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I see. In other words, not all of this particular one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. You asked for a menu of choices rather than just a few fixed-choice menu. So we tried to give you some opportunity to discuss. And if you didn't like what options __ CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that is good. Can we get Page 64 June 29, 2007 somebody in here that can talk to us about the expanded bus routes and exactly what was -- we're talking about? I don't think there's anybody here that can, is there? Oh, forgive me. MR. MUDD: Ms. Newman. MS. NEWMAN: Sharon Newman, Transportation,. The routes particularly, too, that are very critical are the Immokalee reverse route and the Golden Gate City. Weare now leaving people behind at bus routes that are waiting hours for another bus to come. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. I'm not gonna -- I'm not gonna to support that. That -- I'm sorry. You're going to get your turn, sir. But you're going to wait. Okay? I know you're chomping at the bit, but we're going to get to you. That's not going to be acceptable. It's just not. We're going to have to find other ways to do this. And if I may, don't go too far. Ms. Nemecek, I need you to come up for just a second. Reduce economic development -- developmental incentives, limited incentives to Immokalee Enterprise Zone. I guess zoning is what we're talking about. I have no idea what was there to begin with. You're talking about removing half a million dollars. MS. NEMECEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What does this mean? Because I know you don't use all the money that you get now. And there's a tumback that comes here every year or goes back into the general fund. MS. NEMECEK: Correct. The incentive program is set up as a set amount so that we know what the pool is that we have to market to the businesses that are coming or expanding in Collier County or interested in coming to Collier County. And sometimes that monies are -- are taken advantage of. The program, because it's just now getting off the ground over the last couple of years and you're starting to see some of these Page 65 June 29, 2007 companies come around and create the jobs, that's why you're starting to see it now being taken advantage of. In the first couple of years, you wouldn't have expended all the money potentially because the companies couldn't build -- get permitted, build a facility and get the job creation done in those years. So there's been about six million -- a little over six million dollars put into the fund over the last couple of years. And a majority of that has come back to the county. But going forward in future years, we have about 25 projects in the program. We have about 35 percent increase in prospects, in our pipeline prospects that we're looking at, not only coastal Collier County, but also in the eastern part of Collier County. And so, you know, understanding what certainty we have in being able to attract and bring these companies before you, we just approved one this week; Advant, which is going to be creating 20 jobs; a life science company, a biotechnology company creating 20 jobs and $80,000 per year. I think the EDC was prepared going into this knowing that there was going to have to be our contribution to participating in -- in this cut. I don't think anybody was under the false premonition that we were going to have all the money in tact. So, but I think we need to look at this logically and how we're going to do this knowing that there's the potential that those monies may not be used this fiscal year. How do you deal with that? How do you be able to encumber that for other uses? But also knowing that if we have a company that's -- you know, wants to move here, that we're ready and able to address that when that option arises. And sometimes you can't predict that because you just don't know when the decisions will be made or when the companies come into place. But I would recommend for you is to keep it a county-wide program. Knowing where land availability is is mostly in eastern Page 66 June 29, 2007 Collier County. You're probably going to see that those companies are going to locate for the majority of them in eastern Collier County. But you don't want to also lose an opportunity to site a company here in the coastal area if the facility is available. With construction in a downturn there's a lot of places in the industrial parks that are going to start opening up because those construction companies are going to start moving out. We want to be able to infill those properties with -- those existing properties with companies wanting to move here. So, you know, I -- I would -- I would say that on the table, you know, let me know what it is. I think that this is probably -- this is a, you know, a 30 percent cut in the overall economic development budget which is extremely small to start with when you compare it to other communities around the state of Florida and to our tourism development dollars that we spend in this community for tourism development. And I think that tourism development and economic development are pretty much equal importance in this community and need to be funded as such. So, you know, again, I'm not -- I'm not going to stand up here and tell you that we're not going to take a cut because I think it's an appropriate position for the Economic Development Counsel. And keep in mind, too, that the private sector has stepped up a great deal. It used to be that our funding was about 40 percent county and 60 percent private sector. We have done a lot to increase private sector contributions to this over the last couple of years. Where we're at, probably about 65 percent private sector funding and 35 percent public sector funding. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go too far. I think we've got some commissioners that have all sorts of questions and comments. Commissioner Halas, we'll start with you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was just looking at this __ what was brought out here. I'd like to see, maybe we take half the fuel Page 67 June 29, 2007 adjustment reserve and the other area would be the public service division. And I think that would pretty much bring up -- bring us to the point where we need to get. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Increase that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take -- take the -- what's suggested. Reduce the half of the fuel adjustment reserve. I don't want to take it all because I think we're going to need it as the market fluctuates. So the county manager said that he is willing to look at half the fuel adjustment reserve. And then the public service division, increase the fees there 10 percent across the board. And I think that pretty much gets us where we need to go. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does it, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yeah, that gets us there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. MUDD: We can adjust the -- we can adjust the fee increases down in public services to get the 897. Because what he just basically gave me was about a million dollars. And I'd make the reduction on the fee increases and public services as the offset in that particular regard. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. I'm not -- I'm not sure I follow you. If we're going to take half of the fuel adjustment reserve, we're talking about -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the 587. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two hundred and ninety thousand dollars. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The half is 586. The fuel __ COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I thought you were talking about half of what you had already -- okay. I got it. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's the number. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I got it. MR. MUDD: So you're basically break -- talking $586,000 Page 68 June 29, 2007 there. And then you're basically saying subtract that from the $897,000 and you'll come up with some increment of -- of300,013 or ten or, excuse me, $312,000. And -- and that would be the fee increase option. Instead of 480, it would be, like, 312. And then it would be something less than ten percent. And that would give you the number that you're looking for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah. I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, have you got something else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No, that's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question goes way back to when we began, but I'm sorry. I'm asking so late and out of the box here. But the parking sticker revenues that you wanted offset, it says a million, but we know that we only pay $400,000. Can you tell me what else is -- is -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what would -- what would happen with that million dollars is you pay offthe $400,000 to the City of Naples. Those additional revenues would be used to the park -- in parks or wherever else in that particular area that she needed to use it. And you wouldn't use general funds. So it would offset the general fund subsidy that you put in to the public -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's -- in other words, it would go to our citizens who are paying taxes now to use the parks; right? MR. MUDD: Yup. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. See that's -- that's what I'm most concerned with. I think our people pay to use the libraries, pay to use the parks. And I want to make sure that I see that they get a benefit from this is my point, so... MR. MUDD: So what you told me yesterday by a 3/2 vote is that you didn't want to use stickers as an option. Page 69 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: So it's off -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: -- it's offthe table. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. I'm just trying to -- in my own mind, I'm trying to figure it out. So an expanded bus routes, we need to keep them. That's, again, for our -- for our residents. Half of the fuel adjustment, I think that's a good place to go. And as Tami Nemecek just said, they can't really be sure of what all they need. They might need it. They want to be able to get there. But if they don't need it, I would think rather than going to the public services division -- division, again, something that has to do with libraries and parks and so forth; right? Right. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. They've done-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what -- that's -- that's going to hit our residents hard again. I would rather see something like -- for instance, Tami was saying something about they have tourism development as part of this thing. Well, we do have a tourism development department already. And we have the chambers, all of the chambers that work on that. Besides which we also have the hotels and they're all working in tourism development and spending lots and lots and lots of dollars. I would prefer to see that -- that part eliminated from the budget and __ and used for our own residents in the parks and libraries. So I would prefer to see the -- the remainder of -- of our needs taken from that particular fund. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And why -- why don't we at this time make sure we understand what we're doing. Very briefly, just addressing exactly what Commissioner Fiala was talking about. MS. NEMECEK: Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry. I missed -- I must have misspoke. I wasn't saying that we do tourism development. Page 70 --_"'_"'~'_""'_-"..,-.,~- ...--.-.-. June 29, 2007 I'm saying there's a lot of money that is spent on tourism development from the Tourist Development Council to do marketing and promotion and those types of things that we do equally for economic development. And so we have -- we have a set amount of money that's used for tourism development. And we have a set amount of money used for economic development. And we -- we use much less for economic development than the tourism development. I'm -- I was just making a companson. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, now you just said that spend money for tourism to -- MS. NEMECEK: No. No. No. The TDC -- the -- your convention -- Jack Wert's group is -- are the only ones that do tourism development. Their budget is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MS. NEMECEK: -- four million or something like that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But why did you mention it, then? MS. NEMECEK: I'm just saying that if you're going to fund economic development, funding of economic development needs to be an equal priority as tourism development. But our funding level that we request from you is much less than the tourism development funding that they get. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Somehow you were making some kind of a comparison? MS. NEMECEK: Comparison between the tourism marketing and the -- and it's the same as an investment in economic development is as equally important as your investment in tourism development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And we're all trying to support Jim Coletta's efforts to -- to promote industry, good, clean industry coming into the Immokalee area. We're all supportive of that. But you don't really have a figure that you need? And so if we took some of this -- not to hurt that particular effort, but if we took Page 71 June 29, 2007 some of that, rather than taking it from our citizens who are going to use the parks and libraries, but if we take it from that because it -- it's an unsure figure, you could live with that; is that correct? MS. NEMECEK: I -- there -- I -- what -- what I state is that we understand that there needs to be some sort of reduction probably. I think that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. NEMECEK: -- $600,000 reduction is probably too much. I would suggest a much lower amount. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we don't -- we don't really need 600,000 because we've already got 900 there and the 586. So we just need about 300,000; right? MR. MUDD: Three hundred and twelve thousand. MS. NEMECEK: Three hundred and twelve thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Okay. And I would suggest that that's where it comes. And if you have some kind of an emergency -- MS. NEMECEK: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you could come back to us. MS. NEMECEK: And that's what I would actually request on that side of the house -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MS. NEMECEK: -- is to say, you know, to get this budget where it needs to be, let's go ahead and do that. But -- and -- but -- but let me be able to bring back to you if I've got a great company and, quite frankly, you know, looking at other areas that are getting these great projects, it's much more than even a million dollars, but that's another discussion. So, but I would say that allow me to come back and ask on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. Sure. And that way, then, we don't hurt any of the programs -- Page 72 June 29,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're pure genius; you know that, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. That's my-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not only good looking, but it was a very good suggestion. Mr. Mudd, I got a question on the beach passes. I just want to make sure I understand. That $50 proposal was for the residents to pay that up front. It wasn't like last year where we were going to take it out of a fund and pay it back; correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I see -- I see Michael nodding his head up and down. I know I caused you many -- great discomfort so close to lunchtime, but here's the question. If we were to institute the $50 beach pass and for -- only for residents that live here, we could have it offset by some money, would we bring in enough money to make it worthwhile from the nonresidents that would buy them, or no, it wouldn't make any difference? MR. MUDD: Sir, you have -- you have nonresidents buying beach passes now. Okay? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How much are they paying? MR. MUDD: They're paying 30 bucks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, they should pay 50. MR. MUDD: Well, and Marla's telling me and she needs to come back with her analysis. It's just like any other fee. She -- she __ she gave me an analysis. And the analysis specified that it should be about $30. And we sent that to the state. And the state bit off on it and did all of those things. Marla -- Marla needs to do an update on the analysis because she's -- she's telling me right now that the $30 fee for nonresidents does not pay and it's short. Am I correct? Page 73 June 29, 2007 MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Let me -- I can explain a little bit. Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. When we submitted the $30 fee, we -- we took the number of stickers that we gave and do it via budget, et cetera, and we came up with a $30 fee. What I didn't when I did that is that the City of Naples gives out a weekly pass and they sell it to anybody and it's $10 a week. And they were selling up to, in some cases, eight weeks' worth at one time for $80. And, so, we have now given everyone that buys that kind of pass a huge discount. And because of that, then the City's revenue line item is -- is coming up short. Because of that we pay 82 percent of their shortfall, which means that we need to then make it whole. So the $50 fee, as I've seen over the first three months, looks like it's too low in order to meet the expense -- to make us whole with the revenue that we are losing off of it, so... CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I won't argue with that one bit. I still maintain that our residents are deserving of this. And I'll never back off that even if I'm the only commissioner left on this dias that's for it, against paying those fees. However, with that said, I have no problem with getting that guy that's behind the tree to pay the 50 bucks or the 60 bucks or whatever it is. Work out something with the City of Naples where they can get more for it, too. The whole thing is, we've got to cover costs someplace. Just-- and I don't want this particular thing to fall on the burden of my residents. Is there some way we can come up or we institute it and we also have a fund set aside to take care of our own residents? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a problem with that. Okay? And you have a problem with that because of the state cost share money that you get from the state. And the fee you charge a nonresident has to be of equal benefit to the residents. Okay? And that's how the fee came up with. So you just can't jack the price up on Page 74 June 29, 2007 nonresidents for beach parking fees. We need to adjust it accordingly to the cost. And that's what Ms. Ramsey's going to do to do the update. So we'll come back with a -- we'll come back with a fee. But there is a whole sequence of issues. And if all of a sudden you do that, we're back to where we were before where you can't count the un- -- the unmetered spots in order to get additional cost share when you do beach projects. And that's -- and that's the issue -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We found that out-- MR. MUDD: -- when we lose millage. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thank you for that. I'm just -- just trying to find inventive ways to be able to cover some of the cost. Commissioner Henning and then go back to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have a motion on the floor; right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. No we don't. MR. MUDD: No motion, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to make a motion to -- to Commissioner Fiala's suggestion. I think it was fair and equitable. I understand your concerns about charging the public more money for use of our parks. Like you said, they're paying out of tax dollars. And I think this is really what we need to do is hit those things that are not a substantial benefit to the taxpayers and our residents. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's clarify the motion to the point that we all understand it. We're talking about -- MR. MUDD: The motion -- the motion is based on Commissioner Fiala's suggestion is to take the reduction of half of the fuel adjustment reserve which is $586,000. And then whatever is remaining to makeup in that shortfall of $897,000, and I said it was 311 -- 312 before. I'm sorry. I'm starting to need glasses. I'm going to have to Daytona or someplace. Page 75 June 29, 2007 It's $311,000. And what you're basically saying is take that $311,000 where it says "reduce economic development incentives." Where it says $500,000, make that 311. And that makes up your two pieces to get to the $897,000. I believe I've said that correctly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and we want to give the opportunity for the EDC to come back in case they have some sweet company that wants to move in here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you second it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we're coming right to you, Commissioner Coyle. You're on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Now, I didn't -- I didn't hear Commissioner Fiala say that if you took that $300,000 __ $311,000 out of economic development incentives that we'd also limit the incentives of Immokalee Enterprise Zone. MR. MUDD: That's right. That wasn't in her motion and I didn't say it as a repeat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Because I would oppose that. We have just as great a need in East Naples for economic incentives for some of the -- some of the businesses there as we do anywhere else. And I think we -- we try to target companies and __ and we don't try to target areas. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning. A second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 76 --..,........"." -_._...~_._-_._-- June 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion passed 5 to O. MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, there's one more piece and I know we'll get to lunch on time. Okay. And this has to do with 111. And last night I had Mike get out the calculator and make sure that we got the Immokalee CRA reductions in the base or CRA reductions in that particular amount of money that we need to come up with. And-- and those are now been added to your slide right there and right there (indicating). Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where? Where? MR. MUDD: Right here and right here. And that -- and the Immokalee CRA reduction based on the statute would be some $25,070. And the Bayshore CRA reduction in III by statute would be some $68,133. So what you have to do and that -- and the reason they become almost like a credit for you is the fact that you have to pay them out of this particular fund during the year. And it's part of the TIF transfer. So the balance of reductions required are $6,007,620. And highlighted you'll see that your UFR fund is $8,646,400. And yesterday as I talked to you, and that's where the UFR fund is, and yesterday when I was talking about this particular fund and the reductions that we're going to have to take, I basically said in -- in the -- in your budget book letter that you received from Mr. Smykowski, he basically stated that you had about $1.6 million that was reoccurring dollars in the III fund of that 8.6 million. So there's approximately $6 million of that that is nonreoccurring. You get -- in order to roll back, you have to roll back on Page 77 June 29, 2007 reoccurring dollars or you get yourself in a -- in a -- in a bit of a trick and it has great risk in future -- in future budgets. What you do have is you have $5.8 million in your lime rock road funding that's reoccurring. And -- and I mentioned yesterday that you've built that up over a series of years and you started it around a half million and went to 1.7. And last year you got it up to in this year's budget to about 5.8. My recommendation is you take reoccurring dollars out of your lime rock road fund to the tune of around 400 -- excuse me -- $4,345,520. You replace it with nonreoccurring. So Norman's budget still remains $5,805,200 for lime rock road funding in '08. That would -- that would leave him around $1.4 million still reoccurring in '09 in that particular fund. One of the things I also addressed yesterday was this pie principle that you have that's in this new tax reform legislation. And it has to do with you can't offset your general fund or your -- your -- your unincorporated general fund obligations with reductions by increasing MSTUs throughout the county in order to supplement that particular issue. And one of the ways that the state precluded you from doing that is basically saying if you have new ones, you have to deduct it from someplace. Okay? So it's an equal. You only have one bag. And if you -- if you got to reduce one place and you want to add more to it, then you have to take a reduction someplace else. You have two brand new MSTUs. You have the rock road and you have Alderman Creek. They both of them -- both of them together equate to $60, I 00. And my recommendation yesterday is you take that money out and -- out of your III fund. And, therefore, you would have to cut it back a little bit more and return more money to the taxpayers in the unincorporated fund. You get all the way through the bottom and I've -- and I've showed you where the $6,067,720 are that you have to roll back. And it still leaves you Page 78 June 29, 2007 2,578,680 as a UFR balance to appropriate as you see fit. That's my recommendation on the how to roll back on the MSTD general fund budget implication. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, if! may, this -- what's -- what's so scary, $5,805,000, that money there going from the reoccurring funds to the nonreoccurring funds, that means that next year when we have to make a further budget cut that it's in jeopardy to be able to take it to the next step; is that correct, the roads -- lime rock roads? MR. MUDD: Everything's in jeopardy next year, sir. Everything's in jeopardy. You're going to make choices, am I going to pave a road or are you going to leave it a dirt road? Am I gonna -- am I gonna cut medians or am I going to leave medians and let them grow out? Next year further budget cuts everything's in. And it's going to be -- and it's going to be quite difficult. And I understand where the -- where the Board is this year, but next year you're going to have some options you're really not going to like. And we're going to have pain as the year goes on because of the shortage. And I've done everything to try to keep it as painless as possible, but there is going to be reductions. But next year with further cuts of some $20 million, it's going to be huge. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The -- this -- this amount of money, how much would be reoccurring for the following year? MR. MUDD: One point four million dollars, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there's no other way to balance this out? MR. MUDD: It's not easy, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, I didn't mean to ignore you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's -- that's fine. The III fund we have recognized through the budget process to cut out of Page 79 June 29, 2007 there already. And now you're -- you're talking about adding in those cuts to cut it again. MR. MUDD: Sir, I don't -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like MST -- the Ill, Ms. Ramsey, basically a lot of her service comes out of 111. We cut -- we cut that out through the budget process; correct? Did we cut some of those out? MR. MUDD: No, sir. I didn't hear this Board cut anything out of Ms. Ramsey's III budget yesterday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about out of Norm Feder's budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, those were all general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Norm Feder's is all out of general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So my assumption is wrong. You're saying you cut -- you haven't cut out anything in your -- you planning on replacing it with unfinanced requests. So what are we going to do next year if those turnback monies are not there? I guess my basically same concern I had for funding the shortfall of roads. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What -- what I'm basically -- what I'm basically saying to you is you -- you said in this process. Those UFR funds that you have right now will go to zero next year. Okay. And that's what you're basically doing. And the budgets -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: -- those people will be there. So you won't see a lot of un dedicated dollars in those UFR funds. That's the only change that you will see based on what we've done so far. Okay? What we have now in UFR. But the budget, for instance, Commissioner Coletta, I -- I'm assuming Norm Feder, based on what I just said, will have $5.8 Page 80 June 29, 2007 million in his '09 request into that particular -- in that particular fund. Because you just rolled back on your un- -- monies that you haven't dedicated yet. Okay? I just want to make sure that there's a reoccurring source in that thing so that if all of a sudden the interest that we're supposed to get back, and we -- you know, stock market crashes and the whole world goes to not and you get zero for interest coming back, then you've got some place to go to and you haven't got yourself in financial difficulties. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mudd. I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, you're still on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now I see -- I see how you're doing it, but it's not explained very well. So you actually replace them with -- with general fund. And you're showing that you're going to replace like lime rock roads with -- with finance or nonrecurring? MR. MUDD: This is III -- this is the Ill. We finished the general fund conversation. I don't mix the funds back and forth. III is -- is sitting right in front of you. One of your reasons your III fund-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I misstated it. The III fund you're reducing and replacing -- you're taking out lime rocks and just putting it in -- in the lime rocks in -- into the nonrecurring funds? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Part -- partial, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But why are we -- the two CRAs, was that their -- the cut that they had to make? MR. MUDD: Yeah. The statute says that they have to reduce. There is a formula that's out there that's quite complicated according to Mr. Smykowski, but it's a requirement they have to take just like take in the general fund. You give -- you give them because they're in Page 81 June 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The TIF? MR. MUDD: -- the general fund area and in the III area. And you notice Naples isn't here because they get -- they don't receive any Ill. It's a mandatory cut. So, therefore, it's something that you don't have to payout of your III proceeds. So it's like a credit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But why don't we have those two CRAs deal with that in their own budget instead of us having to pick that up? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We're-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: What's happening is, as the millage rate goes down, your CRA payments are a function of the tax increment. As the taxable value grows times whatever the prevailing millage rate is, 95 percent of that product is the transfer we are forced to make to the CRA. When we built the original budget, we assumed 0.8069 mils which was the millage rate we had used last year. Obviously, subsequent to that tax reform legislation was passed dictating a rollback. Based on that rollback, the new millage rate the payment into the CRA is reduced accordingly. So the unincorporated area's payment to each of the respective CRAs goes down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm saying that we shouldn't make that payment. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that -- and that's what I'm recommending on this slide. You don't make that payment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like you're both saying the same thing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You're picking -- you're picking up that money. You don't have to spend that, the sum of those two numbers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's mandatory no matter what. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Ninety-three thousand dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's it. Page 82 June 29,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor indicate by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to O. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question to ask the county manager. County manager, what -- what -- what do you believe is -- could possibly be the budget cuts that we're looking at for next year? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you really want to know? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before lunch? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Before lunch you're asking this question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Why don't we deal with that next year? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it depends on how the amendment goes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. You won't have it -- you won't -- you won't be in the negatives if the amendment doesn't pass. But I can't tell you Page 83 June 29, 2007 what the Florida legislature's going to do as a reaction to it not passing and -- and that's up for grabs, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: So I -- I would rather not want to speculate. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. What's next, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Sir, I think it's lunch. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it is, too. We'll-- we'll be back here at one o'clock. (Lunch recess was taken at 11:53 a.m.) MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. PUBLIC COMMENT COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We're to the comment part of our meeting or do we have any other business to cover first? MR. MUDD: No, sir. You're at your I :00 public comment piece of your meeting and, right there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to remind the audience, we have a number of people here today I know that all want to speak. There's a three-minute time limit. I'd love to have you come up and speak on the matters that are relevant to the budget. With that, call the first speaker. MR. MUDD: Mr. Speaker, just so you understand, most of the people you have in the audience are your directors and administrators. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that. I know that, Mr. Mudd. I was saying it with some humor. You just took away my punch line. MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker and his name is Ron Wallace. Page 84 June 29,2007 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you very much for being here. I'd hate to think I stayed here through lunch hour for no speakers at all in this case. In this case I'm going to give you five minutes. MR. WALLACE: Thank you very much. Ron Wallace, Director of Construction Management for the City of Naples. I'm here on behalf of the city to request that you consider participating in some capital improvements projects for the upcoming year. It's understood obviously that we all have budget constraints and everyone is really trying to tighten their belt. What we would request though since we are also in the process of our budget that if you cannot participate that as soon as possible you would let us know that so we can modify our budget accordingly. What we have requested is actually three different projects. Renovations to Fleischmann Park, improvements to Sandpiper Street, and a Gordon River Greenway connection that would go across the Gordon River from the existing Pulling Park -- I'm sorry -- the proposed pulling park to the existing Greenway that is at the airport right now. I know you also have plans to continue that north up to your water park. MR. MUDD: Can I help? They've got a visual that they could use under general overview in your budget book if you go to page 16 and 17 of your books. It has those particular projects that Mr. Wallace is talking about and describing. MR. WALLACE: Thank you. There's been correspondence back and forth between the city manager of Naples and your county manager. The information has been provided. We've also discussed this in the past. I believe it was at the May joint meeting between the county and the city officials. We have also made this request in prior years, or at least last year I was before you. I'm here to answer any specific questions you may have. What we're looking for is 50 percent contribution to the three projects. The city obviously Page 85 June 29,2007 matching the other 50 percent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I assure you that if there's anything we can do we'll do it. At this moment we're kind of limited to the ribbon cutting and the groundbreaking ceremonies but with that, you know, we're open to any kind of suggestions. Commissioner Henning first, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If! may answer the request to participate in the Gordon River Greenway and we gave that direction, correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir you did. And the way you basically told us to do that was through your Conservation Collier program to get with the city of Naples. A letter was sent by Commissioner Coyle to the mayor in that particular regard. If they could layout the easement so that it could be acquired or given to Conservation Collier along with an overall management plan, those monies from Conservation Collier could be used to satisfy that $500,000 request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager, is there any reason why we can't fund that total project? What they ask for is a cost ship and knowing that, we don't have the funds for the other projects is a possibility since it is -- since it is, you know, Conservation Collier's monies and goals and objectives, can't we just do that? MR. MUDD: Yes sir. You just used the $500,000 because that was a request for half, but based on what we got back from Ms. Selecki and her research with the county attorney, it's possible yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wallace, I don't know if this is the will of the other members, but if we could get some correspondence from the mayor and the city council and ask to fund that whole project maybe that will assist you in other things that you need to do. MR. WALLACE: Very much so. That would be greatly appreciated. In fact, we are in the PD&E design study phase right now and if we could move forward, it would be -- I think it's a project Page 86 June 29, 2007 that everyone in the county and city is supportive of, and it would definitely help us with our other projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a benefit to all. Most definitely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to echo what Commissioner Henning said. You directed me to send a letter to the mayor advising him of the action we took at the last meeting. I did so and I think you're absolutely right. It is possible to expand that since it's time we were talking about that. We were also talking about participating in the funding for Fleischmann Park and some other things too. No decision had been made on those things, of course, but we were thinking about doing that. And since we clearly can't do that now, I think it's an appropriate thing to do and I'm sure that the city very much would appreciate it if we could take a bigger stake in agreement. Of course everybody is going to be using it. It's for Collier County. It's not just for the city. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At this point in time what do you need, Mr. Mudd? Does this assignment come back to us or does this -- MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think we could -- you could get this off your list if we could get about three nods. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well you got five nods. MR. MUDD: So Mr. Wallace, what you've got to do is you got to get the conservation easements turned over to Conservation Collier so they can get that -- you've got to get involved in the management plan for that particular area. With those two ingredients, you fall under the program and you get that building done. MR. WALLACE: Do you still need a letter, a formal letter from the mayor requesting that? MR. MUDD: I think you need to close that loop with them and then staff has good direction on both ends. I know where I'm coming here, what this board has just told me to do. You've got to get the Page 87 June 29, 2007 mayor and the city manager to tell you what to do and you've got a couple actions that need to transpire in order to make these things happen. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you can add to that. It's going to be necessary that some sort of agreement be negotiated between the City of Naples and Conservation Collier and the Board of County Commissioners to provide an easement because otherwise they can't spend money that is not under a legal easement to Collier County. So if we can solve that problem, and I don't see it as a problem really. It's just a process. If we can get that done, I think that's all that is necessary. But the city will have to take formal action to get that done. MR. WALLACE: Well, granting the easement on the pathway, on the city property is not a problem whatsoever. I did have some conversations with Ms. Selecki, and one of the issues that we need to resolve is, if we even have the ability to grant an easement across the river, which the river crossing itself is what we're talking about. And being that that's, I believe, state waters, we're going to have to work out how that actually will take place. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That will be in detail. I'm sure staff can work it out. Thank you very much for being here. That wasn't that difficult was it? MR. WALLACE: No. It's a tough time to be coming anywhere asking for money. I appreciate the opportunity and anything that you can do, would be greatly appreciated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Is that it? MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we only had one speaker on the budget so far? That's pretty amazing. Must be something being done that's close to right. With that we're about ready to close. Mr. Mudd, you got anything else? MR. MUDD: Just want to make sure I've got everybody because Page 88 June 29,2007 I'm going to institute these particular actions before close of business today. I just want to make sure I've got everybody still on the same sheet of music. It has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with policy decisions. And the policy decision we're talking about, oh by the way, this is in the general fund where we're talking about this particular case. We're talking about eliminating job bank positions, we're talking about freezing open positions, and we're talking about freezing any future vacancies as far as filling is concerned in order to come up with the proposed dollar values that I had basically shown you before. MS. FIALA: Could I interrupt one moment here and ask, we're not talking about anything that would have to do with health, safety and welfare? If we have a position that somebody leaves and it's the only position, say in emergency management, and we need somebody to fill that, we are going to fill it, aren't we so that it doesn't affect our health system? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. Not without board overriding its position. And what we will do as a staff is provide you the information that you need when we get to a point in time where we have to cut off an ambulance or something like that to get your direction to see what you want to do. Okay? And the last two things on this page have to do with merit pay not being added into the base pay for all positions. So it's bonus only, and this is positioning yourself for '09 and reinstating the maximum salary cap on each pay range when they're at the maximum salary in that range. In other words, they don't get a COLA bonus or a COLA if they're at the maximum of the range. Now the board, that used to be that way and the board changed that about a year -- about a year or so ago and basically reinstituted it so there was no more cap on the pay ranges. This is a business decision based on the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm going to tell you, we do studies on where those ranges need to be based on market and there's a maximum point Page 89 June 29, 2007 where somebody can have a salary and let that thing keep increasing year after year after they got there, I believe is not a good business decision. And I just want to make sure everybody on this board understands what I'm going to implement based on your concurrence by close of business today. So everybody knows that. So come September or October or November somebody said you didn't tell me, no, I think we went over it quite in detail. That's all I have to say about it today. I just want to make sure everybody is in concurrence and okay with what's going on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't know if we are or aren't. I see Commissioner Coyle's light on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To what extent are any of our officers implementing any of these actions? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it has to do with the county manager's agency and has to do with your office and it has to do with the county attorney's office. And outside of that, that's all the players I have. The sheriff is going to come back with his budget process. What we'll have is a cut of some 6.1 million dollars and he's going to be able to figure out how he's going to make those cuts to make sure that they are reoccurring in his agency so that they're there in '09 also. I believe he's going to do a hiring freeze just as we talked about it a little bit yesterday. I believe that's where he was headed. Not filling his vacancies, he has about 40, and putting in a freeze in as those people leave. As I mentioned to you during the two days now, yesterday and today, the climate and the situation, the environment in the State of Florida is quite different than what it was a month ago. And the fact is, there are people that are laying people off. There are sheriffs agencies and there are police departments that are thinking about freezing and/or laying off. So there is no more latitude for somebody that wants to go job shop to get a higher wage to go into a position because ifthere's a vacancy, they're not filling it. So they are where they are. And if you want to job shop, you're going to have to Page 90 June 29, 2007 do it outside the State of Florida in a different state or different municipality. So, you're not going to see as much movement as far as vacancies are concerned outside of retirements and/or health sickness or somebody needs to, you know, move out of state. So that's why we were very conservative in our projections of what we thought we would get back as a cost savings on a reoccurring basis on the third line of that particular item. And I believe the sheriff is going to be conservative on his estimate. The worse thing you could do is be too aggressive in your estimate and then all of a sudden when you get to September, you have to furlough people because you can't pay their salaries for a month. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, of course the right-hand section we did remove the $50 annual -- MR. MUDD: Sir, I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about eliminating jobs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just want to make sure. Just want to make sure our blessing does not mean you're reinstating. MR. MUDD: No, no. I'm not talking about this slide. I'm talking about -- I just want to make sure those personnel policy issues that were on the slide didn't go past anyone and they paid attention to them because this afternoon we're going to implement them and based on your concurrence and we're going to start saving money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it looks like Commissioner Fiala you're not going to be able to retire because they're going to take that away. MS. FIALA: Then I'll stay on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What else have you got, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: That's all I have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anything from the commissioners? Page 91 June 29, 2007 MR. MUDD: I'm taking your silence as concurrence with those five items. Can I have nods, please? (All affirm.) MS. FIALA: What does that retirement mean by the way? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What retirement? We're going to be here another 20 minutes, you know that. Okay. Yes, you woke up Commissioner Halas. What do you got? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll just say it was quite a grueling process over the last couple of days for us as commissioners, but I can understand that there was an awful lot of blood, sweat, and tears that went into this by the staff. I just want to thank everyone in staff for them sitting down and realizing the impact that's being placed upon us. And I want to thank you very, very much for your support and we look forward to working with each and every one of you in the near future and hopefully that things will get better that maybe we'll get some type of a retreat. But I want to thank County Manager Mudd, and I want to thank Mr. Smykowski for all his time and effort and all the hours that he spent on this thing and not spending it with his family. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That goes for everyone that's out there in the audience. Thank you very, very much. With that, we're adjourned. Page 92 June 29, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was adjourned by Order ofthe Chair at 1 :25 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPEC~CTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~ JAMES COLETTA ATTEST: DWIGHTR BROCK, CLERK ~~~;:l0 ~( 4 "'. "" /)- . . . :';""'1,;,' . These minutes approv~y the Board on i/J.17R-, as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe. Page 93