Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/19/1997 B (Budget Workshop)BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: members present: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Robert Fernandez, County Administrator Hike HcNees, Asst. County Administrator CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll recite the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, do we have anything to add before we turn it over to Mr. Smykowski this morning? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Quickly, I would just review the batting order for this morning. The Supervisor of Elections, followed by the Clerk, then we'll get into the general funds support of capital projects, then we'll move into our regularly scheduled agenda, which is our special revenue funds beginning with the unincorporated area, general funds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me interrupt you and make sure we have people here that were not with us yesterday. The manner in which we are going to do this is go through what we have scheduled for the day, and there's a change from last year. Instead of waiting until the end of the three sessions, we are taking public comment at the conclusion of each day's session. So we ask that if you have something you wish to speak on to please submit a speaker slip to Mr. HcNees here, to our right, to your left, and we will entertain those comments at the conclusion of each day's session. Is there anything else? Mr. Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One more thing, Mr. Chairman. I think we have all looked over the Supervisor of Elections budget and tell them just to go on back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm all for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're excused, Mr. Carvin. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks, that's great. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have a nice day. MR. CARVIN: Thanks. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Say hi to Mary for us. MR. SHYKOWSKI: To help out the court reporter, for the benefit of everyone who was not here yesterday, if you would, please take a seat in the center at the microphone. Those microphones aren't very sensitive, you have to speak directly into them. And if you would, state your name for the court reporter, that would help out tremendously. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Should we, just in fairness to Ms. Morgan, should we mention the reduction in her budget? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was it three and a half percent reduction in requested funds from the Supervisor of Elections, something to that effect? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go, Mary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: --kind of impressed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Either way, but I just wanted to make sure the words Mary Morgan and reduction were out there. She did a fantastic job this year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As always. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As always. Okay. Mr. Smykowski, next up. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. We were going to discuss the Clerk of Courts budget. Shelia Leith is the budget analyst and Mr. Brock is here as well. MS. LEITH: We're on page A-12 of your summary book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And again, I know he introduced you, but name, please? MS. LEITH: Oh, sorry. Shelia Leith, budget office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. LEITH: And we're on page A-12 of the summary book and pages A-22 to 33, I think it is, of the big book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Starting on A-22, I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. LEITH: The Clerk of Courts budget, we're looking at expanded position requests of five additional positions. Four of those are court clerk positions; one is an accountant in the finance department. This would be in addition to six additional positions that have been added this year in the Clerk's agency, bringing 11 additional positions, which is really driving the increase, most of the increase in cost to that budget for next year. The total increase in the transfer is 326,000 between FY '97 and FY '98 budgets. If you have any specific questions on any particular area of the budget, we can flip to those areas. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have sort of an overall question. We heard yesterday in the courts and -- well, I guess it was all under courts -- about the expansion of the caseloads and courts and bailiffs, et cetera, associated with that. Is there a portion of the Clerk's budget that's likewise associated with the expansion of court services? MR. BROCK: We're -- well, virtually all of the increase in the Clerk's budget is courts driven. The one position that we are adding that is not court-related is the financial additional position which has essentially been mandated to us by the Florida legislature in its new uniform chart of accounts, in which we have to match by court each expenditure. So in order to be able to deal with that and make the conversion that exists, that is necessitated. There have been a lot of additional burdens that have been placed on the Clerk of the Circuit Court through legislative enactment. One of the additional burdens that is going to be monumental is the change that takes place this year in the way that jurors are picked. In the past what has transpired was the Supervisor of Elections information, in which she filtered out all of the people who did not qualify essentially, is now being shifted over to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to accomplish. Thanks to the infinite wisdom of our legislature, they are basically duplicating a service that is already being provided by the Supervisor of Elections, and being mandated down to us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Duplication in government? MR. BROCK: I know that's hard to believe, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hard to believe. MR. BROCK: But it certainly appears that way. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you identify yourself, please? MR. BROCK: I'm sorry. My name is Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of the Circuit Court. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The reason I ask that question is we sort of zipped through the bailiff, we zipped through the court-related costs, you know, that had to do with the expansion of the court. it seems to me we could do the same thing in the Clerk's budget, at which point, we're pretty -- I mean, I'm ready to send him out on his way, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you -- I do have -- is there anything in your budget that deals with the domestic violence unit, Mr. Brock? MR. BROCK: No, there is not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We heard from Mr. Middlebrook yesterday that we were to ask you about that. MR. BROCK: There is something that we do in the domestic violence unit and that is we provide the supplies for the operation of that unit. Those are, in fact, sworn deputy clerks. They handle the personnel services and we handle everything else that transpires. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Could I ask you, just to you what does that cost, plus or minus? And the reason I ask is, we had some questions arise yesterday about it and I guess, instead of getting the questions answered, I have a note from Judge Wilson that she's resigning from the domestic violence unit. So I need to know what amount of your budget is allocated to that, because she's already given me a note saying she's resigning from doing domestic violence, so I need know what areas to flag. MR. BROCK: I cannot break that out in that particular manner, because that's the pool of the operations; the paper, the xerox machines, things of that nature, the file folders that we do not keep track of by individual item. I can give you a history of the case load in the domestic violence unit, and in 1994, in which we did it all, and the way we did it in 1994 was, it was just part of our Circuit Court operations. So the staff that was there handled all of the domestic violence unit at the same -- or the domestic violence functions -- at the same time we handled all of the other Circuit Court activities. In 1994, there were 849 cases. In 1995, the latter part of 1995, that was when that responsibility was transferred to court administration, there were 952. In 1996 there were 984, and in 1997 annualized at its current rate of filings there will be 898. So on an annualized basis it appears to be going down. In conversing with my staff yesterday when this issue came up, I went to try to find out approximately how many full-time equivalents it was that were allocated to that function at that point in time. And the best information that we could get at that point in time was there were less than two full-time equivalents that were doing that. As I understand it, today there are four full-time equivalent employees that handle that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have a note from Judge Wilson that she's not participating anymore? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't seen that. Could you share a copy? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. I thought I brought it out here. But she -- there should be a phone message for everyone. She called everyone, left a message saying that she, since she was not given an opportunity to respond to questions, was resigning from domestic violence court. Now the questions were raised yesterday, as we raise questions during all budget proceedings. But I guess, whether it's gamesmanship or knee jerk reaction, she has indicated to me, anyway, and the message was to all of us that she's resigning from domestic violence. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I thought was particularly unusual was Commissioner Hac'Kie suggested yesterday, gee, we ought to hear from Judge Wilson, and we all kind of nodded -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nodded and said yeah, we'd like to get a report and then you're telling me -- what's the effect of her quitting the domestic violence unit? We're not going to be charged for it any more? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, to me the effect is we remove the funding for it. I supported the domestic violence unit when it started and this isn't a game. This is a budget and it deals with people's tax dollars, and I'm not going to play games with it. that's why I asked the question of Mr. Brock. If she's resigning, then we need to pull all the funding and shift that money elsewhere. If she's not, she needs to get over here and correct that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A judge can't resign from a case load. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I only know the messages I get. MR. BROCK: Well, I can tell you how judges are assigned, and they are assigned pursuant to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration which is a rule promulgated by the Florida Supreme Court by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, who presently is Judge Starnes. Who sits in the position of the judge in that particular unit, I'm not sure it is germane to whether or not that unit exists. Let me make sure that I'm not conveying the wrong message here -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, I think I understand what you're saying. MR. BROCK: -- because I do not know what the domestic violence unit does today. I'm not suggesting in any way that we were handling what they're doing today with two full-time equivalent employees because I just do not know what they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that will have to come back to courts. Mr. Smykowski, we're going to have to flag Courts and notify Mr. Middlebrook we'll want to review that in light of Judge Wilson's, at least, phone message that she's resigning. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's fine. We can plan, actually plan a little wrap-up session for unresolved issues and we'll just ask them to be in attendance on Monday at the end. MR. BROCK: I will also just point out to you that through the Florida Legislature effective this year, whereas the filing fee was $70 per case last year, that has been reduced by $20 and is now $50. But when you look at the reality of that, because of the indigency requirement the overwhelming majority of those cases never paid the filing fee anyway. They were waived statutorily. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, can you help me a little bit here on our summary page, A-12, I'm looking at the figures and comparing them with the budget packet from the Clerk, and the figures don't exactly match. They are close but they don't match, and I just wondered what is the difference. MS. LEITH: The difference is the board paid -- if you look at the last line, expenses paid by BCC 001. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That does not show in the Clerk's '- MS. LEITH: That doesn't show in the Clerk's budget. Also, we adjusted, after that budget was submitted to health insurance, numbers that were not reflected in the budget. That was submitted by the Clerk when we reduced the health insurance. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That explains it. MR. BROCK: Let me explain why that was done. The original budget instructions, when they came out said one figure. And after we had prepared our budget, I understand that those figures changed, and I sat down with Mr. Smykowski after that fact and told him to reduce it out, and we've had some further conversation. One of the things that the Clerk's office is trying to do with the budget department this year, we're trying to work with the budget department to give a more realistic figure for it, as real as we can possibly figure, in the Clerk's turnback, so that that can be figured into the revenue for the general fund of the Board of County Commissioners next year, and hopefully reduce some of the burden on the ad valorem taxpayer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is one thing I'd like to add to the discussion is that the Clerk did not budget attrition, the 4 percent attrition and that impact is $261,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You effectively show a 5.3 increase to the general fund, the overall budget is 6.4 means that you are using fees to subsidize the balance of that; is that correct? Is that a fair -- MR. BROCK: I think the fee portion is about 2 percent increase and the ad valorem portion is about 5 percent. So we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 and a half percent. And you are absolutely correct, the other portion is through statutorily imposed fees. And let me explain to you some of the reasons why the increase has been in the ad valorem portion this year. The Board of County Commissioners has passed one ordinance dealing with the false alarm based upon the figures that the Sheriff's Department has given us with regard to what kind of impact that is going to have on us. The number of cases that are going to flow through our system as a consequence of that are going to be substantial and significant on the impact of our work load. In addition, we are essentially, because it is an infraction in the way that we deal with it, we're going to have to build a system to handle the mechanisms that were put in place by that ordinance. I am presently in discussions with your County Attorney's office with reference to a code violation ordinance. That particular ordinance, as we understand it, will have the same or greater impacts on us as we have with the false alarm ordinance. Those types of things are going to have to be dealt with up front and it's going to require an increase in manpower to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Brock, quite frankly, since your manpower increase to handle those growth issues or those increase issues are less than the budget growth rate of the county, that tells me you've at least made some tough decisions within your department and I appreciate that. Are there any questions of Mr. Brock on the budget at this time? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me a little bit about the S.A.V.E. program? MR. BROCK: I sure can. The S.A.V.E. program is a program that was established by Administrative Order, I think it's Administrative Order 1.3, in which the Chief Judge of the Circuit, 20th Judicial Circuit at the time I think was Tom Reese, appointed the Clerk of the Circuit Court as the S.A.V.E. coordinator, which is Support, Alimony and Visitation Enforcement. When I took office that particular Administrative Order was not being complied with. There is a provision in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration for the courts to administer the courts system through Administrative Orders. There is also a provision of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration which provides that failure of the Clerk, Judges, State Attorneys or anyone else to fail to follow those particular administrative orders constitutes neglect of duty and is to be reported to the Florida Supreme Court, who is to report it to the Governor for proper action. Whenever we started we discovered this, we started it, we came to you and asked you for startup costs. At that point in time, the Board of County Commissioners approved startup costs, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $43,000. To date, in this budget period, all of the monies that will go to support the S.A.V.E. program will go through the statutory fees and there will be no ad valorem monies which will fund that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you have a follow-up? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From that comment and also from the information you've provided me, I know it's a very well-intentioned program. However, it is running less than efficiently right now. I have one friend, one person that just called a constituent who had reason to use the service who had found it woefully deficient. One of the issues -- you talk about support and visitation and those issues. One of the issues had to do with visitation. There was a dispute that should have been fairly easy to deal with. A call to the S.A.V.E. program wasn't returned for two weeks. It's not a single case incident, either. But in this particular instance that I'm using, a call wasn't returned for two weeks and there was no -- when that was questioned, I said gee, is this how it always operates? They said well, we're very busy and not even a call back to say gosh, we're busy, what's the problem, it may take a couple of weeks to get to it. But no response whatsoever for two weeks. By that time, attorneys had been involved and, I mean, the S.A.V.E. program was effectively rendered useless because of a two week even a courtesy return call. When the call finally came it just said well, you know, to this gentleman, you have a business, you know how things get very busy. And he said yeah, but if I didn't return calls for two weeks, I wouldn't be in business very long. I know we -- it's a very well-intentioned program. I know there's some requirement that we provide some of these services. But I just wanted to ask, and I know that it's fee funded, but regardless, if money's coming from somewhere, and I just want to see if there's a way that we can streamline that and make sure the money that's being expended is more efficient. And if the administration of that, anyway, is falling under you at this time, maybe you can crack the whip and make sure they are a little more customer friendly, because it's rendering the entire program useless right now. MR. BROCK: Your comments to me are appreciated and I will explore that. I will get with you and try to find out more of the facts and deal with that immediately. That, not only to you but to me, is an unacceptable professional practice and needs to be dealt with. With regard to the S.A.V.E. program, whenever we started the S.A.V.E. program, you know, my concept of the S.A.V.E. program seemed to be somewhat different from the concept of the judiciary and fortunately or unfortunately, much of what I do -- well, all of what I do is either dictated by statute, you or the judiciary. And the direction that it was taking was contrary to I think what was designed in the Administrative Order and to what I thought it was to be designed for when I set it up. We are slowly but surely I think taking it back to the process. That does not explain or in any way try to justify the comment that you just made. And again, I will assure you that that particular comment concerns me greatly and I will deal with it appropriately. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One quick question. I just got two or three phone calls on it throughout the last year, but I've been hearing a lot more advertising, a lot more radio spots about the different programs in the Clerk's office. So on the first, on the outset I'm thinking well, that's great, it's a public service. But then I got a couple of phone calls about how much is he spending versus last year and so forth. And as I look through your budget, that's not the little tiny thing that kind of comes out in a budget. So can you help me with what are you using as a benchmark to say this is the amount of advertising we should have to be a public service without spending too much money on it. I don't know how you determine that. Maybe you do. But marketing is not my specialty. So I feel compelled to at least ask that question, since it's been asked of me on two or three occasions. MR. BROCK: I have a problem with that question. We're spending I think about $4,800 on the advertising that we have out there. One of the things that we're trying to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All that advertising I'm hearing is $4,800? I'm hiring you guys. MR. BROCK: One of the things that we are trying to do is I had conversations with your County Attorney's office the other day, is with reference to, for example, the code enforcement ordinance that is in the works now, to try to enlighten the public of the consequences of failing to pay those citations when they are in fact issued, so that we don't have to go through the expense of going through the enforcement process. I'm trying to design basically the marketing program to accommodate not only the Clerk's office, but to accommodate the entire governmental process in conjunction with your staff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Quite frankly, your answer $4,800 is all I needed to hear, because I thought it had gone up dramatically because I've just been hearing them all over the place. MR. BROCK: I think they are three times a day, three days week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's wonderful and if you can do something about that code enforcement, letting people know we're serious, you have to pay the fines, that would be a big help to everybody. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was concerned about from a cost standpoint. But no, I don't have a problem with that. Any other questions for the Clerk? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Brock. MR. BROCK: I thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I read it, that gets us through the constitutional officer budgets, and we are to the review of general fund supported capital projects; is that correct, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's absolutely correct. Mr. Tindall from the budget office is the analyst for capital. I'd also invite Mr. Gonzalez and probably Mr. Camp up near the microphone to discuss the individual projects in detail that are proposed in the upcoming year's budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We're doing the general fund supported projects first; right? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's all we're doing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all we're doing today? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Then we have to actually get -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- today's agenda. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which was not that lengthy, so we should be in good shape. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Be out of here by 6:30, easy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 6:30, 7, piece of cake. MR. TINDALL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Phil Tindall from the budget office. A couple things just for orientation purposes. We'll be working primarily from the detail book today for the capital and we'll be starting on page A-136. The only thing I'd like to point out in the summary book is A-2 which is a reiteration from yesterday of the total amount of funds for capital being requested as transfers from the general fund, which is 7.3 million. I'd like to point out that one item includes the 800 megahertz debt service, which of course is not optional. So if you subtract that out, what we're really talking about in terms of requests from the general fund is just over $5.8 million for requests to support capital projects. One other thing I'd like to point out for you, I've placed in front of each of you this document right here, which is a book which lists all the project requests that were turned in to us from the various departments, and it has an index which lists projects alphabetically by category, and it has a corresponding page number for each one. And that's just for your casual perusal during the course of the budget process this summer. It's not really intended to be used today, but it does have some useful information to include the project title information, as to whether it's a CIE project, funding source, a brief description, and in summary form the amount of funding requested. And if there is an operating and maintenance impact that would affect someone's operating budget, that information is included in here also. So that's just a handy reference during the course of the budget process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I will ask you that if we get to a specific project we're discussing or have questions on, if you will help us to a cross reference on that? MR. TINDALL: Sure thing. Of course, we do have people here during today's discussion that will tell in great detail about each project, so that would probably be how we -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're up to three notebooks and limited space. MR. TINDALL: I know; exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not in too great detail, I hope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Let's go ahead and proceed. MR. TINDALL: Okay. The order of presentation is going to be, just so that we'll know, so everyone in the audience who's going to be answering questions will know, we'll be starting out with the 301 capital, which includes the countywide facilities and the Sheriff's requests, and then Fund 306, which is parks capital, followed by stormwater, the museum, the library and the Airport Authority. So we'll start out with Fund 301. As you can see from page A-136, there is a total of $33.4 million in projects requested, but that includes the new jail project and also the Immokalee jail, which amounts to $27.8 million there. So if you subtract that out, we're really talking about $5.6 million in project requests that would be ad valorem supported. The total ad valorem requested is 4 million 554. So what we would like to do today is just go down on page A-137, the far right column, and by exception discuss any of the projects for which ad valorem is being requested for funding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The jail which is included also has a revenue assumed of bond in loan proceeds, so it's really a zero net in the budget? MR. TINDALL: That's correct, sir. MR. McNEES: And the main thing -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I was just going to say that's net, zero net to the general fund, because it presumes that there will be an alternative funding source. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As do we. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go figure that out for us, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: There is no debt service budgeted in this particular budget for that bond issue. There is no identified revenue source. We just need to make that exceedingly clear. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No debt service budget is. MR. McNEES: So the budget, although the general project is shown in here as a project, this budget doesn't really pay for the jail project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. And until we get the study undergoing by the B Group right now, we probably aren't going to have firm enough footing to make any solid decisions on that, anyway, so it makes you wonder why it's even in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like we might forget it if it weren't there. MR. TINDALL: This first item in which there is funding requested from the general fund includes the Government Center DRI project. Most of the funding was recently approved for this year, and for FY '98 would be funded by carry forward. The only amount would be just the difference between the total project requests and what's been approved this year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Help me with -- is there a further itemized breakdown of the DRI project or a -- or is it just a flat number? MR. TINDALL: Mr. Gonzalez is here. He can explain that. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director. Morning, Commissioners. I'm going to start out on a positive note. We won't need that additional $15,000. Since we submitted our preliminary to management and budget, we went back and talked to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and they thought that we could have a reduced permit fee, if we had estimated it was going to cost us $50,000 for the permit fee for that project, they told us that it will probably be around $35,000. Hence, the $15,000 additional we wonwt need. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. Say that again. You said -- we thought it was going to be 15,000, they said it was going to be 35 thousand? MR. GONZALEZ: In our initial budget estimate for the DRI project we had $270,000, which included a $50,000 permit fee. MR. FERNANDEZ: 50. Five zero. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 50, not 15. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. Now I got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question. The 270,000 for that, are we doing that project completely in-house? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have anyone in-house that's ever filed a DRI before? MR. GONZALEZ: No, we do not. We have a planner that, a landscape architect that will act as the project manager, Joe Delate. He has been involved with reviewing aspects of DRIs when he was with Development Services. The other elements are engineering type issues that we have done in office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I daresay on a DRI when you start putting yourself at the mercy of the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee, we may need some help on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So unfortunately, when government applies for these things, we tend to go in with an open book and say whatever you guys, you know, you tell us what you need. But the private sector doesn't work that way. You go in with closed fists saying we're going to fight for what we want and I want to make sure that we -- I have experience with DRIs from the private sector so I've not walked through the entire process but walked through certain segments of it and I want to be careful that we don't let that cost get away from us on that, because that's a sticky area. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, Florida Association of Counties may have some consulting capability to help us out there. I know Tony Arant is with them now and offering assistance to counties on issues like this, and a DRI may be one that they can help us with. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good resource. Let's make that at least a part of a team request, because I wouldn't hire a consultant that's never done a DRI to do the first one for me. So we need to recognize our limitations there and operate within them. Hopefully, the experience will mean we can do it better in the future if we have to, but I don't want that experience to cost us a ton of money. MR. GONZALEZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on the DRI? So we just took $15,000 out of capital projects without even trying. I like that. MR. FERNANDEZ: We may have just spent it on a consultant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We may have just spent it on a consultant, that's true. No, I'm certainly not advocating we go out and hire a consultant for DRI. I just wanted to caution, give that limiting caution, because I've dealt with them and if my involvement can be of assistance, I'd be glad to offer it to the DRI process. See, you get another planner on staff and you're only paying for a commissioner. What a bargain. MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, the next project would be the Medical Examiner facility. As you may recall, we budgeted for FY '97 to be fully funded this year, half from ad valorem and half from loan proceeds. What has been determined is that to avoid the debt service we could cash flow the project, which is now why we show a forecast expenditures of about 9.9 million and then new requests for funding of 849,000 for FY '98 and that's just so that we can cash flow the project out to pay it off, as opposed to using ad valorem to pay for debt service. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are those realistic numbers for one year or are we expecting a carryover? MR. GONZALEZ: There is a carry forward that's already been planned and part of the construction budget. We have started construction, it's on schedule, although we just started just a few weeks ago. We don't foresee any major changes right now. Everything is on schedule to be finished by spring of next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page 215 of that green book shows you a little bit about -- I mean, I just found it -- but shows a little bit about the FY '98 planned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm still searching a little bit as we go item to item. I keep searching for the applicable page somewhere that gives me a little bit of detail. MR. TINDALL: I didn't mean to provide this to you to cause a distraction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's nice to have, frankly. But it's page 215 for this particular one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. TINDALL: Actually, this shows the original request for the project and subsequently, as occurs regularly during the budget process, especially in capital, there will be a lot of revisions to the funding requested and this actually doesn't reflect the way the request has evolved during the course of the budget cycle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So we've got it but it's useless. MR. TINDALL: On this particular page that's a pretty good assessment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions on the Medical Examiner facility? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, got to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a bullet we had to bite. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So we were looking at 849,0007 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. Dare you to take a tour and then look at -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just wanted to make sure I was -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's gotta happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that item? The Coburn factor kicks in. We'll go to the next one. MR. TINDALL: The next request is $150,000 for reroofing projects. Mr. Camp is here to discuss that. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your Facilities Management Director. It's to reroof Buildings C-1 and C-2. That building was built in three different decades, three different roofs, if you will; leaks like a sieve. It's for the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser. It needs to be reroofed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When was the most recent reroofing? MR. CAMP: We haven't reroofed in about six or seven years. We did just put one addition on a 2000 square foot addition to the Tax Collector's on the north side and that's the one that was done in this decade. But they start in 1960, two in 1985, and then the one most recently. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's leaking? MR. CAMP: It leaks like a sieve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The new one? MR. CAMP: No. Well, actually, the new one leaks where the seam is, and no one wants to take responsibility for that. But the rest of the roof leaks also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Leaks like a sieve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we basically talking about patch work here or we talking about an overall? MR. CAMP: A new roof for the whole four buildings. There are actually four buildings built in three different decades. It will be for the whole thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, no, let's talk guarantees. When the guy did my house I got it in writing. When this roof is done for $15,000, how long can we expect not to spend another penny on patching? MR. CAMP: The typical roof, flat roofs, which we're trying to get away from, any time you build a swimming pool on top of a building it leaks. But typical guarantees are for ten years for everything and 20 years for materials. But typically, it's not the material that we have a problem with, it's the labor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions? Next item. MR. TINDALL: Next request shown is project 80172, Building J renovations, for $25,100. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell me what's Building J? MR. CAMP: That's the jail. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. CAMP: And there are two of them. One is to seal the windows in the jail that are all rusting, and the other one it is to take care of the balance of the door frames. And when they told me that they were rusting, I was a little concerned. They said you need to come look at it. So I went and took some pictures of it, and I think they really tell the story. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any relevance in the fact that we're talking about a new jail and you want to spend money on the old jail? MR. CAMP: No. These doors need to be replaced. When you see them -- these are maximum security areas -- when you see the extent of the rust, and I think that's probably my fault for not really emphasizing how important like painting is. I need to show a little more passion when it comes to painting our facilities, because this is, this is the rust and this is really neglect when it comes to taking care of just basic maintenance. COMHISSIONER BERRY: How old are they, Skip? MR. CAMP: These doors were part of the original project. I think it's about 10 years old now. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Let me ask a question. Have we been cited by the State Department of Corrections on their inspections of this? MR. CAMP: Typically, in fact, we are currently under a citation now but it's from the Health Department because -- and that's as we speak, I have a painter right now in the jail because of the Health Department, and it's because the paint is coming off of the shower light fixture and they will not allow any prisoners in that pod until we paint the light fixture. MR. FERNANDEZ: We haven't been cited for these doors, these rusty doors? MR. CAMP: Not yet. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So far it's hard to cut these, but okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Unfortunately, I think that's kind of a recurring theme throughout many of these project requests. It's just basic -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Past dues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- repair and renovation, overdue type things, that -- MR. CAMP: And commissioners, I should probably state that sometimes we keep thinking that the jail's going to get built so we think all these things could be addressed at that point. But when it comes to this condition, we have to make a stand and we have to let you know exactly what's going on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on that? Moving right along. MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, the next project is requested by the IT Department, which is a continuation of the PC Modernization project, and Hr. Coakley is here if you have any questions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do we get for 373, 375? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I read it, that's last year we budgeted 441,200 and this year we're going at 375,000, so it's a reduction? MR. TINDALL: At least. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Your name? MR. COAKLEY: For the record, I'm Bill Coakley, the Information Technology Director for the county. The 375 is going to buy the third year of the PC Modernization program that y'all approved on, I think it was Hay 30th two years ago at the presentation that Leo Ochs and I gave you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who doesn't have PCs who is going to get them as a result of this -- MR. COAKLEY: Yes, I can tell you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Sort of departments, divisions or -- MR. COAKLEY: I'll rank them in the big ones. The first big one is 41 PCs for the State Attorney's Office. There is 12 PCs for the Public Defender. The rest of them are a scattering: there's 2 for the museum; 3 for Animal Control; 5 for Services for Seniors; 5 for Social Services; 7 for Natural Resources and 6 to the Ag Department. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Basically 80, 90 percent for the courts? MR. COAKLEY: 84 is the actual number of PCs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wow. Have they made a -- but for our modernization program have they been begging for computers or -- MR. COAKLEY: The State Attorney and Public Defender honestly did not show too much interest in this until this year. This year they are very interested because they are counting on these PCs to fit in with the, I think it's their new CJIS program, and I think there are several others, programs that they are going to use them for. As you may recall, what we're doing is building what we call universal work stations. It's PC based but there's a lot more software in there and it can be used for many, many purposes and many of them at the same time. And the State Attorney and the Public Defender are counting on using them for those. So I didn't hear too much from them in past years, which is frankly why we took care of our own first. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who is left to get on after these? Who's going to get next year? MR. COAKLEY: This is it. This is the third year of the program. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we have to postpone this for a year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You say you think it's CJIS. Do they somehow control their own computer network? I mean, you don't oversee that? MR. COAKLEY: That's correct. The State Attorney and Public Defender have systems that are being done out of the district out of Fort Myers, and this is to tie in with that. That's all funded elsewhere, as far as I know. But they have met with us on two occasions saying that they're counting on having these new work stations for their projects. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just curious what our requirement is there, if the State is providing all the other, providing the software, providing what their hookup is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to at least flag this until we hear from somebody in the courts about just how critical is it for them to have this this year. I mean we're looking for capital cuts. MR. COAKLEY: The only offset, Commissioners, is that at the end of this year we will be -- end of the calendar year, I should say, which includes these changes, we'll be taking our old fashioned VAX computer off of our budget for maintenance. So we would have to increase our budget by I think it's 34 or 38, one of those two numbers our operating would have to go up to cover keeping the VAX on line because it supports the State Attorney and Public Defender. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you get 10 years' use out of it for the price we're paying for these computers for the State Attorney. MR. COAKLEY: Well, it's near the end of its life, but it's still functioning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is that I don't assume that they would keep these forever, I'm just wondering if it's our responsibility to provide them or not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who provides the -- you know, in Lee County who provides the computers? MR. COAKLEY: As far as I know, the county does. I'd have to defer to the legal experts. But it's my understanding from my Sarasota experience, as well, that the Board here is required to fund the equipment for the State Attorney and Public Defender offices. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can inquire of Mr. Weigel and find out for sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you have any questions? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I don't claim to be the legal expert that Mr. Coakley referred to, but we have been through this one in Alachua County when we went through the modernization program for the State Attorney and Public Defender, and did some research on the issue and came to the conclusion that it was, in fact, the Board of County Commissioners' responsibility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't mind flagging it. The question is maybe, you know, a two-year phase as opposed to all at one time, if we are looking to make, you know, we still need to make some capital reductions this year. So I don't have a problem flagging it. But the upside is that by doing it this year, we get it over with and next year we're $375,000 to the good out of the chute. So I guess I'd like to flag it and wait and see what we can do with the rest of the budget and then come back to that. MR. COAKLEY: If I may, Commissioner, of the 84 PCs, 53 of them represent the State Attorney and Public Defender. The balance are for the county departments I mentioned earlier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't question those. Because we need to get those. MR. COAKLEY: We do, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even if we were to knock a hundred thousand dollars off of that, it's a step in the right direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll take it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And then roll that hundred thousand to the next year, you say that you'd have to increase your operating budget by 34? MR. COAKLEY: Either 34 or 38. I don't have the exact number here. It's one of those numbers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: To keep the VAX system limping along? MR. COAKLEY: Exactly. And there is also some ancillary support effort that goes into supporting it. It drains our staff even more. But I don't know how to quantify that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's a net $65,000 gain. What's the Board's pleasure on this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to stretch it out and I understand your point that maybe next year we have that behind us. But, frankly, with government there is always some expenditure they would like to make and if it isn't this next year it will be replaced with something else. So if we can hold off -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if we can hold off on it for a year, I'd just as soon do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In order to make it substantial, why don't we reduce that by 150 thousand. That way the increase of 34, so it still has a net result of at least 110, 115 thousand dollar reduction. That way, we're taking care of the bulk of it this year and the balance next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that get all of the County Manager agency computers in? MR. COAKLEY: We can do it for that number. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're first on the pecking order, right, Mr. Coakley? MR. COAKLEY: That's a priority, yes. You tell me what priorities to do and you can deal with the State Attorney and Public Defender if they come make an issue of it, I guess. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other thing is that they are dictating what software is used and that software may drive the demand for computers, too. MR. COAKLEY: Actually, we've reviewed that with them and it's very interesting, and maybe I'm a little bit proud of this. But the program we put together for you, we have chosen what we call universal computer workstations and it fits, it dovetails in exactly with where the District Court is going up in Fort Myers and tying in with us. We've run into that multiple times, we've chosen right, and actually, I'm kind of proud of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good. I'm persuaded by Mr. Coakley's testimony that they weren't too interested in it until here recently, anyway, so I'm not all that hesitant about having them wait until next year to pick it up. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be adverse at all to figuring out the number to supply our County Manager agencies' requests and deleting until next year, or delaying until next year the court systems' requests, in toto. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just doing the math in my head, it's roughly 35 percent. MR. COAKLEY: It doesn't work out proportionately, Commissioners, but I can certainly work out that matter for you. And the reason is that in the third year, we're reaching out to the remote County Manager agencies that are not on campus and there is an extra higher cost of networking to link them up. So it isn't a pro rata of just the number of PCs. Because the State Attorney and Public Defender people are all in this building, the networking costs are pretty nil for that. It's just mostly the PC costs. So it isn't directly one on one. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't you figure that out for us and then bring it back to us by wrap-up day? MR. COAKLEY: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm plugging in initially $150,000, but we'll see what the real number is. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Just for purposes of tabulation that will work, and then -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's conservative. It may be a little higher but -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: And we'll give you a number at wrap-up of what the actual number is on Monday. Is that -- MR. COAKLEY: Yeah, I can do that. I could even do it -- I need about 10 minutes to do it. Honday's fine. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would be super, Bill. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll find out at wrap-up, but it's going to be at least 150 grand. That much we know. MR. COAKLEY: Yes, I think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions of Mr. Coakley? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not on this topic. MR. TINDALL: The next item is an environmental improvements project for $112,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that under campus improvements in our budget? MR. CAMP: No, it's environmental. There are two of them. One is -- they are both dehumidification systems; one is to finish the rest of this building, the top four floors of this building, and the other is for the Immokalee Courthouse. And one of the problems we're having with this high humidity is not just because it's harmful to the employees and the public that visit the building. It's because of things like this, and I believe you can probably see it from here. This is an air blower at the jail and this is the kind of problems we're having when we don't dehumidify buildings. It's real easy to demonstrate for you mold and mildew inside the HVAC system, but this is a $500 motor that we had to replace last month inside the jail. And you can see the condition of this particular motor. It's only 10 years old. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I was going to ask. I know when we moved into our offices back here, we had to have cabinets built to store our letterhead in because the humidity was getting to it so bad it was jamming all the printers. So there is an operational side to this also, that it was costing us money elsewhere. MR. CAMP: The printers, the copiers, they all work now. And we actually can change the temperature because if you're drier, you feel more comfortable even though it may be warm in the envelope. So this is probably the most passionate thing I ask you to consider is dehumidification. If you remember, Polk County built a $33 million courthouse and five years later, it cost them $40 million to fix it because of air quality. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So you're passionate about humidity. MR. CAMP: Yes. It has to do with the health of our visitors and our public and I ask -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It pays to sweat. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Camp, would it be fair to say that in your assessment it's not the heat it's the humidity? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's two days, two bad puns. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, that's enough. I'm ready to move on on that item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Did you pay him to do that, Skip? Okay. It sounds like it's got to be done. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Government building paint plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, this is not recurring, this is to wrap it up? MR. CAMP: That's correct. The paint plan, so you know, the interiors of the buildings are scheduled to be painted once every 10 years and the exterior once every 7 years. This is the first year that the County Manager's office has recommended fully to fund this phase. Typically, this is one of the things that gets cut often, at least at the County Manager's level. But there's a price to pay when we don't paint our buildings. Again, it's the infiltration of moisture and those kinds of things, and it's -- we have a lot of metal in our buildings; they rust. So I think painting our buildings, at least on the outside, which is to me more important, at least every 7 years. Right now we're at about every 10 years because we haven't been doing it in the past; and in the interior every 10 years. When you have a community center and you don't paint it every 3 or 4 years, you can imagine what it looks like. And I've been taking that sometimes out of my operating budget, because if you take Golden Gate Community Center, for instance, you can't paint that building every 10 years. It's atrocious. So we send Latex Louie, our painter, down there to -- sometimes with some inmates or something -- to do some painting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And he's also a great jazz player, as I understand. MR. CAMP: He's very good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that some sort of -- are these campus buildings scheduled to be painted or are these mostly off campus? MR. CAMP: Well, there's a cycle so everything gets done -- everything is supposed to get done externally every 7 years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that an industry standard or -- MR. CAMP: -- the fact is it's about every 10. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I mean who made up 7 years? MR. CAMP: We did. Actually, in south Florida we should be painting some of our buildings -- and it depends; when you go low bid, you get what you pay for -- but really we should be painting our buildings every 5 to 7 years depending on the texture of, the finish of the building and those kinds of things. Some buildings can be painted maybe every 10 years and some more often. This building, for instance, these walls, these panels on the outside are not supporting this building. They are just bolted to the side of it. So each one of these panels is actually caulked between them. That caulk dries out and then the moisture just -- in fact, in Hurricane Andrew, the County Manager and I stood at the back of this building and the rain actually just came right in; you could see it come through between the metal and the panels. So it really depends on the building. We have a lot of buildings like this one where the outside of the building is just bolted to the side. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I'm in favor of this particular item. You have an asset here and you better take care of it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Leave it on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Painting stays in. Not as passionate as humidity, but very close. Electric repairs and replacement, this is a new item, something we didn't see last year. MR. CAMP: There's -- first there's some small projects that add up to the capital amount and that is, the first one is the Immokalee Animal Control building. There's been too many repairs to the service, the electric service out there. It needs to be redone. It's $2,000. That's a safety requirement. I suggest we do that. The other one is a security issue at IJC. It's the jail out in Immokalee and we have Band-Aided that electrical gate out there for years. We need to replace it. It's the electrical gate in Immokalee. It's $4,000. The next one is to re-lamp the jail, the Tax Collector's building, Property Appraiser's building and Development Services; telamp everything in there, and that's $12,150. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that bulbs and fixtures or just the bulbs? MR. CAMP: Just the bulbs. We have participated with FP&L to replace everything with T-Ss and electronic ballasts in the past. That was three and a half years ago, and those bulbs are good for about three years and now we send somebody out there just to fix one at a time. The last one is the one I showed you before. This is to replace all these motors. There are six of them in this building and Building J, the jail. And it's $35,000 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do those motors do? MR. CAMP: These are what pushes the air through the building. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yes. MR. CAMP: -- and these -- the problem is not only, for instance -- yes, please. It's not only the fact that these need to be replaced, but when we don't replace them proactively like this, this one was replaced last month, it took three weeks to get the motor. The motor we just replaced was for the kitchen in the jail and that meant our employees, not just inmates, but our employees were without air in an internal room for three weeks. So it's proactively we need to fix -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sold. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there goes that line. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Now for the one that we may have a little discussion on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Building C renovations? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: New county maintenance facility. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's out. MR. HcNEES: Nothing is recommended in that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, it didn't even get recommended. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, we're not going to talk about it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Don't have to talk about that. Thank you, Mike. MR. McNEES: We had that conversation. Thank Mr. Gonzalez. He has found a way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next? MR. TINDALL: Next item would be -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Building C? MR. TINDALL: -- Building C renovations. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which one's C? MR. CAMP: I would like you just to con -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Guy and Abe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's in C? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Guy and Abe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh. Guy and Abe. MR. CAMP: There is $6,000 in that package to reseal, regasket the windows. I think that needs to be done. The rest of it is something you need to decide on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What else is requested? MR. CAMP: The rest of it is for carpet. I think it's 10 years old, maybe 11 years old. But it's carpet and it's old -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's pretty bad. I was over in Abe's office. Is any of that for -- I remember talking to Mr. Carlton. They ordered a certain type of carpet and when it was installed the wear pattern just destroyed it. Are we replacing carpet in that new section? MR. CAMP: We replaced in Guy Carlton's office some public intensive areas like the hallway and stuff like that, with roll goods like this instead of carpet tile. But honestly, your carpet tile lasted you 10 or 11 solid years. And we paid a little more for it, but it serviced us really well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It seems to me -- sorry, guys -- but they're getting a new roof this year; maybe their carpet has to wait. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Wait a year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wait a year on the carpet? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that that 12 year carpet they bought originally anyway? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is now. Mr. CAMP: Well, it was carpet tile and it served you well. It's 11 years old. Could you get by another year? Absolutely. MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, that would represent a savings of $86,000 from that project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotta do it. MR. TINDALL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In lieu of the roofing costs, I think let's phase that, let's not take both in the same year. But let's at least commit now that we will do what we can to make sure that gets replaced next year. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. The carpet might hold up a little bit better if the rain stops falling on it anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That might help. MR. CAMP: Would you consider the $6,000 to regasket all the windows then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just out of curiosity, what was the other $85,000 they asked for that didn't get recommended? MR. CAMP: That was for storm shutters for that building. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've learned not to ask those questions. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Just curious. Courthouse repair, 25-five. What do they need? MR. CAMP: The first part is $10,000 to investigate the serpentine glass block. The back of that building is all glass block. It's supported by steel that's failing. We would like to go after either the architect or the contractor, and we need to hire an organization to help us with that. We don't think the county should be fixing it, if you will. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe we ought to send that to the County Attorney's office for some kind of legal action instead of -- MR. CAMP: Well, no, we would look at probably Carlton Fields or a specialty organization to help us investigate this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have to hire an independent engineer and have an architect come in? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. The $10,000 is just to do that. But it's a significant structural defect, potentially. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's going to fall? I mean what -- MR. CAMP: The glass block could actually fall. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I mean. MR. CAMP: It's supported by these steel beams that are all rusting out, and we don't feel we should be recommending to you to repair it, but to investigate who's responsible on it. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the age on it? MR. CAMP: In 1990, we built the courthouse. I think we COed it then. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is a case of aesthetics ruling good design because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who made that decision? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who would -- I mean no one in their right mind, in my opinion, would make a curvy wall out of small glass blocks. You know, this is just -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who was the architect? MR. CAMP: The architect was Winsor/Faricy, which we spent more money telling them to do things functionally. There are no expensive finishes in that building -- I don't know if you noticed it -- there's no marble -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very pretty. MR. CAMP: -- no expensive woods or anything like that. We put more of our money into function by making sure that the Harshal's office in Orlando approved it. So it's functionally very good, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that it won't stand up in 10 years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's one aesthetic feature is the one that -- MR. CAMP: Well, there's two, and you haven't seen the other one. But we used fake marble on the front of it. And to try to save money was not a good deal. We should have used granite like every other courthouse does, but we didn't, we tried to save some bucks. It wasn't a good idea and I was part of that decision-making. It was not a good decision. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No -- MR. CAMP: We used terrazzo, if you will, on the outside of the building and it didn't hold up. We have a few more years before we have to make a decision, but it's going to eventually have to be done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the other 15-five? That's 10 grand. What's the other 15-five that's being recommended? MR. CAMP: 5,000 is to replace all the courthouse hinges. Those gates, when you go through, are too heavy for those hinges. And we have a contractor that will do it throughout the entire courthouse. He wants 5,500. I think it's a good thing. It's a safety deal. For some reason those gates have to remain up, because I'd just as soon take them down, to be honest -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. CAMP: -- but they want them up there. So that's 5,500. And I hope Judge Ellis is listening to this -- we have, on the east side of the building we have some windows that are leaking and it's $10,000 to redo that entire side, to reseal that entire side. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: East side of the courthouse? MR. CAMP: Yes. So I recommend we do that. We did just finish a new indoor air quality investigation in Judge Ellis's office. Because of the water leaking through there, some mold started to grow. It turned out to be benign, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's get back to the doors and hinges. Other than bruising people's thighs, what purpose do those stupid things serve? I mean -- MR. CAMP: They just -- and I'm taking a chance here -- they just let everybody know that from there on is out of bounds, and of course the Bailiff helps that, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I figure the guy with the gun at the front of the room is a little persuasive, too. MR. CAMP: But I don't really know. I just know that it's important to them. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHHISSIONER BERRY: those windows. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim? I'd rather lose the hinges. I'd like to weigh in and make sure you fix Fix the windows, what was the first one, COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The glass there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The glass and windows. MR. CAMP: The glass and windows and leave the hinges out? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And if it's really a problem, we'll see it again next year. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Skip the 5500 for the hinges. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we're cutting 55. MR. TINDALL: The next project requested by facilities management is for general building improvements, $120,000. MR. CAMP: The first part is to waterproof all the windows and expansion joints in this building. That's what I was telling you about before. The caulking between each panel needs to be recaulked in all the windows. The windows, particularly in this building, I mean in this room, it's a good example. When it rains, it just actually rains right into the building. But to recaulk all the expansion joints and all the windows in this building is 60,000, and the other one was for 35,000. That's to seal the windows in Building H, the vinyl caulking. If you remember, we just painted that building -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's in H? MR. CAMP: I'm sorry. The health building. It's a three-story building; 25,000 square foot per floor. And all the windows need to be caulked. We painted it but the birds have picked at the caulking and it's easier to recaulk than get rid of the birds. But they are actually eating the caulking. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We could get some unflavorful caulking and put it in there? (Laughter) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can't you use a popcorn flavored caulking? MR. CAMP: We can look at a different flavor of caulking. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't it cheaper to just issue BB guns? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we just put a sign up that says no birds, stay away? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That will do it. How bad is the leaking problem? I'm not questioning the health building because -- how long since that kind of maintenance work has been done in this building? MR. CAMP: Actually, we recaulked this I think in 1985 or 1986, we actually came before the Board and recaulked the building. So it's been about 10 years. And in this part of the state, it's probably good for exterior caulking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sounds like another maintenance. We better protect the assets. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What's the other 25,000 there? You had 60 and you had 35, but the total amount is 120. Am I reading that right, general building improvements? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes? MR. CAMP: There is 25 left and that's for, to recarpet the State Attorney and Public Defender, the balance of that floor. That's the only carpet in this building that has not been replaced since it was originally the three stories put on this building and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does it compare to building C? MR. CAMP: -- 1984 or something like that, we put the three floors in this building. They have the original brown carpet, it's kind of matted, and the $25,000 is to do the balance. The State Attorney took out of his operating budget last year to do some of the areas, because we have delayed it and delayed it and delayed it. It's one of the things that gets chopped real easy. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's get it done this year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What about the birds eating the caulk question? If this is going to happen every three years, there's got to be a better solution out there. MR. CAMP: We'll find a solution. I recommend that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Caulking? MR. CAMP: I recommend you do it because we just painted it and that way the building is then finished, and let me figure out a way to get non -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tasty? MR. CAMP: -- tasty caulking or something. I'll find a way. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Put a little hot pepper in it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If anyone was worried about the hierarchy of man and animals, this answers it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: This is the kind of thing that the innovation group has done some research on, and I know we haven't been a member of that group recently, but we were in the distant past. You may want to consider using them as a resource on this. They have researched what works and what doesn't and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- birds and buildings have been an issue for them for a long time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. That's funny. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's, the 120 stays, right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about the fourth floor of the courthouse renovations? MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Camp gets away, I know I patted him on the back yesterday and I don't want to make too much of a habit out of it, but when we lined up to look at capital budgets and he had a pretty pressing and pretty long needs list, and you understand the nature and the vast number of facilities we have here that he's responsible for, he stepped up willingly and said these are my absolute highest priorities, and offered up an awful lot of things that he thought were important but he could live without for another year and really, as much as anybody in your staff, stepped forward and said I can live without some things, because he knew we just didn't have the money this year. So I want y'all to recognize him for that and kind of publicly thank him for that, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll say too, that Skip, you know, I have so much confidence in your work that when you say this really, really needs doing, then I know it really does. It's just nice to have somebody you know you can trust their -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Never admit that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- professional opinions. I'm telling you right now, I do and I appreciate it. MR. CAMP: Thanks for your compliments. MR. HcNEES: I still think that one picture was something he dug up from the Gulf of Mexico, that it didn't actually come from the jail. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He caught his anchor on it last weekend and brought it in. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Skip. The next item I see is 285,000 for Courthouse fourth floor renovations. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, Capital Projects Director. This is in anticipation of the comment your previous County Manager made to you earlier this year where he had already gotten some indication that the legislature would add a fourth Circuit Court Judgeship to this area. The design is for four courtrooms and the attendant features for four full courtrooms and court staff. It's possible to further reduce the budget by, let's say, doing a third or a half of the building. And I think that could work because Mr. Camp is just starting the space plan study for this campus, which will, among other things, tell us how much space and who needs to be next to whom in this campus. My idea was to start this design project around spring of next year after we finish the space study. By that time, we would know the size, the adjacencies, who needs to be next to whom, do we still need four courtrooms, is it less, is it more. And then proceed with design and there may be even less there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's an -- I think Mr. Constantine has the article that I'm recalling. I have, through several different organizations, had occasion to be in the courtroom, and mostly it was Leadership Collier, and I find on any given day an empty courtroom -- at least one, generally two, maybe three -- over there. And I get the sense that the courts are asking for one courtroom per judge regardless of scheduling needs, because, you know, all these courtroom pressure problems, I have yet to walk over there and not have a meeting in a courtroom because it wasn't being used that day. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your comments are supported by the article. It says, "We have nine judges and eight courtrooms, Middlebrook said. So if every judge was to use a courtroom, we don't have enough." Then he says, "If we're fortunate enough to be assigned another full-time judge, where will we put them and their assistant?" Although about three paragraphs later, he says that there is nothing to indicate the county will be assigned another judge. He contradicts himself throughout the article. I don't know if Hark's here. It's yesterday's. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I personally feel that when the State says you're going to have another judge, we'll look at doing the space planning necessary to perform that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I like Mr. Gonzalez's suggestion of how to run this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you then want to leave in a small amount for beginning planning after, or do you want to take the whole 35 out? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How much would it take to do what you suggested? MR. GONZALEZ: Through the remainder of the next fiscal year, if we start sometime in the spring, six months' worth of design is really preliminary planning, a design report and possibly finish the construction drawings at the beginning of the next fiscal year. The courtroom is about the only thing we could add to this campus without tripping the DRI threshold, simply because the square footage is there; we are just adding walls now into the shell of a building. Any other campus related office improvements, we need to wait until we get the DRI to get through that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But to take that track -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The process that you suggested, what will that cost us? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What dollars would be assigned to that? MR. GONZALEZ: I was just looking at our conceptual floor plan for that, and it's configured so that about a third of the area is for one -- there is one courtroom and Judge's chambers and administrative offices in a third of the building, and the other two-thirds is for the other three courtrooms and chambers. So I'm going to estimate a third of that cost, a third to a half of that cost could be spent in designing that one section. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what I thought you were suggesting. I thought you were suggesting to go ahead and make your analyses this next fiscal year, but not to do the actual construction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't think it's necessary to do anything until we get ready to construct. MR. GONZALEZ: I understand. These dollars -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's just do it that way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what my thinking was. You have every agency with any remote connection to the court system telling you that we need more space. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That quote's in there, too. MR. HcNEES: And my thinking was, given that we have that fourth floor already constructed, not in use, that to go another full year without any plan to put it to some use would probably not be the best move we could make. That given what Adolfo says is true, the space plan will be completed by spring, that the smart thing to do is to put some money in budget so that once we know what we need on that floor, we can at least get it designed. It's not that much money, and we can begin to make use of space we already have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's kind of where I was going. 285 seems to me to be the full blown deal. I say we cut it 200,000, leave 85,000 in there to do the space planning throughout the balance of the fiscal year. That would at least give us a head start into next fiscal year if the need is there. If it isn't, then we don't need to use the money and it goes unused. But I'd hate to do a budget amendment for that. I don't know. I think we're going to end up dealing with it throughout the year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe, I don't know if 85 is necessary. If you want to do some sort of space planning, I don't think it takes that much money, but -- MR. McNEES: The space planning will already be done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm talking about is any initial designing that needs to get started to accomplish it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't know if it will take 85; I just don't know. I mean, it seems to me if we say okay, let's see what's needed there, as you just said, everybody is going to come up with a need if we say okay, what's the need. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What started this discussion is what my problem is. Neil, in his exit and all good intentions, started this discussion, instead of it coming from the court system. Let's wait until they come. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the old rule; if you ask them, they'll find a need. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going to argue being overruled to eliminate stuff. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What are you going to eliminate, the 285? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All of it, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All of it, $285,000. Your advice is well taken Mr. McNees, but we'll take this course of action. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The space study is going to be done in any case, for other reasons, not just this. MR. McNEES: Yes, sir. That is already started. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next item, animal control facility. MR. TINDALL: Public Services has initially requested a million six for a new animal control facility. During the course of the County Manager's review, that was reduced to 700,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about this a little bit in a hearing once before about how much per square foot versus how much Mr. Constantine's house plans were. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, I joked yesterday that we could -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My wife and I are just going to live in cages now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We could buy a fixer-upper in Port Royal and put cages in it for $700,000, and that way we'd be bringing more services to the city. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to say I listed this on my cut list, but I want to say, particularly to Jody, I know, I come out there to the shelter and I know we need to do some work. I'm just, the number here is what scares me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think what happens is on these kind of things, when you say I want to build an animal control facility, who does that, one or two people say, I design them, one or two people say I build them, and because it's such a selective group, such a selective design group, that the cost goes up dramatically. It's kind of like getting an architect for a very singular purpose. What I would like to see is, I know that the County Administrator's agency has already brought this down to what they felt was a reasonable level. I figure we could probably build one for something a little less than that if we didn't go to that select group. If we looked at what our needs were, it seems to me that an architect doesn't have to be specific to animal control. Jody can tell us what the cage sizes need to be, where they need to be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why don't we sub it out? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just, I think we can get our hands in this and maybe work it a little bit more. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I do think there are some unique features of animal control shelters that require special expertise. If you don't design them well, you end up paying a whole lot more to operate them over time, having to do with the way the kennels are designed, whether they can be cleaned efficiently, or whether it takes a very labor intensive effort to clean them, the sloping of the floors, all of that stuff. If you don't really know what you're doing, you're ending up with a more expensive facility to operate and an expensive, the kind of things you heard Skip talk about earlier, you're going to be dealing with, you know; oh, we didn't anticipate the moisture was going to get in here, and that sort of thing. There is something to be said for a very well-qualified designer for your facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One item I want to make sure we don't shortcut is one of the reasons the majority of the Board voted to move the facility is the noise it makes for other homes that have since been built around it and now we're putting it in an area with homes, that will soon have homes built around it. So we need to address the noise issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sound attenuation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, that, too. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The noise and the sound of noise. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When any government says, okay, we've got a budget of $700,000 to build an animal control facility, somehow you end up with a $698,000 animal control facility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about 500? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask this. Is there an opportunity to build this over two fiscal years? MR. McNEES: I was going to clarify. We're not saying we can build you a $700,000 animal control facility. We're saying we'll try to phase it so that you only have to spend $700,000 in the first year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's its total cost? MR. OLLIFF: The project calls for a million five-eight-five and that's what's shown as your total -- I'm Tom Olliff. We've done some cost comparisons of other animal control facilities all over the state and they all come in at 20 thousand square foot at a million three to a million five, and the ones that are a million three, which is the ones like Alachua County built 10 years ago, that's what they cost. And our square footage. cost is $79 a square foot, which is not out of range. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: $79? MR. OLLIFF: $79 a square foot is what our estimate is based on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a level of unfamiliarity here because I'm just sitting here thinking what you can build for that and line the walls with cages. And it just, it drives me crazy to think that it's that kind of money. I don't question your judgment, Mr. Olliff, it's just, it's such a sticker shock. MR. OLLIFF: I have never built one before either. And what I will tell you what drives a lot of the cost is the need to contain the noise inside the whole structure, as well. If you want to build one that's open air, you can do it significantly less expensive than that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I can add another perspective on that. In the facility that we were building, we faced the same budget crisis in mid-construction, and one of the challenges for me was whether to scale back design of the facility or to go ahead forward with our more expensive first plan. We went with the latter. I was convinced by the budget director to avoid being penny wise and pound foolish. Never regretted it. I really think that we reaped the benefits during the 10 years that we operated that facility that I was there, because we didn't compromise on the design and we didn't try to save those dollars up front and we ended up benefitting from that during the life of the facility. I already told you the story how we didn't do that with the jail and ended up paying the price on the operating side. So I think it's an important lesson. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this -- is it too controversial to suggest that we joint venture something with the Humane Society or somehow do something to privately like fund raise for half of it? You know, there's so many animal lovers in this town, could we fund raise half of this? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For my two cents, all the nightmares that have occurred in Lee County, I don't want to touch that with a 10-foot pole. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know anything about what's happened in Lee County. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it's -- they tried a similar situation and what happens is the Humane Society's leadership and boards change over time, and what may have sounded like a good idea and a good relationship at that time, half of that relationship can change and you have no control over it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And let's face it, this is one of the few things we as government have a responsibility to provide to the community -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. We have to do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and I really think we need to maintain control. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if, however, we maintained control but still do some private fund-raising, you still tap your animal lovers. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In the meantime, that doesn't solve our immediate problem, our instant problem, which is we've got to decide on the budget today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or radio. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whichever's quicker. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sound attenuation. MR. OLLIFF: The Board needs to recall that this is a project that's being built on a piece of property that was donated and it's valued at over $600,000. So there are -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We already got that gift. MR. OLLIFF: -- some major donations going on with this project and we'll do the best that we can to elevate it publicly so that we can try and generate some additional donations. What we did do for this particular budget is we realistically looked at what it would take us in terms of time to close on the property, actually do a site development plan, hire a designer, design the building, and we frankly don't think that we could have spent the entire 1.5 in the first year anyway. So what we've tried to do is show you a cash flow budget that we think is what we would realistically spend in the next fiscal year, and then put the balance of the project in the following fiscal year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we going to have construction started in this fiscal year for 700? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll see '- MR. OLLIFF: It would be a construction project very similar to what we did with the Medical Examiner's facility, that you phased the construction over two years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I say we go ahead with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sold. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Excellent presentation, Miss Morelock. Thank you. MS. MORELOCK: I feel really special. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can deal with the specifics later, but is there general agreement that we fund 700,000 now, but as we look at the out years where we're going to do the other that we try to form some private sector cooperation? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think anyone has any objection to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Matching funds, you know, the county putting half, how about getting the other half privately. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sell bricks for the courtyard area out front. I mean, there are ideas you can do with people, you know. MR. OLLIFF: One of the things that we've seen other counties do successfully is actually come up with a wish list that they circulate throughout the community and people who want to make donations can buy certain portions of the facility, whether it might be a patio in the back, or a dog run. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In honor of their deceased pet? MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. And we would put name tags and plaques on all those donated materials and things. But that's something we intend to do on this project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If people are as passionate about their pets as much as Skip is about humidity, we should raise tons of money. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, that, I think it's a good idea. Let's try and be creative there as best we can. Next item, the Project 2000, let's go find the two other digits program. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Did you ever get a chance, Mr. Smykowski, to tell us total county dollars to fix the 2000 problem? MR. SHYKOWSKI: What is in the budget, there's 390,000 in the Sheriff's operating budget. We'll get to it shortly. In the 301 budget, the Sheriff has 210,000. So the Sheriff has $600,000. In addition, the project we're about to talk about is 500,000, total of 1.1 million. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to ask Mr. Coakley, if he could help us understand what the difference is between our system and their system and why we're buying different software and is there any duplication. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If they are going to spend $2 million to solve the problem, can we combine our efforts and spend less? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can buy software to do so much more than changing these two stupid digits, but it just -- the systems -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They won't do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unbelievable. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, you're looking at replacing an approximately 10 year old integrated financial system. Mr. Hitchell's here from the Clerk's office. MR. HITCHELL: For the record, Jim Hitchell, Director of Finance of the county. Hike is correct. What we're looking to do is replace our current financial package. It's known as GHSI. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jim, you need to get closer to the mike. That one doesn't work well. MR. HITCHELL: The original package was written in 1982 and it was installed in this county in 1987. So we're dealing with a package that's 15 years old. There's two issues that we have to deal with. Number one is the current system is antiquated, it does not promote efficiency; we're just putting Band-Aids on it, trying to keep it running. And, of course, the second issue is the 2000 year compliant. We've taken the position that it's in the best interests of the taxpayers of this community to go ahead and replace it. It is anticipated that the total project cost will be somewhere about $2 million. That's what we brought to the table here, and I think that we were looking at approximately $500,000 in this next fiscal cycle. I've spoken with Mr. HcNees regarding this issue, and what we're trying to do is find alternative financing sources to make this thing happen. What we want to look at is lease-purchase arrangements, try to find something that's not going to impact the general fund, the ad valorem dollar in such a heavy manner in one year. What we have to do is wait until we know what the total bid package is before we can come up with those numbers. But the $500,000 we're looking at this year is going to take care of things such as the training issues, the conversion issues. There's certain costs that no matter if we do lease-purchase, we're still going to have those costs. Any questions that I can answer for you? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Back to my first question of Mr. Coakley. What can we do as far as what's the difference between what we're doing with the Project 2000 thing and what the Sheriff's Department's doing? Is there any duplication between all that or is there some way for us to be more efficient rather than spending a couple million dollars? MR. COAKLEY: For the record, Bill Coakley. I'm Information Technology Director. I have no knowledge of what the Sheriff's Department is doing. I do have knowledge of this, because we've been participating with the Clerk's office in this project. So I can't answer between those two agencies, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What concerns me is yesterday the Sheriff's Department said no, we know for a fact that it's not duplicative. And if there hasn't been communication with you, we don't know that or not. MR. COAKLEY: No, not on that point. We've looked at our own needs inside the Board relative to Year 2000, and we're okay on everything, so it is a specific -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't have to do anything? MR. COAKLEY: Not the systems that I have any direct responsibility for. We've checked them out and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's wonderful. MR. COAKLEY: -- they all seem to be okay. Well, a lot of them are newer systems -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. COAKLEY: -- and PC systems, of course, just generally don't have this problem. It's the older -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. COAKLEY: -- software. And I like what Mr. Hitchell said, that software was archaic years ago, and it would have been good to replace it a long time ago. It needs replacement and the year 2000 is perhaps the precipitating cause to bring it about, but it's got to be done, and we provided our input into it. The only concern we have -- I shouldn't say concern -- but the only issue that we're very interested in is whether it's technologically, a package that's chosen is technologically up-to-date and modern, namely Client Server, and we've made that point known to the Clerk's office. MR. HcNEES: We may have done somewhat of a disservice or perhaps Jim did it to himself naming this Project 2000, because the year 2000 issue is kind of the tail wagging the dog here. The dog here is the financial system which is long since antiquated and would have needed replacement. And I think Bill's exactly right, the 2000 issue is minor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Jim, in the systems that the county, in the stuff Mr. Coakley's been doing, there isn't already a financial package that we can buy more users or something that translates for you? MR. HITCHELL: It's two totally different areas, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is? MR. HITCHELL: The package that he has has no relationship to the financial package that we're looking to replace. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because you have functions that he doesn't have? I mean, because the software needs that you have are so completely different because it needs to function in an entirely different way? MR. HITCHELL: It's not so much the software needs as it is the business needs. What we're looking -- with this project, what we're looking to replace, and I'll just go through them real quick: The general ledger, the purchasing, the accounts payable, the investments, the payroll. Payroll and HR we're addressing currently. But these are what's considered the backbone of the financial package. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't have something similar to that, Mr. Coakley? MR. COAKLEY: No, ma'am, we don't. We do, of course, have the Human Resources -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course. MR. COAKLEY: -- which you previously approved and we're working out an arrangement with the Clerk on the payroll module of that which is an option. But they will be interfaced with whatever new package they come up with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was my next question. Are we going to be able to communicate with each other? Somehow are these going to -- is your financial software package going to be something that works with Mr. Coakley's equipment? MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely. MR. COAKLEY: Absolutely. There should be no -- there's no technical obstacle to that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then what about the Sheriff also working together? MS. KINZEL: Hi. For the record, Crystal Kinzel, the Sheriff's Finance Director. We have been participating as well with the Clerk's office. Just so you don't get the impression that the Sheriff's out there on his own, that's absolutely not correct. We've gone to every presentation, every meeting, to work on that joint package and joint financial communicating back and forth with those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't think anyone said that, Crystal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, that was my question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You were looking over here and -- okay. MS. KINZEL: No, I'm just responding, okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MS. KINZEL: That we have worked -- I wanted to give you a picture of what we have done so far, so that you're aware of the communications that we have had with the Clerk's office. We're working with them on all of the modules, however, the modules that you saw yesterday and are also included in our capital further along today, include different components. The Sheriff's Office also has intelligence reporting, civil process, warrants, and some booking functions that are a conglomerate, in addition to connecting the Clerk's finance package. So we have our own internal needs that aren't a duplication of anything that's done at the Board side or is done at the finance at the Clerk's office. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What about the 2000 issue? MS. KINZEL: That's a problem for all of us. But more importantly, as Jim said, we're using also the Moore financial package which was installed at the Sheriff's Office back in 89-90 when we came in, and it runs off of old hardware that's no longer able to substantiate those systems. I don't really have a functional problem with my financial package. Functionally, it does everything I need it to do in finance. But the hardware and the new data and the new technology will no longer support that software. So we're converting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not a new song, is it? I mean how many times have you heard that? MS. KINZEL: No. So it isn't just 2000, it's all those other issues about technology advancements. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Is there the opportunity to be included in the integrated package that the Clerk's pursuing? MS. KINZEL: For the financial portion, that's our anticipation that we'll do that. But we also wanted to assure that there is funding in there significant to cover the booking, the civil process, those other issues that really aren't a part of the financial package. MR. FERNANDEZ: But isn't that part of the CJIS system? Is that independent from the CJIS system? MS. KINZEL: It's independent. The Sheriff's Office has independent functions for all of those. We run our own data processing. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it's not part of CJIS? MS. KINZEL: I don't believe so. Do you know? I'm not the technical person. I can get Damian to answer those questions. But I do know that the Sheriff's Office runs independent in our data processing. MR. FERNANDEZ: My thought, Mr. Chairman, is that if we're all going through this, this process, there should be every effort made to integrate as much as we possibly can and do it together, rather than everyone doing it. MS. KINZEL: We feel we are doing it together. That's why we're participating in the RFP committee. We are working with them. MR. HITCHELL: Commissioners, if I could, when we created the Project 2000 task force, we included invitations to all constitutional officers. And we've had an overwhelming response to that and in creating the specifications that will become the RFP, it's been full participation. We've addressed every constitutional officer out there that did participate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And there's not a need for the County Hanager's agency, because our new program doesn't have the problem. MR. COAKLEY: The services for the financial management system are provided by the Clerk's agency for the Board. They still are. There was never any intent to move them over to our new environment except that the workstations would be compatible with their system. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hitchell, do you agree with the assessment of Hiss Kinzel that the Sheriff's Office and your office are cooperating and will absolutely be able to interface properly? MR. HITCHELL: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Good. So we do have agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, once again we have a $710,000 RFP, we're going to have a $710,000 study, $710,000 worth of equipment. I -- there's got to be a little more economy in there than has already been projected. That's just -- I don't know. Haybe it's an unknown again. But it just seems a little high. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see 500,000 down here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you have to throw in the Sheriff's $210,000 for the year. I'm putting the two together, because what Mr. Fernandez, you know, was getting to is, you know, yes, we may be at the same table talking about the same thing, but we have two separate line items and two separate budgets to accomplish the same end goal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it's slightly different. Here's the way I understand it and you guys tell me if I'm getting it. The big picture is to accomplish the 2000 and to upgrade your antiquated systems. There may be three or four parts to that; maybe four of them are ledger and financial and that stuff. There are about three parts that have to do with warrants, and whatever that other stuff Crystal said. So the Clerk's asking for four pieces to get to the 2000 project, the Sheriff's asking for three pieces. They're separate but they are all part of the same project. I mean, it sounds like they're doing exactly what we asked them to do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hitchell? MR. HITCHELL: They are not part of the same project. It's the same problem. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you're looking at as a project the big software, what Mr. Fernandez just said, that everybody's got the same problem. So they're fixing some pieces that don't apply to you, you're fixing some pieces that apply to them. It sounds like it all goes together. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just know that when you bid two sizeable projects at the same time, there's an economy of scale if you get one bidder. And what I'm afraid of is we're arriving at cost and projections based on the individual, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- working the two separately. MR. HITCHELL: Could we have the question again, please? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there one bid or more than one? MR. HITCHELL: It's going to be more than one bid, because you're not -- to our knowledge, I don't think we're going to be able to find a vendor that's going to be able to provide what we need from a financial standpoint and what they need from a legal or from a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Law enforcement. MR. HITCHELL: -- a law enforcement standpoint. See, the Clerk's office also has the same problem that the Sheriff has, and that is that we have our court systems that are 2000 compliant problems there also. That's totally segregated from what we're looking at here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So there's more to come on 2000? MR. HITCHELL: I think that the Clerk has already anticipated that in this year's budget. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. MITCHELL: It's already being addressed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think the bottom line is it's something that we have to do, we don't have a choice. And our respective staffs are telling us that they feel they are on track on an economy scale, that's the best they can do. That's it. If that's where we are, that's where we are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think so, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tried to pry the lid and couldn't get anywhere, so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Take 5 minutes? (A 5-minute recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are still planning on taking a lunch break right at noon, assuming we don't zip through everything else in the next hour. So plan on a lunch recess from 12 to 1, just as we did yesterday. Mr. Smykowski, I believe we are to the point of our general fund capital project that is the Sheriff's capital budget request. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Ms. Myers is here from the Sheriff's Office to discuss their capital project requests. Mr. Tindall, if you want to introduce the -- MR. TINDALL: Sure thing. In the Sheriff's capital, we have the spreadsheet divided between existing projects for which new funding is being requested, and the brand new projects that are being requested for '98. The first one would be the Building J improvements, $100,000 requested for '98. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the purpose for those are -- because we have already seen some other Building J improvements that have found a way into other parts of the budget. What is that particular $100,000 item for? MS. MYERS: Jean Myers, budget analyst for the Sheriff's Office. This is our continuing ongoing project, as Phil had said at the top part here, our continuing projects. Interior renovations of Buildings A and J, modular furniture, just trying to fit more people in the same amount of space. I know you've all -- I think the majority of you have been to Buildings A and J and seen our space constraint problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. My concern is that we're doing a space plan study now and I would hate to do renovations there when there may be other areas that, you know, spend the dollars to renovate those buildings when, at the end of the space plan study in the spring, we may find that there are other areas the Sheriff's Office can occupy. That's my only concern. MS. MYERS: There is no space, though, that we are currently occupying and like I say, adding more people. So I can see your relationship with the space study, which that's going to bring up more things here later on. This is our current space. We also have the mold and mildew humidity story that Skip stole the show on in Building A. We are continually replacing carpets and having the problem with the storage and the paper absorbing the moisture. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. But we budgeted elsewhere to correct that throughout the year, in our facilities capital. MS. MYERS: I don't believe anything was for Building A. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Building A is? MS. MYERS: Building A. Right behind the old Courthouse. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right across. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MS. MYERS: That was due to be torn down five years ago, or something like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going back to -- I guess it's just the $100,000 figure, and I'm not sure what makes that up. Can you give me a breakdown of what is planned for that $100,000 -- MS. MYERS: Sure, we can get that to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is what we've done for everything else. MS. MYERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you have that? MS. MYERS: No, I don't, as far as the specifics. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MYERS: It's been an ongoing project. We might say it's for A bureau and it turns out to be C, but. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just that on the other things we've all looked at, if it were $100,000, we got well, 60,000 for this and 25 for that and 15 for that. We knew what the content of that 100,000 was and some things were pulled out and some were left in, and that kind of thing. So that would be helpful. MS. MYERS: We'll get that back to you, no problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The computer-aided dispatch system we kind of made a commitment to last year to start, so I think that stays in. MS. MYERS: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It stays. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That hundred thousand we'll just flag for more information. The rest are all new requests. MR. TINDALL: That's correct, sir. The next one of the new requests would be the phone and data line upgrades for 255-eight being requested. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about jail video imaging security? Am I just on the wrong one? COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's nothing needed there. MR. TINDALL: That was reduced to zero during the course of the County Administrator's review of the budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So what's left in is phone and data line upgrade of 255,000; records imaging at 200,000; year 2000 software 210, which we just discussed; communications equipment at 306,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hold it. Communications equipment. The phone call Mr. Smykowski and I made the other day, we were told that was for 98 new 800 megahertz radios; is that accurate? MS. MYERS: Which number? That's the 306-six? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MS. MYERS: That's correct, with some chargers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had the discussion when we purchased the 800 megahertz system, and if you recall, if the Board recalls, there was a big argument or a big discussion, shall we say, over what was the appropriate number of radios to buy. And there was a big differential in numbers and we went through a long process before we came to an agreement on what was the appropriate number. So I don't know that it's fair a year later that we're looking to buy another hundred radios when we just settled that issue a year ago. Certainly, we don't need to replace them if they're only a year old. MS. MYERS: This is not a replacement. What has happened is kind of a series of steps. When you went into the 800 megahertz contract, some promises were made by the manufacturer that the plan, where a patrol car normally used to -- it had two radios, the in-car radio that stayed there and then a portable radio that the deputy actually has on his uniform, on his belt. They had told us they were going to have in-car chargers and you were only going to need one radio. It would be in the car. When you needed to get out, you snatched it and got out of the car. They have yet to produce that, they are still not producing that, cannot tell us when they will. Their charger that they do have, or the batteries, are not lasting a whole shift; they are only lasting three or four hours. We're having to purchase more batteries. So now, the situation we're in is, and as we're bringing more deputies on the road, we need two radios for the one that they used to say we have. So we're playing catch-up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it just seems to me -- MS. MYERS: It's a safety issue. They are not going to have radios. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's also a contract failure issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. It seems to me -- MS. MYERS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's a contract issue with the vendor, and if they are not fulfilling, then we need to take that up with them. We don't need to spend an extra $300,000 of taxpayer money. MS. MYERS: But we have deputies that don't have radios, so what do we tell them, sorry, we can't hire you? They don't have a radio that will do both. We have to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How long have you known of this problem? MS. MYERS: A year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, and what efforts have been made to force the vendor to either one, correct the problem, or two, give the money back? MS. MYERS: The contract, I believe, is with the county. All of our uniformed captains that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the Collier County Sheriff's Department, isn't it? MS. MYERS: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess, you know, I know that some things have been done, because I get occasional letters or memos or things from people that say we're having this problem, you need to fix it, you haven't fixed it. But to sit here a year later and wait until we are in a near crisis position to make a budgetary request, as opposed to already doing one of two things, which is rectifying the situation -- because I thought the Sheriff wanted control of the 800 megahertz system, that that was important to him. But to then say it's a county problem, as far as I know, we haven't been asked to go to the vendor and resolve this issue for you. MS. MYERS: I can't answer that. I know they have had correspondence through your representative. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Has anyone filed a suit against them for failure to perform? MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director. No, we have been working through correspondence with your office under county management justice contract administrators. You're absolutely correct, we want to control the 800 for law enforcement. But we have been, and you have received copies, I think, of all the letters where we have indicated to them we had water problems going into antennas, causing the radios to malfunction; we have panic button problems where the panic button won't respond with the deputy pushing the button because of an alignment problem. We have had case problems where the cases won't fit with the radios with the right antennas. We've had earphone and mike problems where that earphone doesn't fit with the mike. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We get copied on a lot of those letters. MS. KINZEL: But most of the problem has to do with this in-vehicle charger, and they are not guaranteeing or saying that they can produce that now for any specified period of time. To remedy it, they did offer us a hundred batteries extra which we did accept, as a stopgap measure, to get us through this budget year. We got those batteries. I'm not the expert in this, our Captain of Uniform is. I just know as Finance and during the budget conversations, this is the input that I've had. We'd be glad to have him come over and do a presentation for the Board, and maybe give you a total recap. But this is really a safety issue, we've got to have some radios so the deputies don't have failing batteries and they're able to communicate back to dispatch. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. HcNees, has the County Hanager's office, while you were acting in that capacity, been asked to pursue a legal remedy with the vendor? MR. McNEES: We have not in the manager's office. I just sent for John Daly, who is our communications manager, and I won't speak for him. If it's happening it hasn't bubbled up into our office, and that's why I asked for John to come in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plain and simple -- I understand we need to make sure our deputies are safe -- but plain and simple, if we have a system that isn't working we shouldn't reward that vendor by spending another $300,000 with them. MS. KINZEL: We don't disagree with you, Commissioner, honestly. We have tried to work with them. Obviously, legal recourse is always an option. We've tried to do everything short of that, and I think we've worked very closely with John Daly and their office trying to force the vendor into some of these performance issues. But the reality of it is we don't have enough radios to give these deputies to make it safe out there, with the battery life and the things that we have experienced. So we are asking for additional radios. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, this almost sounds to me like the kind of issue that should come out of reserves, you know, pending the lawsuit against the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because this is a pending lawsuit. And you need to be suing them. I appreciate your writing letters and stuff, but you need to be suing them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't remember in those correspondence -- and I'm sure someone will point it out if I'm incorrect -- someone mentioning that we have officers whose lives are being placed in danger due to the nonperformance of this equipment. That would have alerted me; that would have concerned me. I wouldn't have waited for a budget session to ask for involvement. So, you know, I understand the problem, but if the problem has persisted for this long, yet I've never been informed of the safety issue, the safety aspect, then it's just a level of inconsistency, quite frankly. I agree. I can't budget for that. Can you shed any light on this for us? What has our role been? Apparently, we have a non-performance area, the contractor indicated that the in-car chargers for the Sheriff's Office would allow use of the radios in a certain manner, they have not met that performance standard. Have we paid them for it just the same? Help me understand. Are you aware of this problem? I'm sorry. Your name? MR. DALY: Yes, John Daly, Radio Communications Manager. The problem with the in-vehicle chargers was that on the portable radio models that were selected for our system, Erickson has opted to redesign those in-vehicle chargers, and the in-vehicle chargers have not been available as of yet. In an effort to mediate that situation approximately 18 months ago, Erickson did offer to sell mobile radios for the same price as the in-vehicle charger to the users that needed them, and that offer was accepted by some users and rejected by others. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I love that. We have a vendor that when they won't perform, offer to sell us additional equipment. I just -- that's precious. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sue them, guys. Sue them. MR. DALY: No, no, no, no. The in-vehicle chargers were an additional option, okay, that the users were going to pay for. And the in-vehicle chargers were $548, the mobile radio was like 2500. They said since we can't provide the in-vehicle charger to you, we'll provide the mobile radio at the same price as the vehicle charger. So instead of paying $2500 for a mobile radio, they would have paid $548. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, so that's good. But now, what about the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know one of the groups that exercised that option? MR. DALY: Animal Control exercised that option because they were going to use the in-vehicle chargers. Building Review exercised that option and East Naples Fire Department exercised that option. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sheriff's Department did not exercise that option? MR. DALY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we want to reconsider that decision? Maybe that's what would be the solution. MR. McNEES: Is that what you're proposing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. MS. KINZEL: This is for portable radios. MR. FERNANDEZ: But at that reduced rate? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've just told us the portable radios don't work effectively -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So why don't we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and now we want to buy more of them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, wait. Here -- this is my question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked a question, I'd like to get a response from them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's follow this line first and then we'll go to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right. I'm sorry. MS. KINZEL: It has come to our attention that some of the -- that the panic button problem, that, yes, that they are not working correctly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if the units aren't working correctly, and the manufacturer is acknowledging they are not working correctly, why do we want to buy more of those units? MS. KINZEL: Not that type, is my understanding. We've got a mobile and a portable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you get your guy here who can -- because my question is why don't you do what the Building Department did or Animal Control did? MR. McNULTY: Good morning. For the record, I'm Bill McNulty, the Communications Equipment Manager for the Sheriff's Office. The decision was made by the Sheriff's Office not to mix. Mobile radios we were going to keep all Orions, and all portable radios would be Prisms. We would not have to stock two different parts of radio for repairs. We just elected we would stick with the Orions and the Prism portable radios. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What if they don't work? MR. McNULTY: Well, the way it was originally intended, it would have worked, Commissioner. But what we did was we provide every officer a portable radio. We provide every marked unit a mobile radio, every unmarked unit for detectives and so forth, would have a vehicular charger and a portable radio, not a mobile radio. They have not been able to provide a vehicular charger. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, here's my point. We paid for the charger and the radio in those unmarked and detective units, am I right? Did we pay for a charger? MR. DALY: Okay. They had identified or we had identified an inventory of vehicular chargers that were needed in the contract, and there were dollars assigned to that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DALY: The vehicular chargers, due to the fact that they had created some operational problems with the portable radios, Erickson opted to redesign them, and that's when they made the offer for the mobile radios at $548. The money that was allocated in the contract for those vehicular chargers was utilized to buy the mobile radios for Animal Control and Building Review and East Naples Fire Department. And those departments that were enterprised paid back. The funds that were identified for those radios in the Sheriff's Office allocation of equipment, some of that money was utilized for other communications equipment for the Sheriff's Office, that they've used -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That wasn't an option. You know, when we went through the 800 megahertz, and one of the line items was so many chargers and so many radios -- MR. DALY: Right. We did not have a specific number in the contract of vehicular chargers. The contract was worded that there would be a request for some vehicular chargers from the users. When Erickson was unable to provide that piece of equipment they made a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A more expensive decision that results in a $300,000 request today. MR. DALY: Well, I don't think this request today is related to the charger issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, they say it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I was just told. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were just told that's the reason why. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What do you think it relates to? MR. DALY: Well, I know that the Sheriff's Office has had an increase in personnel since the inventory numbers were established in the contract. We established an inventory number of say, x-number of radios. If Building Review went out and hired 6 more building inspectors between the time the contract was signed and the time they bought their radios, they would have needed to increase their inventory by six radios or -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, two things. I'm pretty sure they haven't hired 98 new deputies, and we anticipated that. When we had the discussions on the radio system, we took into account what we anticipated for growth in the number of personnel you had. We didn't just do it on a static number from 1995. MS. KINZEL: That's correct, Commissioner. Every year since that contract was established we budgeted a radio for every expanded position that you have approved for us. So we took that into account. Another point, if you remember back a few years ago before the 800 megahertz contract, we used to have a line item in the 301 budget for radio replacement, and when we went to -- and if we -- for replacement, that were damaged or they don't work or they wore out or whatever, because there we were at the end of that old system, old radios. And that has also gone away. So we'd like to also start that up again, because that may be a problem now. Even if these radios do start to work and are great. We are still going to have some that are damaged or donwt work, so that we are going to need some replacement money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do one issue at a time. That's a different issue, isn't it? Isn't that a different issue from the one we're stuck on right this second? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jeanne, you've told us it is a charger-related issue; they don't work? MS. MYERS: Right. They aren't even producing it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Daly, you tell us it's not a charger-related issue. MR. DALY: Well, what I'm saying is -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm assuming that you guys know what the issue is in your own department, but I'm just a little frustrated that the two of you don't have any idea what the other is saying. MR. DALY: But the issue is that the chargers were unavailable and the option was made that they could purchase portable -- or mobile radios for $548 for those vehicles that were identified for vehicular chargers. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they did not exercise that option. MR. DALY: And they did not exercise that option. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that option still available? MR. DALY: I don't know if it would be or not. I mean, that was accepted and rejected 18 months ago. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: And the follow-up to that point is you indicated, Mr. Daly, that the funding capacity from that contract attributable to the Sheriff's portion, when they elected not to buy the portable radios, was spent on other communication needs. Is that accurate? MR. DALY: Other mobile and portable radios, yes. I would have to go through and find it, you know. MR. FERNANDEZ: Do we know -- can the Sheriff's Office tell us specifically what needs those funds were spent towards -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What did you buy with that money? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and why are they not available now for this purchase that you're asking? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: To help solve this problem. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that's really the issue. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's exactly where I was heading. MR. McNULTY: We purchased some more portable radios. We purchased some additional mobile radios, but not of the ones that were offered in lieu of the vehicular chargers. And then we had some funds sitting there for the vehicular chargers still, but it's still not available from the vendor. They are saying now it would be mid-July of '97 and this goes back to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four weeks? MR. McNULTY: -- 1994, '95 when we started all of this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is no question that the vendor has not fulfilled their responsibilities here. I mean, that that's -- so I'm not putting the vendor blame on anyone in this room. However, when a budget amount is set aside for a charging unit and a radio, and the charging unit is not functioning, an offer was made to purchase a radio that would fulfill that same purpose for less money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or come close to filling the purpose. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay? But I'm talking to these two people. I'm talking to Crystal's head shaking back there, I'm talking to these two people. So they will respond hopefully to my question if I'm wrong. A radio was offered at less money than the charging unit and radio that was budgeted. So if the issue was one of officer safety, it would be my thought that those radios would have been purchased for that purpose, instead of the money being used in some other form in the communications arena and resulting in an additional $300,000 request on the capital side. If you can't tell me where the money that was budgeted for these radios and not used for that purpose went, I'm sure as heck not going to approve an additional $306,000 for more communication equipment. You've got to give me a clear path here and I don't have one, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is any of that money still available or is it all spent? MR. HcNULTY: No. Some of it's still available, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much? MR. DALY: About 6800. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 6800? MR. McNULTY: No, no, no. MR. DALY: We're comparing apples and oranges here. The vehicular chargers that were identified in the contract for the Sheriff's Office had a value of $73,000. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. DALY: That was approximately 110 vehicular chargers. In our meetings with the Sheriff's Office, they did in fact buy additional mobile radios and some portable radios utilizing that $73,000. Basically, we kind of viewed that as we had, you know, a line item for their communications equipment needs in the 800 and that some of that would be, you know, up to their discretion as to what they got or what they needed. But the amount for those vehicular chargers was $73,000. I'm not sure where the 300,000 comes from. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how does it cost $300,000 to solve a problem that we had hoped was going to be addressed with 73,000? MR. McNULTY: The 300,000 is for additional radios also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many? MS. MYERS: A hundred, 98 and some chargers. 98 radios and 15 charger banks. Not chargers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand the charger banks. They are the ones that sit stationary and you put four radios in them or whatever. MS. MYERS: Six or whatever. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Six or eight. MS. MYERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I still am at a loss how we can spend all of the budgeted funds but $6,800 on communication equipment and be 98 radios short. I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I think if they opted to spend it on other equipment, that was certainly their choice. It's apparently not one that has resulted in the most efficient use of the funds, if they think they're short. But I'm not comfortable budgeting another $306,000 because they chose to spend the money elsewhere. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I agree with you on cutting that. But you know, I'm more -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Particularly to a vendor who is not providing adequate service. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I looked at the entire capital request the same way I looked at the Sheriff's budget yesterday, and that is that we can take 306,000 out of it. How he uses the balance of it is up to him; I don't know what his priorities are. But I would, I don't know if you want to make it a specific line item cut or just a dollar cut. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it should be specific there, considering we need to probably do some litigation on this issue if it's not solved. And I would hate to have anything that appears we're A, purchasing more and have further litigation; but B, rewarding a vendor that's not fulfilling their contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And should we get the answers we're looking for and we'd be in some type of crisis situation, we can do it out of reserves pending the result of litigation against Erickson to do what they said the contract would do. If, however, it has just been simply discretionary purchasing power in the Sheriff's Office, I mean, he's going to have to find it from somewhere else. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. DALY: Can I just ask for a little clarification of how we've gotten to the vendor's not performing? I don't quite understand this and I think maybe you've been given some misinformation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your point seems to me that they spent the money in another fashion, willingly -- MR. McNULTY: Still in the communications line, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The whole idea was to get radios to every officer. MR. DALY: The point on the vehicular chargers was, that in our contract it was not a specified item. It was a, you need some mobile chargers because some people might want them but we didn't have a definitive line item for that number. It was basically considered as an option in the contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Daly, if I can interrupt. MR. DALY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where we got to the point where we thought the vendor wasn't performing is from Ms. Kinzel about 10 minutes ago just before you came in the room COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because they cannot provide those mobile chargers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're only getting three hours out of it, is I think what we heard. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, that's not necessarily the issue right now. I think we've addressed the spending issue and if we need to get into that, that's appropriate for a Tuesday meeting. But I'd suggest whomever is the appropriate person from the Sheriff's Department and you get together and talk this over, because what you've said and what they have said hasn't been consistent. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's right. MR. DALY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So at this point, we have a removal of $306,600 under communication equipment. I hear Commissioner Constantine and myself. Who else is with -- Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's more than three. Okay. We have Relocation of Bureaus $277,600 and $100,000 in PC Replacement. Relocation of Bureaus, which one or ones are we talking about? MS. MYERS: This is part of Building A. It is our step to vacate the second floor, bureaus that are located there, and then some bureaus that are in A and J would also go to this off-site location. And then some bureaus from A or J that we are very cramped would go to first floor of A. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The off-site location that is proposed is an additional 30,000 square feet? MS. MYERS: Thirty thousand square feet at approximately $10 a square foot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is this space? MS. MYERS: Right now, we're currently looking, there is some space over in Gulfgate Plaza, and maybe at the newly purchased Naples Community Hospital I believe it was, at Grand Central Station area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've been in both Building A and J, and there is no question that it's a tad bit crowded in both those. However, I'm not sure -- I mean, 30,000 square feet is a lot of room. I'm not sure that it requires -- I mean, that's the kind of thing where every time government has space they grow into it rather rapidly and I just think 30,000 is excessive. You certainly need to have a little more elbow room between people, but I don't think you need 30 thousand square feet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. What is the square footage of the current administration section only of Building J? MS. MYERS: I can't answer that question. I can answer that both floors in A are 28,500 square feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total? MS. MYERS: Right. That building. We would totally vacate the second floor and still occupy part of the first floor and free up some space then from Building J. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Primarily then, it's almost like the entire two-thirds, three quarters of the existing administration is going somewhere else. MS. MYERS: Correct, of A, which is 28,500. So we're only asking for 30,000. That amount of people that are there would be moved to this new off-site location in the 30,000 square feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you would no longer be in A? MS. MYERS: No. We would still be in the first floor of A. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In all of it? MS. MYERS: No, first floor only. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's going to happen to the second floor? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't you say people from Building J would then move to the second floor? MS. MYERS: No, first floor. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Who's going to be on the second floor of A? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Kinzel, would you please come to the microphone, because otherwise '- MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel. Here is kind of what we are envisioning and quite frankly, Commissioners, we haven't had an opportunity to find the exact space that will accommodate which and what units. But theoretically, our idea is to move the investigative portions off of the second floor which includes our vice and narcotics, our persons and property investigations units, and move those off-site -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that would vacate 15,000 -- MS. MYERS: -- and also our YRD. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that would vacate 15,000 square feet, roughly, and you wouldn't put anything else in there. MS. KINZEL: No, we would, we would. I'm getting to that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Then part of the downstairs is occupied by your youth relations area. Most of them are out in the schools so we only have a small portion in the bottom section. What we would do then is take our intelligence and show cap elements that are on the first floor; those would go to the second floor. And then we're contemplating moving either a records section or some other section that's compatible out of J into A. That gives some growth room in J for other components, personnel, PRU investigators -- who else do we have up there -- property and evidence, that are compacted in the second floor of J. We also have a concern and it ties back into the court process and whether there's a renovation on that fourth floor. We currently have our civil division, as well as our judicial divisions, operating out of Building L. They did tell us when we moved in there that that was a temporary, quote, unquote, until they need the space. If, in fact, they don't get their expansion they'll probably be taking us out of there. So there's a lot up in the air as to exactly which units, but that's our plan right now, to shift. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you know the answer to Commissioner Norris's question? Do you know how many square feet of administrative space are used in Building J? MS. KINZEL: I have it written down in my office, but I don't remember off the top of my head. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 12,0007 15,0007 MS. KINZEL: I thought it was about 21,000, but I hate to say that. I don't know. I don't remember. I can get it back to you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I ask is, if that's 21 and over here is 28, that's a total of 49, and then we're asking for an additional 30 over and above that. MS. KINZEL: Right. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, that is nearly doubling or that's 75 percent of -- MS. KINZEL: Okay, let me remind you a little bit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 60 percent of, more than what you have currently. MS. KINZEL: Well, let me explain. In 1989, I believe you had a consultant study that already indicated we were at about a 12,000 square foot deficit at that time period. You also, when we want to go to rental space, we don't see that as a permanent situation; we hope that eventually the jail will be done, but we're looking at that at least at three to five years. Because even if we start on the jail next year, after the design phase, the construction phase, you're looking at a 3 to 5-year lease term. We have to then look at the growth elements over those 3 to 5 years. And we're not really talking about administrative. Mostly what we are looking to move are things that need to be expanded, like the investigative units, persons and property crimes, our intelligence unit -- what else is there -- crime scene is in the second floor of A. So we're looking at that already existing deficit where they are compacted in different areas, as well as a growth for three to five years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to suggest you are not crowded, because you are. I know the people over there are very, very uncomfortable and it's not conducive to good working conditions. My concern is the size of what you're looking for. MS. KINZEL: And actually -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And being in 49,000 now, being in roughly 50,000 square feet now, an additional 30 is just a big leap and I'm wondering if perhaps an additional -- MS. KINZEL: Well, I think it does sound like a lot on the surface because it did to us, too. But actually, what we're ending up with because of the limited space that's available throughout Collier County, we've actually found multiples of maybe 12,000 square feet here, 15,000 square feet here, and another 10 there. After you take out the common hallways, the bathrooms, what they refer to as circulation factors, that doesn't leave you 30,000 square feet of office or facilities type space. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's true in your existing office now, too. MS. KINZEL: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we look at that square footage, that includes, I hope, bathrooms, hallways and common areas. MS. KINZEL: Very small, very small. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know. I think two things are happening that have a material affect on this request and one is the campus space plan that we're working on. In the spring of next year, we're going to hopefully have a better picture of where we need to go long term. In the meantime, I also have the V-Group doing its jail needs study, which also will give us a better picture. Rather than adding a budget item that goes to a full 30,000 square feet, I'd like to see maybe two-thirds of that as a starting point, and wait until these studies come through and then if the need to expand is there, it will shape more clearly then. MS. KINZEL: We'll be fine with that, Commissioner, because obviously, we are working with you on all of those studies and space, and we don't want to spend any more money for rental space than is absolutely necessary. We don't enjoy the remote locations, we would rather keep our operations together. We do have a couple critical, one including the Immokalee location, that we do need to do. So we'll compromise that. We can get there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we do that and go with an additional 20,000 square feet, how does that impact -- there's a number here, 278,000 for new setup, moving some of the existing things around. I assume it shrinks that number some, as well. MS. KINZEL: Well, it shrinks it some, but we would probably still move around different elements. But if we don't use it, you know, we certainly -- if we don't need it, we certainly won't use it just to spend it. So you'll see that in your capital element for subsequent year's use in wherever we end up with in the space study for the campus. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we kind of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about the budget of this year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, budget collective, but frankly -- MS. KINZEL: If you want to compromise and say two-thirds of, that's considered two-thirds the space, I think that's fair and reasonable and we'll work with you on the space study. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Instead of 277,600, 180,0007 That's two-thirds. MS. KINZEL: Well, we'll work there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. KINZEL: We'll do what we can do there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that's 98,000, plus or minus. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 97,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, 97,600 less than requested, resulting in $180,000 for that. Any other questions on the Sheriff's capital requests? Seeing none, thank you. MS. KINZEL: Thank you and I'll try not to nod from the rear. I apologize. I should probably sit up here at the front. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was looking for your hand up her back. (Laughter) MS. MYERS: She wasn't doing rabbit ears, though, was she? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I promised I wouldn't tell. MS. MYERS: You wouldn't tell. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. MS. KINZEL: I was just thankful she made it through this bout with the budget workshops not delivering. She is nine months; she's due in two weeks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was afraid yesterday we were going to deliver a baby if things got too '- MS. KINZEL: Two years ago she did that to me and left me here. So we're just thankful we made it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are we done with general fund capital? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, we've only just begun. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've only just begun, my dear. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at this one page, thinking well, we got through that pretty good. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I didn't mean to break out in song there. (Laughter) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The brain drain continues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioners, the next area we'll be going into is on page A-138, which is the Parks Construction Fund, Fund 306. There are $355,000 in requests from the city. What's being requested from the general fund is $85,000 to balance the fund, which means if the Board were to opt to make cuts, we could first reduce the transfer from the general fund and then increase capital reserves in order to fund future projects. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion here on the city items. We've had this little thing going back and forth for a few months on beach parking and so on and so forth. What would probably make the most sense is obviously, your end taxpayer doesn't care which government entity paid for it, they just want to know that something's available to them and that they can go use it. What would probably be in our best interest is to, if on those items we choose to fund, is to have an interlocal agreement with the city for some period of time, that it's available to county residents, and beach parking, whatever those issues happen to be, for X-number of time, whatever the life of the capital project is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The only hesitation I'd have about that is I think, based on the communication we got from the Mayor like I think yesterday or the day before about the resolution of the beach parking issue, it would be a shame, I think, if we let county policies be driven by the unfortunate positions of at least a minority and probably a single City Council member. I don't think that we're at risk. I don't think those issues are at risk. I think the majority of the Council is telling us we're going to work together, we're going to have this joint committee on, you know, beach needs and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fund 80 percent of the lost revenues. That's the one that concerned me. I was real happy on that memo until I got to that third paragraph. It said since 81 percent of the stickers are county residents and 20 percent are the city, that we should refund them lost, potential lost revenues, 80 percent of what they'd lose out of the meters. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you can see where that started, but I think that we can discuss that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is this, Commissioner Hac'Kie. I think the majority of the City Council is going to be reasonable with us with this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But in five years on the Board, there have been at least three or four times where the city and the county have had disagreements of some proportion of different suggestions of you won't be able to use our facilities, or we won't pay for them, have gone back and forth, and that will happen again in the future. And the one way to just take that issue from ever happening again is to say okay, we'll pay for X park, we'll have an interlocal agreement saying county people can use that park. It doesn't penalize the city at all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course not. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They can use that for fill in the year, 15 years, 20 years, whatever the expected life of the capital improvement is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So instead of the two bodies standing across the river sniping at each other, you actually get together, talk about it and decide something. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's a good idea. I mean, I can go with it. I just want -- I have some hesitation in this, sorry, but it's my lawyer hat coming out. That if you have a contract -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Put it away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that says you're allowed to use Naples Landing and you don't have a contract that says you're allowed to use Lowdermilk Park, are you, I mean, therefore have you excluded yourself or weakened your ability to use a different facility? You know, do we have to prove that we've helped pay for something to have strong county rights to use it, and that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not at all, and I appreciate that concern. I just want to make sure we don't put money up for something and have county residents four years from now be told you can't use it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As has been suggested. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Both Naples Landing and beach parking were put on the table at one point by at least one councilman. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Keep in mind just one. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: More than one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, maybe two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree with that. The problem I have in looking at this, and help me understand on the budget request here, which is a total amount of 442,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, actually, 87-five is reserves. Actual project requests are 355,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And those project expenses come out of? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General ad valorem. MR. TINDALL: Well, only $85,000, as I said, would be needed to balance the fund. We also have $140,000 in carry forward; we have interest revenues and we have boat fees also anticipated for next year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Where is a breakdown of those project expenses totaling $355,000? MR. TINDALL: If you were to look in your reference book on page 186, we have a narrative description of the beach project. I can't say that we can necessarily break it down by specific dollar amounts per component, but perhaps Mr. Middleton from the county -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, we do have a representative from the City of Naples here, Mrs. Middleton. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I ask is, I got a letter -- and this is on Tuesday's agenda also -- about the county contributing at Naples Landing for certain types of improvements. And it's been at least alleged by at least one resident of the city that our funds are being diverted to things we did not originally approve. So whether that's valid or not is why I put it on the agenda for Tuesday, because we need to make a formal request of the city for an accounting to make sure that's not the case. But tying in with that, on this request I see some things here that this Board has never had the opportunity to discuss, and for a perfect example is the Pulling property. When the city accepted that property from John Pulling, there wasn't a letter, there wasn't a phone call, there wasn't a contact from the city to the county saying here are the plans, you know, what do you think of this. What happens is the city accepted the property and now is asking for funds, and we have not even been asked to sit at the table and discuss what the plans for that property are. So it's blind funding from our standpoint, and that's not the way we've done things in the past. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're totally correct. It reminds me of children spending their parents' money without asking them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't want that quote, John. You didn't mean that about children and parents. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Trying to help you out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are the superior level. MR. WORTH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that, please? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you may not. I'm talking. MR. WORTH: Excuse me, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You just wait until I'm done -- MR. WORTH: Excuse me, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and then you'll have your opportunity. MR. WORTH: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay? MR. WORTH: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's keep a little decorum in here. MR. WORTH: Apologize. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. If the City of Naples wants us to fund all their projects, why did they become a city in the first place? I mean, it's not -- one of the requests on here is to beautify a median at Central Avenue. I mean, come on, what are they talking about? If they are not -- they should disincorporate if they want the county to be funding everything for them. Let's have them do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Apparently I was wrong; you did mean it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right in that there are certain things that naturally lend themselves to both governmental bodies contributing, be it the beach parking or Naples Landing or those things. But when we get into median beautification on Central Ave. within the city, it's probably not appropriate. And just like anything that isn't a main thoroughfare, we expect the area to pay for. If you go over on Bayshore, that area pays for their own beautification, and the city probably should as well for Central Ave. And the Pulling property, I had the same question. I appreciate you raising that. There are some that are appropriate and there are some that clearly aren't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'm just looking at one, I see Fleischmann Park is on here. I have a question in that regard, because it talks about renovations to the community center, playgrounds, parking area, ball fields and landscaping. There was some time in the past that they talked about charging children who live in the county to play baseball, that were going to play in a league, that was going to use Fleischmann. And I have a concern if the county is paying dollars down there, then why are they turning around and charging these kids, if they are. Now maybe they're not. But there was some discussion about that sometime back. Is that true or is it not true? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before we get an answer on that, it gets better because they dissolved the adult softball league because there weren't enough city residents participating. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there is a different fee level for city versus county participation at all the city parks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, but not at county parks, just the city parks. So it kind of -- again, I read this on Fleischmann Park -- and I'm sorry if I'm intruding on your comments, Commissioner Berry -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: That's all right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But asking for $450,000, 50-50 funding, and it says in 1997 the master planning process will begin. This goes to my first statement, which is, we're going to fund a level of 50-50 for something that the master planning is just beginning. What is our input in master planning? Why do we see the dollar figure before we're asked if we want to come to the table and discuss the project? So if you could help me with that, because this seems a backward process. MR. TINDALL: Commissioner, could I interject one thing real quickly just for clarification? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I've been trying to ask him this question but, please. MR. TINDALL: Okay. Fleischmann Park is not part of the funding that's requested for FY '98. I just want to make sure everyone understands that. We included in here all the requests for '98 and the future years' requests also. They are not requesting those dollars until the year 2000. So it is part of the package they provided to us, but I wanted to make sure I included everything in here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. But the point -- I don't think it invalidates my point. MR. TINDALL: No, not at all. I just wanted to make sure everyone understood that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We're not spending it next year, I understand that; it's in the out years. But I'm just, again -- I'm curious about this process because it just seems backwards to me. Go ahead, please. MR. WORTH: Pardon me. Don Worth, Community Services Director. First of all, Mr. Norris, I apologize, sir, I should not have interrupted. I apologize for that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Quite all right. MR. WORTH: In reference to the question, the planning process, we agree that certainly we need a plan, we need to come to you and I think it's totally the City Manager and City Council's intent to do that. The property that was being purchased, or in this case, this property was donated by Mr. Pulling, and so we did not have the opportunity to develop a plan. We didn't have the property. The full intent is to develop the plan, and I can assure you it will be with your input. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to suggest a process that may resolve some of the budget questions here. When we have a county park, it goes through our Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, because they look at the totality dollars available in the out years, make priority rankings and then make recommendations to this Board, and we count on that process, very much like you have an advisory board that does the same thing. Before we see something in a budget or approve something in a budget, I believe it needs to run the course from someone from the city, if it's a city initiated project, making a presentation to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board before this Board gets a funding request for it. So those items that have not taken that course, I'm not comfortable stepping forward on a funding level at this point, simply because I don't know what the overall scheme of our dollars available in the capital funds are, not to mention general funds. So that's our process, and I just think that the two processes can dovetail and then we've got the joint project, a true joint project, as opposed to a dollar request for something we really don't have any knowledge of. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to hear a description, though, of the requested -- of the projects that they are requesting for the $85,000 of general revenue for this year; a description of which of those are this year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's fine. The dollars that would show up in this fiscal year -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you looking in the pages? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm looking on 186, but they're not all -- some of those are 2000, some of them are -- so I was just asking if you guys would mind describing what are the current year requested projects. MR. TINDALL: Commissioner MacwKie, therews really not a specific connection between a specific project and the ad valorem requested. There is a total of $355,000 in project requests. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Well, tell me what those are. MR. TINDALL: If you were to cut $85,000 from the total request, then the entire fund could be funded from carry forward, interest, et cetera, and we would not need to transfer from the general fund. Thatws really what that amounts to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what I'd really like to know is what is the $355,000 to be spent on? MR. WORTH: Okay. We could break that down by individual projects. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the Board's interested in knowing that, I'd like to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's all right here, I'm sure. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Mr. Worth? MR. WORTH: With your permission, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. WORTH: Actually, there are four different items. The first item shown is the Naples Landing Park. This would be our next phase from among the activities -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Tindall, I'm sorry to interrupt, but can you refer us to a page? We've got a different book than you, and then we'll be able to go along. COHMISSIONER BERRY: 192. MR. TINDALL: 192 for Naples Landing Park. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue, Mr. Worth. MR. WORTH: On the plan that the City Council, our City Council has before it, it would include from among the following activities: Some rip rap work, some hardscape pathways, some gazebos, a small playground, some landscaping, some additional parking. I believe that represents the total items, and also some viewing areas. In addition -- and I'm extending on out with the total project. In addition, we had tentatively envisioned in our plan the installation of a real small boathouse and some extension of the piers to facilitate the launching and sailing program that is operated out of that particular facility. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How are the improvements for the commercial launching, the commercial staging of materials, being funded? MR. WORTH: They are being funded from a combination of three sources: The county funds, a grant and city funds, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does anyone remember approving an expenditure for the commercial launching and staging of materials at Naples Landing? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is one of the I have a problem with. I remember approving for the park, for Naples Landing Park, because city and county residents use the boat launching facilities and the boat ramp, and so forth. But the commercial side? There was never an approval from this Board that I'm aware of that authorized any funds to go there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But not only was it not authorized from our funds, the city's matching funds -- we had done a split here -- and the city's matching funds, when we discussed it, the commercial side was never discussed. What the city was putting in was discussed in a park setting, and what we would match was a park setting. And it appears that a chunk of the city's matching portion went or is going toward commercial, and now we've just heard some of the county's money is being used for that. And that discussion never happened. MS. MIDDLETON: Hay I comment? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. MS. MIDDLETON: My name's Ann Middleton, and I'm the budget manager for the city. The interlocal agreement that was signed I believe in '94, $100,000 was for the park, 60,000 was for boat ramps and the city is matching that. In that interlocal agreement there was nothing in there that said that the city could not use their portion for the boat ramps, I mean, for the commercial -- I'm sorry -- and, you know, so it just kind of depends. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, as a courtesy at the very least, there was nothing either in writing or verbally said that the city would do anything with commercial. And I would think if you're asking someone to help invest in a project the legal paperwork is one thing, but we're trying to develop or maintain a relationship between the two governmental bodies here, and knowing what it is that's going to happen there is just a basic courtesy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understanding Mrs. Middleton doesn't set policy, she receives directives. So it does rest, I think, with the Council -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to honor the original agreement '- MS. MIDDLETON: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is to build the docks and boat ramps, a total of 320,000. Any commercial or other uses of that park they wish to fund, and which, by the way, will result in an increase in revenue for the city in the out years, is a stand-alone item. So, I'm going to flag the Phase I -- I personally am flagging the Phase I dollars until I get from the city a commitment that our dollars originally intended for the boat ramp specifically and the pier, the docking facilities specifically, are matched by the city and will go only to that. Otherwise, that agreement will have to be modified and will have an impact on this development. MS. MIDDLETON: Okay. That's fair. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one other thing, too, is that we could ask the city to forward to us our proportionate share of the income from the commercial dock. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think, agreed, if that's what the city wants to do, if they want to go that route instead. But we did have an original agreement of $160,000 for a specific purpose and I want to know that our dollars and their dollars are going there. Then I'll honor that original agreement. Then we can look at this phase. MS. MIDDLETON: Okay. Sir -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. MS. MIDDLETON: What we are going to do, this is on a reimbursement basis, so the city will pay the bills first, and then we will apply to you for the reimbursement. We can provide you with the detail of all the bills that we are paying so you can be assured that it will not be spent on the commercial docking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I want to be very clear. It's not just the section that came from us, but those matching funds, as well. MS. MIDDLETON: Sure. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That you likewise spend 160,000 on noncommercial. MS. MIDDLETON: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or that, at least, we don't spend more than you spend on noncommercial; we're matching. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's it exactly. MS. MIDDLETON: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay? MS. MIDDLETON: Fair. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I just need a commitment to that before I move on with any additional elements in the Naples Landing. MS. MIDDLETON: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Personally, I don't mean to speak for the Board. Is that okay? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And at a later time, I think we should explore Commissioner Norris's suggestion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What else is on this year's request? MR. WORTH: Also in this year's request, the second item is the beach ends. As the commission, I think, realizes, we have some approximately 40 beach ends that are in various states of disrepair, the walkover bridges, landscaping, benches, curb lines and other amenities that relate to those beach ends. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we develop a long-term interlocal agreement, so that we don't every year revisit the issue as to whether or not county permit parking will be allowed, then I think that's one of those where the county clearly should participate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Worth, how often is this magnitude of repair required of the beach ends? MR. WORTH: My time line here in the community is just a year now, but I think we've done it on a long, on an ongoing basis, and Ms. Middleton can correct me here. I think we've done it on an ongoing basis, but we really have not had a comprehensive program apparently for a number of years. So quite frankly, this is not even a drop in the bucket relative to the total need. We're going to do an assessment in the very near future to identify the total cost, but it's going to be a considerable cost to upgrade and do the maintenance-type activities that are necessary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But on each individual site, once the improvement is done, what's the anticipated life of that improvement? MR. WORTH: Well, similar to a discussion with your staff a little bit ago, it would range anywhere from perhaps five to 15 years, depending on the materials used and the conditions. I'm not trying to avoid the answer, sir, but I think in very general terms I think we can say five to 15 years. Because we're talking about wood; we're talking about things that need painting; we're talking about plant material. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we do come back to Mr. Constantine's point, which is, we already have the City Manager saying that there is a desire in county residents using beach parking in the year 2002, which is five years away. So if we're looking at improvements that extend beyond that, can't do it without an interlocal agreement, quite frankly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and just to put a slightly different spin on exactly the same set of facts, it just seems to me to be a perfect solution, or a perfect mechanism for a solution to the bigger problem. If the county is having this significant impact, and I think we are, on city beach ends, then we should be helping to pay for the maintenance on the city beach ends. Likewise, once we've paid it, we should be guaranteed access. So that may be the methodology for the solution to the bigger problem that's going to be studied for the next couple years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what we just said. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just having a hard time with these arguments, because when a city incorporates they must understand that they not only retain their obligations to fund things within the county, but that they are shouldering additional responsibilities for those things that are contained within the city. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a conscious choice. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a conscious choice, you're exactly right. And I don't see why the county should be required to step forward and start funding items that the city has declared that they are assuming the responsibility for. I'm having a hard time philosophically with a lot of this stuff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask, on a philosophical point, if county residents were not allowed to use Naples Landing, then see, I draw a use relationship there, because they do have the right or ability, before county dollars were expended, to exclude the use by county residents. So as long as county residents are welcome at the facility, then I think we look at a joint project. I think beach ends are the same way. As long as county residents have, you know, at least, you know, equal footing to park there as city residents, then we have a joint project and that's the only reason I consider any of these things. But the Fleischmann Park is a perfect example of where a program was deleted because there were too many county residents and not enough city residents. And when a hierarchy exists like that, then we no longer have equal footing and should not share in the costs. So I think it's a project by project relationship, depending on whether or not county residents are welcome to use the facilities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And guys, we also, as much as I don't want to have the discussion about power struggles, we also have to recognize that because the city has incorporated those streets are theirs under their control. And if we want to tell them go maintain your beach ends, we're not going to help pay for them, I think they likewise can say that's fine, but, you know, you're not parking county cars there. So because they in -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: For free. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For free. Because they have incorporated, they have that power, in addition. So let's not get into a power struggle. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anyone's suggesting anything different. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're dealing with a fiscal struggle -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as far as I know. Let's, again, I think we need to hold beach ends to wrap-up to determine whether or not there's interest on an interlocal agreement. Again, if we're going to spend county dollars in improvements, we want to ensure that county residents have the full enjoyment and use of those for the time the improvements are applicable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll kind of set that aside and we'll deal with that as we have a better answer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I wouldn't flag it as cut at this point, but I would say that until we have more information we're not going to commit to that funding level. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we concerned at all that what we may hear is keep your 50 thousand bucks and don't park at our beach ends anymore, you know? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, because they've always got that right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Be careful. MS. MIDDLETON: Hay I respond to that, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please. MS. MIDDLETON: We have signed an interlocal agreement and we have forwarded that out here to the county and we have not gotten that signed copy back. And it is my understanding that the sticker program that we have right now is in place until at least 2002. The county residents are guaranteed, you know, access to the beach ends until at least 2002, until we can resolve the usage factors that I believe the Mayor or the City Manager forwarded a letter to you yesterday suggesting that we form that joint committee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that we give you 38 thousand bucks additional. MS. MIDDLETON: That I wasn't aware of until you mentioned it this morning, so I apologize. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Paragraph three. MS. MIDDLETON: But now back to the beach ends, this is only for the improvement part of the beach ends. This does not count the general maintenance of the beach ends such as mowing, trimming, painting, all that will come out of our Community Services, Parks and Parkways operating budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except that we pay into that $170,000 a year. MS. MIDDLETON: That goes into the beach fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Separate from parks. MS. MIDDLETON: That's separate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand and appreciate the fact that there may be an agreement for another four years. But what we've just heard is these improvements may go as long as 15 years? And I would hate to pay for an improvement for 15 and then not have the residents use it after four. So I know we have different interlocal agreements now, but if we're going to enter into some sort of new expenditure, we'll need to also enter into a new agreement. MS. MIDDLETON: Okay. You know, as long as we can get that committee formed to find out what the needs are out there for the county and the city residents, I really don't see a problem. And this came from Dr. Woodruff, our City Manager himself. There should never been a problem with the county residents using the city beaches at all. As a matter of fact, we call them city beaches, but they are really Collier County's beaches; they're for everybody. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State beaches to the greatest degree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we hope that works out. But of course, the City Manager works for the council, and hopefully we'll hear that same statement from them, as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, I'm trying to remove this decision from the rhetoric into the fiscal side, because the rhetoric is just absolute garbage and unnecessary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and degrading. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The fiscal side is rather simple. If we're going to pay for 10 years of improvements, we want 10 years of use. I mean, it's pretty simple stuff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No-brainer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So I agree. I don't know if we need necessarily the committee to arrive at that, because it's common sense. I think the two, both the Commission and the Council can agree to that, and hopefully maybe get something in place that will qualify for the majority of these improvements. What else do we have making up the impacts to 3017 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's -- MR. WORTH: Oh, excuse me. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead, Mr. Worth. MR. WORTH: Thank you. The second Phase II item in Landing Park, quite frankly, that should have been rolled into the one request. MR. TINDALL: Page 193. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. WORTH: Those are the items I mentioned to you a few minutes ago in terms of the activity. The final item, the Pulling property, what was envisioned there would be a marine -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page? MR. TINDALL: Page 189. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 189. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 189, okay. MR. WORTH: What would be envisioned subject to the planning, which of course would involve the county, include the county, would be a marine park. And at this point, since the planning's not done, we can only surmise what might be. But there would be such types of items as either a power boat launching facility to complement the other facilities in the city and county, most likely a rowing facility, could be rowing storage, appropriate parking, and other ancillary services. It's likely there would be a small play area that would complement the marine facility. But there would be marine type activities, and in fact, that was part of the condition of deeding the property to the city by Mr. Pulling, but we'd work through that planning process with you or your staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sounds like a great idea, but not having had any communication to this point on it, I'm not really comfortable putting a commitment on it, and particularly as we look at the long-term. It says a total project cost of $900,000 is to be split 50-50 with the city and the county. So while this year's number is smaller, once the project gets started, it's hard to backtrack. And if we're looking at nearly half a million dollars long-term on this, I think the board probably needs so see more details before we commit any -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it should go through the Parks & Rec Advisory Board process -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- which would be a perfect way for us to begin this communication. MR. WORTH: That sounds fair and we appreciate that opportunity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those things that show no dollars in fiscal year '97 forecast are not providing an immediate fiscal impact, but you're asking for out year commitments; is that correct? MR. WORTH: Yes, sir, that was correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm pretty solid of a no on Central Avenue. I mean, that's just contrary to what we're doing with the beautification all over the county. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we being asked to look at those this year or are those just informational? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just hate to have an account on it if it's something we're not going to do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. I've removed Central Avenue. At this point, I would like to leave beach ends in with a flag, pending an interlocal agreement. Cambier Park Phase II, that needs to go through the Parks and Rec Advisory Board. And since it's not in '97, I want to pull that out entirely, until it goes through our Parks and Rec Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I am trying to actually summarize what we had talked about. Pulling property, same thing, pull it out entirely until it has a chance to go through Parks and Rec Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fleischmann. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fleischmann's out in the year 2000, so again, I think it's the same thing. You want to go through Parks and Rec Advisory, so that should be pulled out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The pier. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The pier has, this year, has $50,000 requested for this year. I haven't heard anyone talking about restricting the pier, so we can probably move ahead with that one. MS. MIDDLETON: Chairman Hancock, may I respond to that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, please. MS. MIDDLETON: We have found out that TDC will cover the expenditures at the pier, so we are not requesting funding for the Naples Pier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Delete that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll just delete that. Was that shown in our -- can we count that as a save, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was not part of the 355,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, we tried. Naples Landing Park Phase I, again, that's next year. That's in next year's dollars, so I'm saying Parks and Rec Advisory Board on that also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, which is that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Naples Landing Park Phase I. We have two questions. We have one that says what about the previous agreement and this affects next fiscal year; am I correct in that, Ms. Middleton? MS. MIDDLETON: Can I ask you a question? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. MS. MIDDLETON: Are you also talking about us going to the Parks and Rec Board on the 160,000 interlocal? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. MS. MIDDLETON: Just the additional? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We've already made that commitment. We just want to make sure the commitment's the same today as it was when we made it. MS. MIDDLETON: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we're talking about the, what you have listed as Phase I is $220,000 in fiscal year 1998. That needs to go through Parks and Rec Advisory Board, I think. MS. MIDDLETON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that agreed upon? Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the only thing we are leaving in out of the general are the beach ends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The rest will run through the parks process, Central Ave. we wouldn't do, and so on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. That's what I have. Beach ends stays in, everything else needs to go through the course of Parks and Rec Advisory Board to look at it holistically for what dollars are available. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought the Naples Landing stayed in with the assurance that it wasn't being spent on commercial and they were matching the 160. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We're going to see it next year because they are talking about fiscal year '98 plan; is that correct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the budget year we're working on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the budget year we're in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm a little confused. We have fiscal year '97 and we have fiscal year 1998 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those are -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and they are one and the same. MS. MIDDLETON: I think what they were trying to do is show the total cost for the project there. The 160 is money you all have already committed -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MS. MIDDLETON: -- we have matched, and as a matter of fact, we've already started the construction on that. But the 220 was in addition to. Now I have a question, and this might be for Mike or Phil, if we pump this and then take it to your Parks and Rec Advisory Board, is it going to be pulled out of the '98 fiscal year request or -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, my question '- MS. MIDDLETON: -- can we keep it in as a request until September? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The way this is set up is a little different than we do it, because you have fiscal year '97 forecast and fiscal year '98. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That is our stuff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we did this? Well, it's a little confusing, because everything else has been '97-'98 fiscal year. Why do we have '97 and '98 listed in separate columns? MR. TINDALL: Well, when we refer to the term '97-'98, what we really mean is '98. FY '97 is FY '96-'97. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: 1997. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you're talking about the end of the year -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- when it says fiscal year '97? Okay. MR. TINDALL: $160,000 for Naples Landing Park refers to the current fiscal year that we're in right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So this 220 was included in the 335? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. TINDALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't mind keeping it in, but I'm going to flag it until it goes through Parks and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It needs to stay in, guys, so that it's budgeted and it can go through Parks and Rec and then we'll approve the actual expenditure at some point. But we need to not cut it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can leave it in and if it's not verified as far as the city-county even expenditures we've already discussed, we could remove it. Or if Parks and Rec didn't approve it, we could remove it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll leave it in for budget purposes, then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That and the beach ends are staying in for this year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everything else goes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Naples Landing Park Phase II is the same thing funding-wise, if I'm reading it correctly. And that you're seeking $60,000 in this coming fiscal year. So I think in fairness it, too -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just cut that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, it just stays in under the same deal. And, you guys, I hope Hike can give us a calculation. Obviously, our priority here is going to be the least amount of ad valorem as possible. So we may be, with the changes we made, if there was only an 85,000 ad valorem hit, we may be eliminating that altogether, if what we end up with is Naples Landing Phase I and II and the beach ends. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm thinking the city has decided to do Phase II in the same fiscal year. I think if we were doing it, we'd push it to the next fiscal year. So I'd like to remove it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With the understanding we're probably going to see it next year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can live with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So let's remove Phase II, the $60,000 with expectations of having that reviewed through Parks and Rec Advisory Board during our next fiscal year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Reasonable. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How can you have Phase I and II in the same year? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Worth was saying that it probably should have been together. Let's try and wrap this up, since we're getting past the noon hour. Is there anything else in that section? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Overall, there was $85,0000 in ad valorem requested. We're going to show a reduction of 60. That would fund the balance of those projects pending resolution with PARAB, et cetera, for purposes of ongoing tally here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's good. So we got to cut 60 and left everything you needed in there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, and our Parks and Rec Advisory Board are going to be getting a lot of information in the future. MR. WORTH: Thank you for your attention. We appreciate it very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you for your time. Let's take a recess. We started a little late. Let's go to 10 after one. (A luncheon recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good afternoon. We are going to reconvene the board's budget workshop. Mr. Smy -- Smykowski. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I didn't have a single thing to drink for lunch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, sure. Iced tea, I saw you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have a few more capital funds that are supported by general fund to discuss, and that will conclude the general fund discussion. We're going to start with storm water management, I believe, followed by the -- MR. TINDALL: Museum. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- museum, library and Airport Authority, and that will conclude again. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Page numbers. MR. TINDALL: Okay, sir. We are going to be on Page A-140. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a new court reporter, so name, please. MR. TINDALL: Sorry. Phil Tindall for the record from the budget office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said "A .... MR. TINDALL: One four zero. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. TINDALL: And the storm water management capital fund, as you can see, there are over six million dollars in project requests, most of which is contributable to the Lely project which Mr. Smykowski discussed yesterday during the overview. The ad valorem requested to -- as the part to fund the capital projects included the $729,000 from the HSTD general fund that Mr. Smykowski talked about for the Lely project, and also, 791,700 that would be transferred from the general fund to support the balance of the projects which, if you go to the spread sheet on the next page, that's -- in the bottom right-hand corner, that's the bottom line in terms of the ad valorem support, and once again, if we go down the far right-hand column -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which is ironically down. I expected it to be actually up this year with the size of the project. Is that simply revenues due to other projects are coming in or contributions from other projects? MR. BOLDT: We have a small amount of carry forward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name. MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, storm water management director. We do have a carry forward, a nominal amount, a slightly less than a half a million dollars which took a little bit out of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions on storm water management from the board? (No response). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll move on. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you, commissioners. MR. TINDALL: The next area we'll be going into is the museum capital improvement fund, Fund 314. There are a total of eighty-one thousand five in project requests from Mr. Jamro, and he's here to answer any questions you might have, and we do have it broken down at the bottom of Page 142 as far as the individual project dollars that are being requested under the FY 97/98 proposed column there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I don't see, Mr. Jamro, is the check received from Mr. Dudley, Senator Dudley under revenues. Is that because it falls under this current fiscal year as opposed to next year? MR. JAMRO: Good afternoon, commissioners. Ron Jamro, your museum director. That is a separate project entirely. That's under the grant funding for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's it going to be spent on? MR. JAMRO: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What will that grant money be spent on? MR. JAMRO: The rehabilitation and tense of the Everglades City laundry as a regional history museum. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that had no requested funds in this year's budget? MR. JAMRO: No. Well, I take that back. We have a small operating fund in there and also an employee for you to consider. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. I meant in the capital, so we are clear. MR. JAMRO: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- unfortunately, Commissioner Constantine is not here. I know he had some questions, because on his list, he had the lecture hall improvements as something he wanted to discuss. Can you kind of give us an overview of the lecture hall improvements? MR. JAMRO: Would be happy to. It's really not -- well, it's an improvement. It's more of a completion to tell you the truth. We've been using a building for two and a half years that we never really finished the interior of. I think all of you have had meetings over there and can attest to the fact that the lighting, the acoustics are very bad. The air conditioning goes on, you can't hear the lecture. It is the departure point for many of our tours and public programs, and we really do need to address those issues if we can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I -- we have actually put that off in the past, and particularly, last year -- was last year the first time it was requested or the second time? MR. JAMRO: I don't recall, commissioner. I think we may have skipped a year there and just sort of muddled through. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We put that off, and the events we've had in there, yeah, the sound is pretty lousy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I think this is way past due, and they've been patient, and they've done enough private work that this is an appropriate expense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions on the museum budget as being presented? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Jamro. MR. JAMRO: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Anything new at the museum? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. JAMRO: What's new that's old. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another really good pun from Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. TINDALL: Commissioners, next we'll be going into the library capital improvement fund, Fund 307. Mr. Jones has requested $250,000 primarily for funding publications, periodicals, et cetera, and he's here to discuss any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My opinion is next. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Next. Thank you. Keep up the good work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was worth sitting here all morning, wasn't it, John? MR. JONES: Oh, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jones gives such persuasive presentations. MR. JONES: Sometimes being quiet really works throughout the day. MR. TINDALL: On Page A-145, as you can see from the people coming up to the table, will be going into the Airport Authority request for general funds supported capital. Total dollars requested in terms of the general fund match for projects was requested at 959,000, and none of which are being forwarded to you as being recommended from the county administrator. All that we are showing here in terms of funding from the general fund is 94,600 which would serve to meet the current debt service requirements. MR. DRURY: For the record, John Drury, executive director for the Collier County Airport Authority. I am looking at Page A-145, and I'll go through each project and describe them to you for your consideration. I've also handed out a little chart that kind of breaks out our projects. Before you is a request to accept $1,173,000 in grant money to construct revenue producing facilities, take care of the safety violations, environmental issues and storm drainage issues at the airports. The total capital cost is 1,947,000, and the grant match request is 773,000. The bolt -- bulk of the overall program is twofold. One is to create revenue producing -- revenue producers to become self-sufficient consistent with our business plan, and the other is to help diversify the economy of Immokalee. With that, I'm going to go ahead and identify each of the projects and list them for you, and I'm going to put them in our sort of list of priorities, and I'm going to start with the Immokalee Regional Airport which is the first block on that page. The first one is a manufacturing incubator facility. The total amount for that is 500,000. We have secured a 251,000 USDA grant for that project. We are also in the process of negotiating a tenant to occupy it and four or five businesses to move in there and start manufacturing operations. This is a 50/50 grant. Our second one is aircraft T-Hangars. We have a waiting list in excess of what we can accommodate. We are proposing ten T-Hangars. Again, this would be a revenue producer, and the grant for that one that we've secured is 145,000. The grant match is one hundred sixty-five, and that's a 47 percent grant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On that one, Mr. Drury, are we regulated as to what we can charge for space at those T-Hangars? MR. DRURY: Yes, we can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: See, that's the problem, because we can charge a lot more than what we are getting right now based on the waiting list, but we canwt do it because of the grant; is that correct? MR. DRURY: Oh, Iwm sorry. No, we are not regulated on what we can charge. We started out at one fee. We just increased it again, and we were going to keep increasing it every year. One of the problems wewve had with Immokalee is location, location, location. A lot of the folks that are moving out to Immokalee are coming from the Fort Myers area, and -- where itws high rent district and coming out to Immokalee because wewve lowered the prices to get activity there, not just for the revenues of the T-Hangars but for the fuel sales. As all of these aircraft come to our airport, they buy fuel, and then we see two revenues increase. We had an attractive price our first year. We raised it our second year, and we will continue to raise it. We canwt charge the same price as the Gulf Coast can because these folks make a decision, do I want to drive out to Immokalee to get in my airplane, whatws the price differential, or do I want to just keep my airplane at Naples or at -- at -- at Page Field and not have to worry about driving, and itws one of those things, the elasticity of demand. I mean, we continually try to look at how high can we get before they say Iwm not driving out there, but the answer to your question, it is not regulated. The authority sets the prices. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize. Iwm a little confused. Iwve -- Iwve heard grants referred to, and when I look here, wewve got them listed as loans so -- MR. DRURY: Let me explain that. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- letws find out whatws the most appropriate term there. Are they grants or are they loans? MR. DRURY: They are grants, but what we do is -- they are reimbursable grants from various -- EDA, USDA and federal depart -- DOT. What we do is we utilize the pooled commercial loan program, and we borrow that money to build a project, and as the grantws dollars come in, we pay back the pooled commercial loan program. So, here itws titled as loan proceeds. I donwt know if thatws a good way of explaining it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fair. MR. DRURY: Does that make sense? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The reimbursement grants, we would borrow up front. When the project is in the ground, we get the reimbursement grant, and that pays the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: So, they are grants. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- principal on the commercial paper. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. That was confusing. MR. HcNEES: But some of what is identified as loan is loan, right? Not everything that's in this loan proceeds column is grant money? MR. DRURY: It's all grants. We've spent a year securing these grants. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you have $652,000 of grant money for Immokalee if we will spend $497,000 in Immokalee? MR. DRURY: That is correct. We've secured a total of 1.1 million dollars in grants. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we expend 865,000? MR. DRURY: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me go to what has been recommended by the county administrator's office, and that is in the amount of 94,600. Mr. McNees, can you give us the rationale for arriving at that amount? MR. DRURY: That's the interest due. In other words, no projects have been recommended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That was his interest. He's just recommending debt service but no new projects. MR. McNEES: Overall, my thinking was, when we are not funding ambulances that we need, some of these other items seen from our point of view to be lower priority, actually, my thinking is, this is a call you all have to make. That's why we are showing you all of the items on the page. In particular, in a couple of items, the T-Hangars, for example, looking at the revenue that they generate -- and I didn't quite understand it. If there's a waiting list, that the elasticity argument made any sense because if one -- if a little bit of increase in the rate causes the demand to go away, there wouldn't be a waiting list. It would be at even, but the point with the T-Hangars with the revenues they were willing to budget from, it was a 25 year payback, ignoring the interest factor. So, just from a business standpoint, it was hard for me to recommend that you all spend money to build T-Hangars that, when you calculate the interest factor, it was going to be a 30, 35 year payback on your money. MR. DRURY: That is not correct. MR. McNEES: Those -- that analysis was based on the numbers Mr. Drury gave me in our budget discussion when I asked what the rent would be on them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I pulled out -- MR. McNEES: So, if that has changed, that's good. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, the reason I pulled out T-Hangars specifically is this should be a no brainer. If there's a need for T-Hangars and there's a cost the market will absorb and will take, we can look at what revenues can be produced -- I mean, this isn't -- this isn't like the, you know, economic development incentives where you have to trust a little bit that what you are doing is going to produce in the out years. This is very real dollars. This is construction time and payback amount. So, that's why I wanted to look at those individually, and that's why I asked about, are we charging as much as we could charge and still bring revenue in. So -- MR. DRURY: I think we can charge more, and -- and we will charge more, and every year, we do charge more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let -- let me ask this question. If we were to build the T-Hangars at Marco Island and Immokalee based on the first year revenues projected from both increased fuel sales and rents, what money are you looking for in the form of a loan from this board, because that's -- in essence, all the transfers from general fund are, in fact, loans to you? MR. DRURY: That's correct, they are loans plus interest that would be paid back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One sixty-five for Immokalee and one sixty-eight -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can read what's on the sheet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm asking -- MR. DRURY: Is our revenue? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is I want to know, if fuel sales are going to go up -- MR. DRURY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and you can charge a little more for the T-Hangar rental, on those two items alone, what would this board have to loan you in order to construct those? Is -- is that the number you have given me on this sheet? MR. DRURY: That is correct. In order to construct these hangars, the Immokalee one, it's going to cost us 310,000, and we have secured a 145,000 grant. The board would have to throw -- kick in 165,000. We -- the return on -- the day that those hangars are completed and filled, we make $13,200 per year at the current rate, and that takes about 12.5 years to amortize that portion of that investment off. MR. McNEES: That is your portion, but -- MR. DRURY: Correct. MR. McNEES: -- we are also spending 170,000 of somebody's grant money, and that is the total investment. MR. DRURY: The grant doesn't have to be paid back. The county, we do have to pay back the county money, and that does not include all of the fuel sales that will go along with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my question. I just did the math Mr. McNees did when -- when it went through -- and when you say 13,200 a year, I look at the amount the board would put out for those two T-Hangars, and it takes 25 years for that amount to total -- MR. DRURY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the board's initial investment. MR. DRURY: I just did the Immokalee Airport. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. DRURY: The Marco Airport is 13,680 per year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we're down to twelve, twelve and a half years on rents alone. MR. DRURY: Right, 12 years to amortize that cost if we kept the rate currently where it's at and we did not include the fuel revenue that will be generated as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Best case scenario, ten years on those alone. Now, fuel sales, we've already looked at. They were in yesterday's budget; not a big -- not a big increase. Were they anticipating these hangars or not? MR. DRURY: We have shown an increase in the number of gallons we'll be selling at all the airports, and in that calculation of increase, we basically took the assumption that we would have more aircraft coming to our airport, and I don't know that we got specifically into how many were going to be based there and what they would purchase. We mainly did a trend of what we've seen over the last three years, and we are continuing that trend. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, is that a yes or a no to his question? MR. DRURY: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that a yes or a no. MR. DRURY: That would be a no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, let's bump the revenues. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I'm looking at then is really -- when we look at these individually, I don't have a complete financial picture. MR. DRURY: If I could just go through each project, tell you what they're about and then would that help? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's why I took T-Hangars first because I know what a T-Hangar is. I know what they do, and I'm trying to -- MR. DRURY: It's a revenue producer, and it's mainly geared to break even -- you know, our plan is we build revenue producers so that we can break even in that year ten, and that's what the whole plan is based on, and then what we do is we get millions of dollars of grants. I think we are up to eight million -- seven or eight million dollars in the three years we've been in business that we don't have to pay back, and what we ask for is either a 20 percent share or a 50 percent share from the board to set us up so that in year ten, hopefully year seven or five, which is what we're trying to push it down, we will be self-sufficient. That is based on constructing revenue producers, and that's why the chart shows you that 80 percent of what we construct out there are revenue producers, not -- and the other ones are safety related and things of that nature. MR. HcNEES: Commissioner, here was our thinking a little bit, and let's take the T-Hangar in a vacuum. Let's say there's no other money that you're contributing to the Airport Authority. They are saying that if you'll spend 150,000 on a T-Hangar, and if we could take the revenue directly and give it back to you, which is not what's being proposed, but let's say that we could, in ten years, you'll have your money back. We haven't increased the fuel revenue budget for those ten new planes, and then they have, frankly, resisted raising the revenue budget in that way. So, what you've done is you've built ten T-Hangars, and in ten years you've got your money back, but you need that 150,000 today for other things. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You see, he's making a really valid point that even -- the concept of what you're saying about -- that we have to let you build these revenue generators or you're not going to make your ten year break even, I don't want to get in the way of that concept. However, neither do I want to like run on a treadmill, and this one, for example, doesn't sound like it gets you anywhere to the good. It sounds like you spend money and you get it back even dollars in ten years, and if that's not the case, then show more revenues because the math looks like you're even in ten years on this expenditure. MR. DRURY: Well, I think it's not -- to me, it's all of a sudden, the day those hangars are constructed, I've got $30,000 of income I didn't have last year. So, when I come in here next year, and I ask for the break even need, you're going to see $30,000 down. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But your debt is higher, your debt to the county is higher. MR. DRURY: Our debt is higher, that's true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, how have we made any progress in our goal of getting you out of the county -- out of county budget in ten years? MR. DRURY: As those revenues increase -- like our manufacturing incubator facility will show a twenty-five to $30,000 income. As we -- as we get into year six or seven when we break even, because we also have these revenues, we have this large debt that we must continue to pay for plus interest. So, yeah, the debt will grow, and we owe -- we owe that, but we are -- if we don't build the revenue producers, I can't shrink the amount that we need from this board every year. I don't know if that makes sense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see that. I understand that. MR. DRURY: But you're correct. In the long term, there will be this debt that needs to be paid. The idea is, as we build manufacturing facilities, other large manufacturing companies will come in. One of our things is an all weather station to be able to accommodate Federal Express, UPS and cargo aircraft. If we build this basic infrastructure, it generates -- these are like economic engines. They bring others to us, and then we are in a better position to pay back the long-term loans. It's like the Fort Myers Airport when it was first thought up. Three counties were supposed to go into it for a million dollars or so. A lot of -- the two -- the -- Charlotte and Collier County and Lee, and they all agreed to go in on it, and at the very end, after supporting the project, it came to budget times and things of this nature, looking at it annually, and Charlotte and Collier pulled out. The director up there told me that had we stuck with the project, they would have been paying you all back. Well, a lot of people said, well, that project was too -- too -- too much of a white elephant. You'll never be able to build a big airport like that. Well, today, it's an international airport, and it's a cash cow, and it did very, very well. Here, we've had a program for three years where we've tried to invest in helping the economy of Immokalee, create an infrastructure that would bring in new industry and diversify that all agricultural economy, and it's going to take some building of these things to get it done, and I'm getting the feeling that we were heading this way, and on year three, we are doing one of these again, and you have set this up differently than, say, Naples did with their community where when this all works and we do get these companies out there and we have got all these revenue producers, that you are going to get paid back with interest. That's been the plan from day one. That's what was in the business plan, and we are really just following through on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, I know what you're trying to do is generate activity, and that will build on itself, particularly at the Immokalee facility, but I think the concern is we are not showing any further revenue sources from that activity. We are not showing extra fuel sales. We are not showing -- as a result of building the T-Hangars or generating more activity, and I think that's what we are asking for. If it's strictly, build the T-Hangars, get a ten year life out of them, at which time we'll probably need to do some maintenance and put more money in, I don't know that that's a strong sell. If it's gee, we can expect an extra 50,000 a year or 80,000 a year in fuel sales, then it becomes something that maybe makes some sense, and -- and I think that's what we are struggling with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have to admit, the last two years, as we've gone through the Airport Authority's budget, I've more or less been a part of a blind approval. You know, there's an element of trust, that we made a commitment; we are moving in the right direction and so forth. There's nothing you have done that has eroded my faith in your ability to pay it off in ten years, but it's like anything else, as you become more familiar with it, you also become more familiar with the potential pitfalls. MR. DRURY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as I look at a, quote/unquote, business plan, I expect to see the things that we've discussed up here, and I know Ms. Leamet hasn't been on staff very long, but when we're going to -- when you're going to come to us, the bank, and ask for additional loan amounts, we need an additional commitment that is commensurate on your side to see that -- that target move, to see that target come closer or see that target grow larger as far as revenues go. That's not being presented to us. It's still a little bit of a blind faith approach, and one year, maybe; two years, sketchy; third year doing the same thing, I start to feel like I'm not doing my job for the citizens of this community because I can't tell them when they are going to get this back, why they're going to -- I don't have all the answers, Mr. Drury, and that's where you're a little different than EMS or other things. MR. DRURY: I think there's two things here. One is, if we build the revenue producing facilities, you're going to see the break even need by this board go down, down, down, down. I mean, it's real dollars. Those hangars get built -- the day those hangars are built, they are filled, our budget request should drop down by thirty-five, $40,000 per year. When the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One second, I want to be sure I understand the point. The payback for the capital costs associated with building the hangars still has that ten year life, but what you're saying is that if you make thirty grand or fifty grand off of new T-Hangars, next year, that $500,000 spread that's so scary -- MR. DRURY: Just went down by thirty, and it's because it's not costing us anything to manage those. The manufacturing incubator facility is going to bring twenty-five to 30,000 a year. All of a sudden, that 500,000 request goes down -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Shrinking again. MR. DRURY: -- another 30,000. Every revenue producer that we build, shrink, shrink, shrink, shrink, shrink until one day we come in here and we say, we don't need any money. We now owe you money. Now, the amount we owe you is larger and longer -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. DRURY: -- and that's -- you know, that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the bad news. MR. DRURY: -- that's -- well, it's good for you, I mean, in that you're going to be getting a check from the authority. You don't get one from Fort Myers, and the City of Naples doesn't get one from Naples -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's better than how most airports work, but it's not really better from the perspective of I'll gladly pay you Tuesday -- MR. DRURY: You're putting -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for a hamburger today. MR. DRURY: You're putting your money in an interest bearing account. If you had taken that money and put it in your normal CD account, you're still getting 5 percent. Instead of putting it into an interest bearing account in Tallahassee, which is what you could do with it and get 5 percent, you're putting it into your own county, your own airports as sort of a long-term CD, if you will, and you're going to get additional benefits, which is the economic impact of what it's going to do to create jobs and help -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Except I've got to collect it before I can put it into that account. MR. DRURY: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me see if this will help the board any. Tell us whether you are on track with what you told us the first day you came in to talk about this, this business, and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three years ago. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you told us three years ago, two, three years ago, whenever it was, that you were going to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1978. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- do all these things over time and start bringing in the money. That connotates two things. You -- you've told us what you were going to build and how much money you were going to need to do it and how much grants you were going to do. You did a good job telling us all that. Now, the other side of that is the revenues. Are the revenues tracking where you thought they would track. If -- if -- if everybody is on track on this thing and you're saying that this is simply a continuation of what you told us the very first day, then that's one thing. If -- if this is something new that was not contemplated on that very first day, then that's a different situation. MR. DRURY: The answer to your question is yes, we are on track. I think the graph I gave you yesterday shows you our plan and then it shows you the actuals of where we actually are. There's another different colored line that shows what's occurring on revenues and what's occurring on expenses, and we're -- we're a little bit either left or right of the track, but we are on track. If you look at our revenue percent increases this year, we are showing 35 percent revenue increases, 40 percent revenue increases, 100 percent revenue increase at Everglades. In other words, our revenues are going up. Our expenses are going up. They are following that track, and we are now putting in -- we are continuing to build the infrastructure that will keep us at that track, and as Mr. Hancock said, squeeze that break-even need. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask -- MR. DRURY: If we can't put revenue producers up -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One more -- one more follow up on this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out loud, please. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I was just trying to see how to say it, but -- if everything is on track then, what happens to the original plan and the money we put in so far if we don't continue? Where do you go from there? MR. DRURY: Well, it stretches out our payback time. I mean, instead of being able to -- if we don't have revenue producers -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Suppose you don't get your funding this year, you're going to have to wait until next year, what happens to your grants that you've got spoken for now? MR. DRURY: They will go to probably Orlando Airport or Fort Myers or -- I mean, we are competing with these other airports. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Will they be forever lost to you though or could you -- MR. DRURY: Oh, yeah, they'd be gone. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You cannot get them back next year? MR. DRURY: I would have to go through the process again, and depending on what -- what -- how they were going to fund airports that year and set the -- reset the priorities. Right now, these are committed for Collier County for this coming year. If I go back up to Tallahassee and say, thank you, but we are not ready to come up with our match, they will take those funds and give them to other airports that are interested in building them up. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I understand that -- the objection to putting good money after bad, but I also understand that on a long-term start up business like this, that once you commit, you're committed, and you need to continue. So, that's what I have to offer the board to consider. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a good point, and I think along that line, what -- what would we -- what should we expect for capital requests next year and the year after or is there a point here where that tapers off? When you used your explanation to Commissioner Mac'Kie -- MR. DRURY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we'll have 30,000 less in operating expenses for next year, will we see less -- MR. DRURY: You should expect -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in capital requests? MR. DRURY: You should expect reductions -- you should expect reductions every year. I've told you that we were planning year five to see the curve come down, all the way to your ten. I have brought in financial people to try to squeeze that for you, and it is my goal to come in here with reductions next year. I can't -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: His question was -- directed not at operating but at capital requests. MR. DRURY: Yes. The answer is yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what projects do you expect to see on the docket for next year or the year after? I'm looking for kind of a specific answer. MR. DRURY: You'll see more hangars. You'll -- you'll see -- you won't see a manufacturing incubator facility -- I mean, the reason we're building that is to get, right now, the confidence level in the manufacturing community world -- nationwide is not strong for Immokalee because when I bring them out there, they say, show me the first -- are we the first ones. By putting the incubator facility in there and it -- manufacturing actually occurring, I can bring clients in there and say, we've already got them available. So, you won't see a manufacturing incubator facility. You will see -- you will see T-Hangars. Anything that's a revenue producer that we can get a grant for of 50 percent or larger, I would ask you to consider building it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other question I have, and I said this before, and perhaps it was a statement rather than a question then, but I mentioned -- I understand what you're doing and where you're trying to go and that you expect to generate other revenue by having these T-Hangars, not simply have a T-Hangar to pay for a T-Hangar. What revenues specifically do you anticipate creating by building and filling the T-Hangars? MR. DRURY: Fuel. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dollar amount? MR. DRURY: We don't have a specific dollar amount. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ten dollars, $100, $10,0007 MR. DRURY: I would say -- I would say -- I mean, it's hard to put a number because -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Give it a shot, though. MR. DRURY: -- it depends on -- we'll say 5,000. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Annually? MR. DRURY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Per hangar? MR. DRURY: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Total. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Per airport? MR. DRURY: Uh-huh, and that's conservative because I have to look at each individual tenant. Some people are weekend warriors. They just fly on the weekend. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. MR. DRURY: Some people run it for a business. I have to look at each tenant and say, is this a business operator. He flies it every day. He goes to Tallahassee. He's a -- he's a -- he's an agricultural guy, and he's negotiating and lobbying for whatever. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you're giving him priority on space because he's going to buy a lot of fuel? MR. DRURY: If he's got a twin engine aircraft, we'll look at how many gallons that is, and then we'll -- right, we would -- the answer is yes. If he's a weekend warrior, it's going to be little, and I don't know who's in, you know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we expect to raise any revenue in any other manner as a direct result of this? MR. DRURY: Small ones; merchandise sale, vending machines, oil, Prist, which is a jet fuel additive and things of that nature. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total non-rental revenue you would expect to bring in for the airport annually would equal what? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Associated with the new T-Hangars? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. DRURY: Six or seven per air -- per T-Hangar. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Per airport? MR. DRURY: Per airport. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Drury, if we were to -- and this is a hypothetical. Don't try to read into it. Just try and give me an answer. MR. DRURY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we were to stop -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If a train leaves Cleveland at three o'clock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If an African swallow is flying south at three miles an hour, what color is it? If we were to cease commitments to future capital construction, in other words, you have what you have now and nothing more, would you write us a check next year? In other words, are you operating cost right now of what has been constructed versus fuel sales and other revenues? Are you operating? MR. DRURY: The answer is no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What is the deficit amount; the revenues you're bringing in versus -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the rent? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- what you're paying back on the books? MR. DRURY: This year, four hundred eighty -- $485,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yesterday's budget amount? MR. DRURY: That's correct, and next year, it should be thirty, $60,000 less than that because -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If -- MR. DRURY: And then the year after -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If we approve $700,000 worth of capital? MR. DRURY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question about some particular items under the 700,000 when you're ready. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, maybe you know where I'm going. I don't, because -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, how does that change if we don't have control over it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- if -- if we are getting 30,000 per year additional based on this but we are throwing 700,000 at it, that's 21 years to get that, just that one year out, because next year, there's more investment, and so it comes down another 30,000 a year the following year. Well, that investment has 21 years attached to it. I'm not seeing the gap closing. I'm seeing a constant gap. MR. DRURY: And you're going to see the gap -- all of these are revenue producers. You're going to see our request for funding every year go down. What you will see is the loan -- you're -- you're -- you're -- that the loan you're giving the authority get larger, and that's what you're looking at, that that loan is getting larger, and it means that the authority will be writing you checks for a longer period of time instead of writing you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think the important factor is, is sometimes, in my mind anyway, I get confused. I get fantasizing that the debt will be repaid in ten years. The fact is, the debt will begin to be repaid in ten years, and that's real -- instead of it will be paid in ten years, they will promise to start repaying it. MR. DRURY: Start repaying in 10 years, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, and as we put more into it, it means we owe you more money, longer periods of time and higher interest rate. I mean, it goes longer. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was always the deal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was the deal -- MR. DRURY: That was the deal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and everybody knew that, and I don't want us backing out of another airport deal. We messed up once, and now this one is just ours -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We didn't mess up anything. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. MR. DRURY: No. You all had the vision really to set it up so you'd get paid back. Naples never did that. Fort Myers never did that. Charlotte County never did that, and they're all back there now, you can see it at Naples, saying we want some of that money. Can't do it. Federal law doesn't allow you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At least we get our money and interest back. MR. DRURY: Yes, you do, and you get the largest county in the United States east of the Mississippi with -- when I first came here, virtually no airports. You all now have airports, and you're building them up. That's a long time investment for Collier County. It's long-term planning and vision for bringing in new industry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm personally sold on revenue producing, on those items, all of those. I don't know what the safety issues are as far as obstruction removal versus mangrove cutting. What's the difference? MR. DRURY: The obstruction removal in Immokalee is because the airport was neglected for 50 years, we had -- scrub oak was allowed to grow in between two intersecting runways, and as those scrub oaks grew, scrub jays, which is an endangered species, moved in. Well, FAA says that two aircraft must be able to see each other midpoint to midpoint or you can end up with a mid air collision. So, what we have to do is cut these trees that are obstructing line of sight vision for two aircraft on two separate runways. Before I can cut a tree, I have to relocate the little tweety bird from one place of the airport to another. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't that precious. MR. DRURY: But it's a safety issue that could result in a serious problem, and from a funding standpoint, the agencies use that -- their priority is safety. Revenues is sort of second for them, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We cut the tree down when they are not at home, do you think they'll find another place to live? You know, is this something the agencies have a tough time with? I know it's not you. It's the agencies. I know where you guys are going. You're going to some level of funding. If it gets around $700,000, I'm going to kick and scream and make a big scene, so let's shoot for something less than that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the storm water management items? What are they? MR. DRURY: The -- there's a federal law that says we must create a storm water -- a storm water management prevention pollution plan. They want you to measure the inflow of the water. They want you to measure the outflow to determine if there's any contamination occurring from the airport and have a plan to deal with that. There's also recommendations that would come out -- I guess Immokalee drainage ditches and things tend to back up. A lot of those come through the airport. We would be looking at that and see where some of the drainage ditches are that need to be improved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, can I ask a favor. As much as I'd love to hear every single item on this list -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm done. That's it. That's all there is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I would rather -- let's -- let Mr. Drury and the Airport Authority find the priorities within -- what is an acceptable budget amount. My guess is it will be a disparity between what I think and what some other members of the board may think is acceptable, but let's at least work -- start working on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I've got -- there's only one more. I just want to know what the contaminated soil removal at Marco is? MR. DRURY: When we built our last set of T-Hangars, we inherited an airport that had, apparently, a fuel farm that had leaked. We had to -- we didn't have enough money to remove it all, so what we had to do is we had to take the contaminated soil and put it in a pile, and it sits there in that pile and needs to be taken away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They burn it, I think. Okay. MR. DRURY: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Make sure the scrub jays don't fly into it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want to back away from anything on the revenue producing line myself. I'll say that right up front. That's the $615,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's one for and one against. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Anybody else? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Which one are you going for, Pam? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm supporting the revenue producing items. That's the manufacturing incubator which is just critical in Immokalee. That's $250,000. There's two sets of T-Hangars, one in Immokalee and one in Marco. That's $220,000. This auto weather station sounds like -- I mean, that sounds like a viable market of users in Immokalee, the FedEx and -- MR. DRURY: A wide range. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds like a real likely to pay off expenditure there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But what are the chances of having that particular thing attracting UPS, FedEx, what have you? MR. DRURY: It's -- right now, you can't even talk to them. Do you have weather capabilities; no. Let us know when you do. That's about as far as I can get with them. Most airports will get air traffic control towers. Naples paid for an air traffic control tower for ten years and all the staffing for it. In lieu of that, of building a tower and staffing it and all that, you can put an automated weather observation station for $29,000 and never have to worry about staffing it, you know, all of the maintenance of it and get the same economic potential, which is what you're asking. I couldn't tell you, we put this in, FedEx is going to come. I can tell you, if we don't put it in, they are never going to come. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I -- can I ask for a reality check here. What's the incentive -- I mean, Immokalee isn't exactly the hub of activity. What's the incentive for FedEx or for UPS to choose that over another site? MR. DRURY: Cost. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What do they pay to go into Fort Myers? MR. DRURY: A lot, an awful lot. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I correct in the manufacturing incubator, in essence, is a way to build a place that someone can just have? MR. DRURY: No. They come in. They pay rent. We are charging, I think, up to $2.50 a square foot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You own it. MR. DRURY@: We own it. We charge them rent, and they incubate their widget, their dial, their -- we've got one that does aircraft tools, specialized tools. They -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They build stuff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Build stuff. MR. DRURY: They build stuff, and they co-share docking space, co-share tool rooms, co-share computer labs, co-share marketing capabilities and financial. They don't have the money to set all those up individually, so they pool all of that, and they just concentrate on what they know best, and that's building the widget. They build the widget. They co-share all of this. We get seven of them to co-share this one area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have them lined up, prospects lined up? MR. DRURY: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, you can fill it as soon as it's built? MR. DRURY: Yes, we can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got to build that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, well, then let's do the incubator for sure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got to build that, guys. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- if you can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Whatever you guys want to do, you know, we're going to arrive at today, but there's one thing missing in this whole thing, and that is a long-term business plan that someone can set in front of me and show me the ten year projection, show me what you expect this board to give in the way of general fund subsidies and rents and -- MR. DRURY: You will have that for the next board -- the next budget year, you will have that revised. There is one now. You will have one revised. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want it before this, quite frankly, because I just -- I just have way too many questions. It's just such a blind faith again, and I -- not that you're not doing a good job, John, it's just too much for me to say okay to. MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, for context, the business plan that Mr. Drury refers to, I happen to have a copy of it here, essentially tells you what the operating expenses and capital expenses were to be for the first years of the Airport Authority and really doesn't make any projection or estimate of anything beyond that first year which was '94/'95, so -- MR. DRURY: I think it's set up -- set up the organization and where we were heading and things of that nature and was our first draft of it, and it needs to be revised, and it needs to include what has gone on out there or what didn't get approved over the years, and we were planning on doing that this year, but if -- you know, my biggest point is if the revenue producers can be funded this year, I feel good that we are on track of meeting our goal that we set out to do. The less revenue producers that are put out there, the harder it is for us to squeeze that number. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to be clear on the incubator facility. You said we have -- we can fill that as soon as it's built? MR. DRURY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have commitments from people? Do we have formal commitments or just some people have expressed interest, because there's a huge difference? MR. DRURY: Yeah. They're more expressed interest, meaning we have -- we are negotiating a contract with Global Technologies, Inc. who is going to manage the facility for us. They have identified five businesses that are going to sublease from them. We will have a relationship with Global Technologies to lease the whole facility. They will have subtenants and -- that they have listed to us in writing. The lease is going back and forth between our attorneys and theirs, but the lease is not signed. One of the reasons is, obviously, we are trying to figure out whether we are going to have a facility or not, but it's not signed, sealed and delivered in answer to your question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many square feet will this facility be? MR. DRURY: Ten thousand. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will the length of the agreement MR. DRURY: I think we are negotiating a 20 year lease. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Escalating rents or stagnant rents, CPI? MR. DRURY: Escalating -- CPI plus every fifth year, we have an appraisal, and we apply the appraised value every fifth year, and we are looking at a percentage of revenues as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have one suggestion already that we fund $615,000 of the seven seventy-three. Are there any other suggestions or support for that? MR. McNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I can make one suggestion, not regarding the funding, but if, for budget purposes, we are going to identify certain of these as revenue generators, could we also perhaps quantify those revenues and budget them as well? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to suggest if there were funds allocated in any of the generators, that within 90 days, we see that information in the form of a revenue projection and that that be folded into an overall business plan within six months, because I -- MR. DRURY: We can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, I'm still not comfortable because I want that in front of me before I make any decisions, not after. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the 90 days gives us an opportunity if for some reason it came out to be zero, it came out to be unacceptable, we could cut that in September. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Somebody make a suggestion because it's not going to be me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I suggest all the revenue generators. Anybody going to agree with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're suggesting the $615,0007 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, no mangrove cutting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Here's two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, you're not going to support the six fifteen, Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, Mac'Kie, I am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's three then. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's three. MR. DRURY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to get through this budget without losing one. Damn. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Without what? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we have a quick break in the action here. I see Mr. Jamro is here. I was just going to ask your indulgence. I -- I missed the discussion on that. Can we discuss that during wrap-up. I have a couple of specific questions, and I don't want to drag it back up now, but when we have wrap-up tomorrow -- next week, can we deal with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Jamro, would you plan on being back for wrap-up. I think -- it's the lecture hall you wanted to discuss? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where are we now? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm seeking guidance from someone from O and B. Where are we going? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are going into the unincorporated area of general fund. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be Page B-2. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's it. We are done with general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Done with general fund. Imagine that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Let me give you an idea of where we are at in the general fund. To reach a millage neutral budget, we had to cut, and I'll speak in round numbers, one point six million dollars. If we eliminated the interim government services fee, that was approximately one point four million dollars, so we needed to cut three million dollars, and we cut about two point eight. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which may explain my position on the last item. So, we are looking at a tax increase in the general fund. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So far. MR. SHYKOWSKI: So far. Again, you've -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might point out that we have a number of items in wrap-up that are still up for question -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: True. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and there are a few of those that certainly will tally more than 200,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition, down the road, before we formally adopt a budget, we should have better, again, turn back numbers from the constitutionals. Your trim notice at this point would go out with a '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I look real close -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- moderate increase, but we would have the advantage in September of making final changes again. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd feel much more comfortable if we get there now instead of trying to deal with that in September. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A trim notice is what people get. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need to find how much more for break even. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: About 200,000. COMMISSIONER BERRY: A couple hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. The Greater Naples Civic made a suggestion yesterday that the -- excuse me, the Greater Naples Citizens Association made a suggestion yesterday that if we went to the CPI increase on personal services anniversary date rather than at October 1, that we would save one point three million dollars. Is that anywhere near correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's close. That's across all county funds, however, many of which are supported by fees, building permits, et cetera. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But correspondingly then, out of the general fund itself, what would that be approximately if the one point three was correct? It would probably be more than two hundred grand, wouldn't it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: If we're close, then that gives you your number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. There's still hope, Commissioner Hancock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've given up hope. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't give up hope. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- don't give up hope. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you can't give up hope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nope, I dug my heels in, made my decision. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hope is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hope is gone. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm done. MR. SMYKOWSKI: General fund alone would be about $170,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out of one point six? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Out of one point three million? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Plus the sheriff's half -- if we reduced his COLA in half. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Forget the sheriff. We've already -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We found it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- just give a flat figure COLA. Can't factor that in. MR. FERNANDEZ: You need to take that part out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's also a question of ability to do that. When I discussed this in the previous year, I don't remember if I talked to human resources or talked to the clerk or whatever, but there was a software expense associated with making that, so it's not cost free. MR. McNEES: There's a couple of issues here. Let me -- if you were to determine one of the ways you wanted to save money was by phasing in the COLA, instead of doing it October 1st, what we would probably suggest to you is that you do what you did this year, which is make them effective April 1st instead of October 1st because it's a paperwork and logistic nightmare to do them all individually on anniversary day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it still gives us close to the same plan. MR. McNEES: You get the same result. You just -- it's just incredibly simpler to administer, and in addition to the fact, you have people who came to work late in the year ten years ago, who, in effect, get nothing for that fiscal year as opposed to people who happen to come to work October 1st ten years ago, and they're going to get 3 percent more for that pay -- for that year, and that's not really -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: A much simpler method to get 200,000, Mr. Brock did not budget attrition. If you took 4 percent attrition in the clerk's budget, it's 260,000. We could increase his turn back by 260,000 by virtue of the fact that he did not budget turn back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to do that, but I also want to not lose sight of this COLA issue. MR. McNEES: The other thing I wanted to say about -- by definition, a cost of living adjustment is putting money in the pockets of your employees in recognition of the fact that their cost of living has gone up. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but didn't we do that on April 1st of this year? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just gave them -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. MR. McNEES: We did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, we do it again in December doesn't make a lot of sense. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: October. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, October. MR. McNEES: Well -- and that was a deferral of it, not a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. They went 18 months without a cost of living increase. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: But that's -- that's history now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but it's important to point out -- I mean, you can take that out of context. We did all of the pay plan adjustments, and the reason we delayed it six months last year is they had a 6 to 8 percent, I think the number was, pay plan adjustment. MR. McNEES: Seventy percent of them had, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Those -- those that needed one got one. MR. McNEES: Well, but that was a market driven pay plan adjustment which is -- I understand it's more money for 70 percent of the people. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but if we're talking about putting money in their pockets, we did -- and that's actually two raises in six months' time -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand your point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to not an 18 month. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It only makes sense if you're talking CVI, that is an annual figure, so if you gave it to them last on April 1st, you give it to them next April 1st. MR. HcNEES: All I'm suggesting is if we're going to phase it, it's much better to do it all at once after six months. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm happy with April 1st, but I want to know what that's going to save us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Four percent attrition, the clerk and six month delay in application of that, and then we still have work to do. How's that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We still have a lot of work to do, and I support both of those, but I want to know what the dollar number is for the COLA change. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Half. Half, right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's half. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Half? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's exactly half of the cost of living of personal services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry, it's one point three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One point three, so we get 600,000 in the general fund? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you're working the wrong fee. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Your general fund total is only 342,000 right now. You would get half of that, $170,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. So, I'll take it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Plus the clerk's item. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Plus the clerk's two sixty or whatever it was. What did you say, two sixty, Hike? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We need to notify the clerk for the purposes of wrap-up that we changed that after discussing it with them. So, we'll just adopt the policy that we budget for 4 percent of attrition in his budget and increase the turn back amount, and if he wants to address us on that during wrap-up, he can do so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since we are struggling -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody will -- I'm sorry, but somebody will please be sure and directly inform him of that. Whose responsibility will that be? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: County manager. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: I will take care of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One variable out there is that the sheriff's turn back may be a little less than we expected now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I know you don't mean that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no. Can I just suggest -- I know I just got done saying we can do it in wrap-up. Mr. Jamro is here, and we're dealing with the general fund issue right now. Can we maybe hit that topic quickly and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go ahead and do it, that way we don't have to bother him for coming back for wrap-up unless we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I apologize for missing your discussion before. I had a constituent on the phone. The problem I have with the 50,000 improvement to the lecture hall -- I understand the sound in there isn't ideal. We've had a couple meetings there ourselves where it's shown that, but the lecture hall is only a couple years old, and I'm just concerned about, again, putting 50,000 in. I wonder if it's not more of a Friends of the Museum type project than it is -- as we try to prioritize, and we cut an ambulance out, and we cut these other things out, it seems like that is a lower priority, particularly considering the relative youth of the facility. MR. JAMRO: Again, for the record, Ron Jamro, museum director. The Friends did contribute to this project, you know, over a number of years, as they have for almost every facility on-site at the museum. It is, principally, to finish construction of that facility, which we sort of left hanging. The Friends got it as far as they could with county support, and then, as you've mentioned the lighting and the sound system, air conditioning system virtually, you know, masks any sort of lecture program you're going to have in there. You simply can't hear the presenter. So, that was -- the money was to essentially finish that facility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My recollection is different, I guess. I didn't think we designed it with a drop roof and with all those things. I think we designed it the way it is and then realized we had a problem after the fact, and maybe I'm wrong, but my recollection isn't that we designed all those things into it and just didn't finish. MR. JAMRO: It was -- it was built at $50 a square foot, which is -- which is pretty incredible in today's market, and that was because the plans had been donated. A lot of construction, maintenance, supervision had been donated. So, there was some corners cut in all those areas, and it was just to establish the space. It provided and still continues to provide a spot for school groups to orient themselves and most of our evening programs and ongoing educational programs. There's another aspect to this too. We've since partitioned, you know, about a third of that off. That would serve as our seasonal exhibit area which is going to be about two and a half times the size of the room we currently use, and that would need to be finished for us to continue with that program as well. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that, but my point was that I don't think it was originally designed differently than right now. We may have gotten a number of contributions, and I appreciate that, but what we are asking as far as drop ceiling and improved audio and all those things, for the most part, and to the best of my knowledge, were discovered to be problems after we completed it. We had set a particular budget and built it to that budget, and at no point did the board say, okay, but in a future year, we will build additional ceiling or fix the audio. That was discovered after the fact. MR. JAMRO: You're quite right. MR. OLLIFF: You are correct, and the design of the building was done by a volunteer, and the volunteer who designed it is, frankly, an architect, but does a whole lot more construction than he does architecture work, and his indication to us was, what we've designed is -- will be enough lighting, will be acoustically fit for you to have group meetings in. He was wrong, and then the building that we've got simply doesn't work very well. I'm Tom Olliff, public services administrator. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I -- I understand that, but it's just -- as we look at the big picture and the priority of everything and have cut an ambulance and other things, I wonder if dropping a ceiling and fixing audio in a museum lecture hall is a higher priority than those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I look at it as a room that is nowhere near its usefulness as a county facility. It's kind of like having a basketball court without a hoop. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Blasphemy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. I thought I would get you with that one. MR. JAMRO: I think that is very relevant. I think that is an excellent point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we've put this off for a couple of years. I want to put the hoop up on the court. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we put it off though. I mean, was this requested formally in past years? I don't recall it coming to the board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With all due respect, I think they got three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We brought it back -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you say that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It had three, and we actually discussed it, but in deference to you, we brought it back up. Does anyone -- I would like to leave it in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Me, too. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no more belly aching about the level of -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hey, that's only 50 grand versus, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Before we leave the general fund discussion, just to go back to the Greater Naples Civic Association list, there's one other -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Citizens Association. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's actually civic. It used to be citizens, and now it's civic, just the opposite, but that's okay. The other one that I'm particularly interested in is the phasing in the new hires which looked like, you know -- even if you took out the sheriff's office, that was 225,00. Just the BCC part was $375,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wrote next to that one, 4 percent attrition is -- is the amount we budget, and that's supposed to account for vacant positions. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: In addition -- then you have that built in automatic budget increase next year by virtue of the fact that you only funded an operation for six months. Automatically, before you step out of the box, you have an immediate six months of operation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I see Janet, and I saw Eric earlier. What I would encourage, if there's a difference between the 4 percent attrition which is supposed to be a catchall for that exact -- that very thing, if we're finding that that number is off, because I know you had an increase of that to 5 percent in your recommendations. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Took that out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Took that out, okay. I think the 4 percent attrition is supposed to catch the unfilled or vacant positions. I think the -- the idea was though if we put them in the budget to be hired the next year, that we -- those are new positions created, and we don't budget for the first few months that will not be realized of those new positions. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't know if we're talking about the same thing or not. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I would like to hear more about that if -- you know, have her answer that question when we get there, but the other one that I wanted to mention before we left general fund is -- does this one make sense, Mr. Smykowski, that we presently include turn back in the amount that we used to calculate reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We -- no. We calculate the reserves purely on the expense side of the equation, and I think we are at a point -- we adjusted how we calculated the reserves because the reserves -- even though the general fund is increasing twelve million dollars, the reserves did not increase at all, and I think it's a dangerous practice to decrease the reserves, obviously, for unforeseen issues. In addition, there will be that much money carrying forward a year from now as a result of not budgeting additional reserve money. So, I think that's a dangerous practice. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Those are the ones I wanted to ask about. So, I'm done. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Now we are done with the general fund. Let's get that -- let's get our new number, shall we? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's our new -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: This is like the telethon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ringing up behind -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need one of those boards up there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We need a board up here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just before we leave general fund, I want to know the amount of cuts to date that we have made which will be something closer to the higher amount we finally arrive at. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's going to be a little -- a little approximate here because -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Essentially, if we're changing the COLA, we will be forced to redo all the salary budgets. So, we are ballparking at this point based on a gross number. Total general funds savings including flagged items, adding in the turn back, additional clerk turn back is about 3,225,000, which is in excess of what we needed to get -- we needed 2,955. So, we're above and beyond where we need to be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To get the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Millage neutral. MR. SMYKOWSKI: To get to the millage neutral. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We are getting there. Let's keep going. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not a bad start. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ah, now his heels are undug. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I called it a start. COMHISSIONER BERRY: A start. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now we are moving to the agenda that was planned for today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, let us move to the third day. I'll tell you what, it's 2:30. Give the court reporter a break. Let's take five minutes. (Small break was held). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll reconvene. We got better. That five minute break was only ten minutes this time, so we're getting closer, guys. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And I was at my post. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One eleven. MR. SMYKOWSKI: One eleven, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for someone, maybe Mr. Fernandez. I don't think we have our legal staff in today. Is there any legal reason why we fund a significant portion of the sheriff's budget through 1117 Do we have to do that or is that just a courtesy that we have been extending? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have already asked that question. The answer I've been given is that there may be a long standing legal reason having to do with an ancient dual tax settlement that you -- a court -- a case you had a long time ago, and before I give you a final answer, I need to read that to see how long that commitment lasts. My understanding, and I've been involved over the years in that debate, is that the courts have come down on the side of counties on the question of sheriff's road patrol, and that is that you do have the capability of funding that in the general fund. It is a countywide function, and the test is real and substantial benefit on a countywide basis, and the courts have decided after hearing the cases and the evidence that that, in fact, is the case. Counties like Alachua where there isn't a lot of ad valorem capacity have opted to set that up in an MSTU with the understanding that any incorporated areas that receive the service do so through a contract where there is compensation received and -- and in theory, the services are only provided to the unincorporated area and, therefore, only charged to the residents of the unincorporated area through the MSTU, but it's kind of a long answer to a short question. I think the answer lies in whatever that double tax suit settlement says is probably going to guide -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When can we get an answer on that? MR. FERNANDEZ: I can probably have an answer for you tomorrow. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we wrap up? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, before wrap-up, we can have an answer. I can check with the county attorney's office and get the details on it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Proceed then. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are on Page B-2 and B-3 in your summary book and the tab marked MSTD general. Again, this is -- provides for the municipal services to unincorporated area residents. It excludes Everglades City and the City of Naples. The principal funding source is ad valorem taxes. The proposed tax rate would be an increase of a dollar nine per $100,000 of taxable value. As I alluded to in my presentation yesterday, there is $729,600 for the board's share of Phase I, cost of the Lely storm water project. The other -- the other thing of note is when we get to the cable franchise budget, in the expanded side, in reserves, there's $950,000. Again, that's associated as a reserve, specifically for the million dollars of telecommunication fee revenue for use of public right-of-ways at this point. Again, there is no definitive board stance on that. They've sent staff back to the drawing board to revise the draft ordinance at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, you have a question. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, you just mentioned the cable television folks. The proposed expansion of services as far as -- I think it's 167,000 roughly for those you and I talked about Friday. When will we hear about that here? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Very shortly. We'll get to -- public services is first and then management offices. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this section? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, definitely. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the next half hour. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes my opening remarks of our expanded services of $73,900 in public services in the parks and recreation department. Mr. Olliff and Ms. Ramsay are here. Mr. Vincent is the budget analyst. Page B-7 is the description of the expanded services totaling $73,900. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before you get started, let me ask, similar to Commissioner Norris' question on the MSTD, if we are going to enter the new territory of being a co-payer on city park projects in the future, its inclusion in the MSTD is, in fact, a double standard to county residents because to date, city parks were paid by city folks, and county parks were paid by county dollars, and that's the reason that parks and recreation was in the MSTD. If, in fact, we are going to be requested or asked to look at joint funding on all city park projects in the future, as I would tend to believe from what we received this year, then its inclusion in the MSTD is no longer necessary. So, we are not going to make that decision today, but I think, unlike law enforcement, what's changing is we are increasing funding for -- we are looking at increasing funding for park and rec. projects inside city limits which argues against inclusion in the MSTD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The one thing I just want to caution about is if we start funding park and rec. budgets in general based on users rather than the location of the parks, the county is going to be spending more money than we are spending now, so -- because the users in the city programs -- I mean, you guys -- if I'm wrong about this, let me know, but this is what I hear from city people. The users in city parks is so much -- the preponderance are county residents. If we get asked to pay for usage at parks based on who uses them based on where they're physically located -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's Paragraph 3 of Bill Barnett's letter which I disagree with. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, you don't -- I'm just saying you don't want to go there, so let's not -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- start that discussion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not going there. I didn't start that discussion. The discussion I started is the reason the MSTD has a parks and rec. element is because the county traditionally was not using general countywide dollars for improvements within the city limits to their park system. Naples Landing was kind of breaking the mold if I'm not -- am I mistaken there? MR. OLLIFF: Yeah, the HSTD fund is actually funding parks in Immokalee and eastern Collier County where it was difficult to make an argument that the city residents would actually ever use a community park in Immokalee and would ever receive a benefit from those. So, those are the parks that we've dedicated strictly in the 111 fund. CHAI~ HANCOCK: And just those parks? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAI~ HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Okay. For the parks HSTD fund, what I'd like to start by telling you is that the total increase within the parks and recreation cost center here is within your roll back rate for your HSTD levy, but if we could, we'd like to walk you through the expanded service requests that are there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we've all seen these items. I have no objection to it. CHAI~ HANCOCK: No, I don't either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe we are to management offices, Commissioner Constantine, Page B-11. Ms. Gansel is the budget analyst, and Mrs. -- Ms. Jean Merritt is the cable franchise administrator. MS. GANSEL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jean Gansel. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thin book. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thin book. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The expanded service request. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say the number again. I'm sorry, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: B as in boy, 11, are the expanded for franchise administration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's B-15 in the detail book. MS. GANSEL: Detail. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we -- don't we just about have to have lawyers on this one, because isn't this a big legal issue about whether or not we have the authority to do this at all? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do what? I'm not following you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To do what? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this the franchise fee? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's next -- I think it's Tuesday. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: This is franchise administration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is the office that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Regulating franchise fees. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regulating cable. Sorry. Moving on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express a couple of concerns, and the small ones first. First of all, $9,000 for two super VHS high power recorder decks, if we're going to pick up something to play and record, let's get Beta or let's get three-quarter because I want -- actually, and I'm serious about this, each of you tune into channel 54 tonight and switch between 55 and 54, and there's an amazing quality difference. Fifty-four is horrible because we're on VHS, and it's just not the same quality, and if we are going to try to look at a long-term picture here for having some quality, I would rather buy up, a Beta deck than to VHS because the VHS just -- it's blurry. It's lousy -- it's a lousy picture. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about -- what about the VHS Beta conversion, and we didn't have to have something -- because a lot of the stuff we get, like our camera records VHS, not Beta. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, if we're going to broadcast, then we ought to broadcast with some quality that isn't -- I mean, when you flip through channels, it's like the old channel nine that was broadcasting the stuff out of Fort Myers. You didn't even stop. You couldn't see it, and you couldn't hear it. We are better than that, but you couldn't see it and you couldn't hear it right, and so you don't even stop. You keep moving on to the next channel, and if we're going to try to provide a service and try to make people aware of what we are doing in our parks and what we're doing in different places, there has to be a certain level of -- and I realize there are some things -- I know that channel ten, there's some things they shoot on VHS and transfer over, but almost everything is on Beta. You can get -- MS. MERRITT: You're absolutely right, Commissioner. The VHS is not good broadcast quality. We have asked for this particular item and these are SVHS which is -- I'm sorry, Jean Merritt for the record. SVHS is slightly better than VHS. Beta we know is much better. It's also much more expensive. I'll let Jim Fitzek, who is our fiscal person, talk to this. MR. FITZEK: For the record, James Fitzek, office of franchise administration. Unfortunately, we would love to be able to go to Beta except you have a whole conversion process with edit systems. It's not just decks you buy that are a couple thousand more. You get into cameras, all that -- we eventually would like to get to that on our production. However, most of the stuff we are using now is free material that we are acquiring free at no cost to the county, and all that is in VHS. To take that and convert that to Beta only brings it down one level lower, so we have to have the ability to be able to show some material in VHS. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, is it called SVHS because it's slightly better than VHS? MS. MERRITT: Super VHS is what it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me, we are in our infancy. I don't think this should grow into a full grown adult anyway, but if we're in our infancy of doing this, we don't want to be spending money doing -- I know it is -- but slight is the right word. It's not a whole lot of an upgrade there. I mean, you can get a Sony digital Beta cam for 4,200 bucks now, and that's more than a VHS cam, but, I mean, it will last forever. The camera is this big. I mean, the lens is as big as the camera is. It's easy to take. It fits our needs. You can use it inside out. It's very, very easy to edit on. It just seems like a lot wiser expenditure if we're looking at a long time use. MR. FITZEK: Unfortunately, on some of those, you've got to take a look at -- the whole basis is what your resolution is. SVHS is 400 lines per inch. Beta is around 600, but then when you purchase cameras, your camera might not -- might be a Beta camera, but it might not be 600 inches of resolution. So, you've got to weigh all those. The biggest thing facing us right now is our whole library stock is in VHS and SVHS. We have not come across anything that we can acquire for free that's in Beta. The whole reason for these purchases are that our original broadcast station, our decks were not intended to be used commercially to cut down on costs. We used what we use for our dubbing chain. The number of hours getting on those decks are reaching its max. We've got to get some commercial quality stuff in there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long have we been operating this? MS. HERRITT: We started operating eight hours a day of -- the first week of January. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's my point is that when you say our whole library consists of, well, our library is only five months old, and so rather than go on and continue to build a library that way, it makes sense to me, if we are going to choose to do this, we ought to do it at some level of quality that is going to make someone stop and watch Channel 54. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, if I may jump in here a minute and -- the staff -- and I thank them for it -- is being very conservative here. One of the reasons that they're somewhat conservative in their request is because it got beat down so much by the county manager's office when they -- some of the things that they wanted -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean the county administrator's office? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At the time, the county manager's office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's another conversion we are working on. MR. HcNEES: If what you're saying is you believe if we are going to do this, it's worth it to stop and take a little bit harder look, let's look at the quality issue and then if you're willing to take a little bit more of what is the cable franchise fee revenue and devote it to the quality issue, I suspect they will tell you that they would be happy to go back and sharpen their pencils and retool this request a little bit if you give them a couple of days and come up with another number. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I support looking at that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get to a point where we're spending -- there's some areas I think we need to cut over on the other page here, but it's just if we are going to pursue having a broadcast station available for the benefit of the public, I would rather broadcast a quality picture that people will actually stop and watch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my opinion is, if we are going to spend money on that, let's spend money on something that's got a lot better long-term value than what is clearly a short-term value on this. MS. HERRITT: And-- and we -- we definitely agree, but we also were faced with trying to fill 45 hours of programming a week, and that is not an easy task, and we had very limited resources to do that, and we have scrounged all over this country looking for products that would be of some interest to Collier County citizens, and we have found some things. Unfortunately, when they are free, they are also VHS, and we have not been able to find anything of real quality. The things that we have done ourselves, and they are very limited, are somewhat better quality even though they are VHS because we have not had to take them down many generations as you do when you get a film from someplace else. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we just ought to replay these budget hearings about eight hours a day, five days a week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good entertainment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Solve all the sleep problems in town. MR. McNEES: What I'm hearing Commissioner Constantine say, if I can put it in my own words is, if we're going to build this thing from the ground up, he'd prefer three hours of high quality programming and 21 hours of test pattern, and as we can fill the additional hours, let's fill them as opposed to let's fill 24 hours of whatever we can get our hands on, and I think you all are for that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have to agree with that. MR. HcNEES: -- and I think we need to say, thanks for your support, and we'll retool this request and come back to you with some other numbers. MS. HERRITT: Actually, that has to do with one of the positions that I'm asking for, and that is that we need an expert in television production. Even the equipment that we presently have, when something happens or goes down, we simply have no expertise to be able to figure out what is wrong, and when you're trying to fill time and you -- and the signal is switched to the county at 4:00 p.m. every -- five afternoons a week and we have a glitch in the system, we are in trouble, and we need desperately a person who can help us do the production, and presently, we are producing a lot of meetings. There are 21 work days in June, and we have 17 meetings scheduled. I realize that's a little different, because as you know, we are producing these budget hearings live, and we will be -- we are also taping them for replay so we can play them in the evening when people who could not see them during the day might be able to see them, and we simply do not have the time to do some of the other things that need to be done to produce quality work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned -- I have to remind everyone, this is not in the overall scheme of things. This is not a need. Now, this is an extra that we'd like to provide, but when -- you know, I moved here, Continental, at that time, broadcast these meetings and did so with a high resolution camera, including -- I mean, if somebody was speaking at that microphone, it was a close up of them. It was a pan. It was all this kind of stuff, and as much as we have -- you know, I'm glad to see us doing more and more on Channel 54. We've lost some quality and that kind of stuff because of equipment, and I just -- in the overall scheme of things, the word need, I think, is a little misplaced in this. We would like to do all of those things. MS. HERRITT: Well, I appreciate that. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that in the past year and a half, then Continental, now Media One did produce -- or did give us the camera in the back, and it is an old camera. We are very, very pleased to have it, believe me, but they were also locking down the camera, and we are doing a much better job because we have a person on the camera who has gotten very proficient, I might add -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hi, Katie. MS. HERRITT: -- and has had a lot of experience and puts in many, many hours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not my point. MS. HERRITT: Well, what I'm trying to say is that we are attempting to bring the citizens of Collier County into their government, and we want them to participate in their government, and we think that people that know more about government are going to be much more supportive of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate your comment, but you're way off my point. My point is one of looking at this as a need. This is something that we would like to provide. MS. HERRITT: I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, there's a difference in that, and the reason I say that is I look under revenues and I see a million dollars in telecommunication fees as a revenue under -- I assume to go to HSTD general fund 111. Am I reading that correctly? MR. SHYKOWSKI: You are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have a ordinance in place that guarantees a million dollars in fees yet? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. That is the policy issue that I alluded to in my opening remarks yesterday. Again, there is an offsetting reserve -- there's a million dollars budgeted less the 5 percent statutory revenue reserve. That nets to $950,000. There's an offsetting reserve at this point pending the outcome -- ultimately, what the board decides on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the legal issue. MR. SHYKOWSKI: So, if you decided six months down the road that we are not going to go that way, all we do is reduce the reserve and reduce the revenue line item; no harm, no foul, so to speak. MR. HcNEES: The money for this office, the franchise administration office, the operation of Channel 54 and all of the related expenses come from the million and a half dollars that you see listed as cable franchise fees which is real live money that comes in every month. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what I have a question about. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if we didn't expend it here, that money would be available for general fund expenditures? MR. HcNEES: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's -- that's -- MR. HcNEES: For Fund 111 expenditures. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For Fund 111 expenditures. That -- that's a big question to me because back to the need issue, you know, I'm not sure we need Channel 54 at all. It's a nice thing to have, but if we could have an ambulance with part of this money instead, it's a priority question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I wasn't -- I wasn't saying that, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I am. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand your point, and I think that's the difference between a true need -- I mean, health, safety and welfare are the needs, and -- and I guess -- I want to go through some of the dollar items for expanded service over here because I do question the word need, and I do appreciate -- before I go on, I want to say, Katie and the work we do -- I mean, we cover all our meetings. When we have our little LDC meetings, all that stuff is covered now when it used to be Tuesdays were it, so I appreciate that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the -- I mean, I'll work my way up from the bottom. Help me with these. It says tower lease, monitoring leases for personal communication towers, $56,000 a year. That, by itself, got my attention. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought, my heavens, what am I going to do for 40 hours a week, but then when I looked over on the revenue side, does this indicate we are going to generate $70,000 a year from tower leases -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if so, why does it cost $56,000 to monitor a $70,000 revenue? MR. FITZEK: That item, 56,000, is a transfer. What that means is we are going to be -- our office is going to be collecting 70,000 from what we budget as five tower site lease areas. That 56,000 is a pass-through to parks and rec. or whatever other department where those towers are located. We are taking 20 percent as an admin. cost, keeping 20 percent of the revenue. Eighty percent of the revenue, which is 56,000, goes to other county departments, wherever the tower is located. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, you're collecting 14,000. MR. FITZEK: Exactly, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell me what it means by monitoring leases. It's just so we don't make an error like we did in the sewer department a couple years ago and lose a lease or -- MR. FITZEK: I don't know about that. There are some issues that we have some sites located on them where IT can use some spaces. There's some telecommunication issues. There is no real cost associated with this. The only cost you see here is a pass-through, and that's just money coming into our budget and then going back out, apportioned to the tower companies. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A portion of that revenue is going to the general fund by virtue of the fact that some of the towers, I believe, are in the parks, and the balance is going to the utility funds because some of these towers are located on utility's property. So, it's just money coming in from tower lease space, and it's passed off to the, quote, owner of the property. MR. McNEES: Commissioner, I think, to answer your question directly, these towers, in the leases, there will be provisions that, for example, Bill Coakley will have some space on the tower. There may be a provision of the lease that another department gets space on the tower. I think what they're telling you is they would make sure those things are adhered to, that Bill Coakley actually gets the space, and that all -- it's just monitoring and keeping up with all that. Somebody has to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next item, expanded regulatory activity, develop a telecommunications ordinance to monitor and -- to reasonable access to the public base, $30,000. MR. FITZEK: That is for consultant professional fees. Without knowing which direction the board is going and what we are going to do with that issue, we are getting close after the franchise negotiations conclude and franchise agreements conclude that the -- our amount budgeted for the consultant will be done, and this is looking into the next year if that issue is still going. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I seriously want to flag that because I -- I don't see that it makes a lot of sense to spend $30,000 to collect a million dollars to hold it in reserves, and that's what we are talking about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's flag that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to flag that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next one up, secretary support, assist in clerical needs of the department. How have those clerical needs changed and-- MS. MERRITT: We have never had any clerical support. We now have a temporary person. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many people are in your office? MS. MERRITT: Three. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what would this secretary support do on a day-to-day basis? MR. FITZEK: The biggest reason for it, originally, we were located in the same office with utility regulation where we shared a secretary position. Our office has since moved to the first floor. We have -- had no secretary support at that time, so we had to get a temporary. Prime example is this meeting right here. We have nobody in the office right now except for that secretary. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, I think that type of spacial situation, the results in a personnel savings is something we can accomplish. It doesn't make sense why we would spend $30,000 for a position for three individuals. I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me. That's a ratio that's unheard of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and -- MR. HcNEES: I'm not sure it's just -- maybe -- take another shot at the question. The commissioner's question was, what does she do all day. MR. FITZEK: We -- we receive a lot of calls, cable complaints. As you know, our number is listed on the bills. At the end of the month or whenever the bills come out, we receive up to 20 a day. At price hikes, which we are seeing a bunch of, we are flooded with calls. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sounds like a recording, though. It sounds like you need to have a recording that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But even if -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the number at Media One to call. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even if not -- MR. FITZEK: Well, no, actually, because there's a lot of problems that we have to actually -- you know, we are in charge of customer service on the cable companies, monitoring that. There's -- we are the only place the customer has if there's a legitimate problem with their bill to turn to. We solve quite a few of these. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't necessarily object to that. However, they don't necessarily -- if the primary purpose is to take the incoming calls, it doesn't matter if they are sitting right next to the edit suite or if they're still sitting in utility regulation. MR. FITZEK: That's one point of it. The other point is with just two of us in the office to do the office work -- Katie is busy all the time with the camera and stuff -- the secretary has to take on a lot of responsibilities in scheduling, scheduling our weekly programming for the television station, coordination with the school system and the city and who gets what during special meetings. Just like today, we are live when this is officially school board time -- cataloging of our films. There's a whole host of things. Believe me, she is very, very busy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No offense, folks, but I think you're exceeding the growth rate, you know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When we look at -- when we started the franchise administration department, I don't think we anticipated adding at that rate. So, I'm not -- I think we can -- we need to cover that internally in a better fashion. We have -- our phone system has a cover capability that when you're not in the office, you can send your phone calls to another department where that receptionist can be trained to handle those calls and log complaints. I just -- I think it's 30,000 that hasn't been proven necessary just yet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The increased technical support, is that the position you're talking about '- MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and will you explain that to me again, please? MS. HERRITT: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's just to -- if there happens to be a problem or a glitch or -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A production assistant, what else would they -- what would they do? MS. HERRITT: This -- we need a person who can do some light maintenance on the -- on the system who understands television production, who's had some experience at that side of television. For every hour that we produce of television programming, it takes one hour of post production. We simply don't have the time. It takes three hours of set-up time, and it takes us six hours a week to program the system, so that -- because we have to program in two hour increments, and we have to -- it's a very sophisticated program on the computer system in the broadcasting room across the hall that has to be programmed everyday, and it -- we just simply do not have the technical expertise that we need. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, do you have somebody in -- I don't know, as far as the repair and that kind of stuff with all the staff we have for -- you know, the guys that come in and fix the microphones don't know how to fix the cameras? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know how specialized that work is. I don't know if they're capable of doing it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, is that a private company who does this stuff? MR. HcNEES: The microphone guy doesn't work for us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're always here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: They do the school system, too. They do the school system, too, Pam. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many -- you just said there was an hour of post production, obviously, the exception being when we tape something like this, there's not post production. MR. FITZEK: Actually, there is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Minimal -- there's not hour for hour post production? MR. FITZEK: Actually, it is, unfortunately. With our antiquated system, to get the replays where we have each of your names identified on the bottom of the screen and to roll -- that this is a replay from such and such a date at such and such a time for -- with our analog system, you have to roll that tape in real time and edit it in real time. So, when we have a seven hour meeting, Katie is going to be starting as soon as she finishes here and starts all that right back, and it's one-to-one. It's real time to real time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would suggest we might be able to find, particularly if we look at what we started out the conversation with, some better equipment, we would be able to considerably economize that. I mean, just hour to hour just -- MR. FITZEK: There's -- there is no doubt that we could, but comparably, we've got an $11,000 editing system right now, one where you won't have to do that, where you can go to digital, go to Beta, seventy, fifty, $60,000 for that system. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, coincidentally, you're asking for $50,000 for a person to assist right now because we are doing so much time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would rather spend it on a piece of equipment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And have a one time cost. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One time hit and a piece of equipment with a -- live. MR. FITZEK: Still, a full week of our one production specialist, she spends about 12 hours of the week covering meetings. We have 12 hours on top of that, post production, throw in a couple of hours for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sixteen left. MR. FITZEK: -- set up time, six hours for -- she does the programming of the broadcast station, and then she spends about five hours a week in laying out the schedule, trying to push that out so we can get that to a paper or something -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, that's -- so, there's five hours left in a 40 hour week. MR. FITZEK: Actually, about two hours, but -- about two hours, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay. A full work week is good. MR. FITZEK: That leaves no time whatsoever for any type of -- if we want to do anything special on the side, it's real tough to fit those in. If we want to highlight EHS or have a meeting with the county manager televised or who knows, it's very tough. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that, but I don't know that if we want to do something special on the side warrants $51,000 a year expenditure and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least not in this form, not for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and I think -- I mean, if we can get some other equipment and ease the editing burden -- I feel for you, Katie. If you're sitting there doing that real time, that is a drag -- and economize that which should free up some of the time for that purpose and put out a better product and make it easier on you all to put it together, and then -- I mean, I did the math here, and -- I mean, if you had to hire somebody out to post produce at 175 bucks an hour, you get 300 hours a year. You know, if you're spending an hour a day on this stuff on average, you're still going to -- at five days a week, you're still going to have time left over if you contracted all of that out, and that would be -- I mean, I'm sure you can beat that rate if you were buying -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, you're saying flag it and bring it back? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not even saying that. I'm saying cut that one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about this -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we can explore equipment. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, that's it exactly. The 56,000 that's pass-through, we don't want to cut that because that's money going into Fund 111, I assume is where it's going. MR. SHYKOWSKI: General fund -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: General fund. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- and utilities fund, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But then -- I would -- I would be interested in spending $50,000 on some really good equipment that would help cut down on some of the efficiency of editing. MR. FITZEK: I misspoke myself. That's just the edit system. If you record it on this camera, which is a non-digital -- which is an analog camera and record it on an analog deck, you don't get that benefit. Now you're looking -- you've got to upgrade the whole system. You're either on a low level commercial or you're on a high level commercial, and there's great differences. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, one of the things they do in real life is produce videos, and -- I mean, you can get a Sony digital Beta cam high quality, high resolution for 4,200 bucks nowadays and then get some of your pieces that go with that. I mean -- so, it's still less expensive to buy the camera and replace this camera and have the upgrade and efficiency and spend considerably less hours editing. MS. MERRITT: That's true, Commissioner. The problem is, the camera is just the beginning. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know that. MS. HERRITT: We do not have the editing system. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm using the camera as an example. MS. HERRITT: We don't have the editing system. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's $5,000 for the camera. There's $45,000 for other stuff. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: $50,000 a year is just the beginning, too, because that's $50,000 a year for the next five years. So, it's not just one year we are looking at. What we are looking at is -- and again, let's bring this back to some sense of reality here. These are additional services. These are not things that -- that are going to make or break county government if -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These would fall under the old discretionary label. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Discretionary label. One more point about this that -- what I was thinking about, what would -- what would be my priorities for how to spend, you know, TV money, which is what this is, I don't know how to describe them, but the A1 Perkins request that we get once a week about -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Public access. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no, not public access TV, I mean about when people come in so that they are able to see these screens that they -- you know, when they show us -- at home, they can't see anything that they show us on audio-visuals. It was something that was in the budget maybe two years ago, we cut it out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the Michael Jackson-Star Wars system they wanted to put in here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't want that, but if there is something that would actually make people at home to be able to see the placards that people bring in as part of their demonstrations, that, to me, would be more important than some of the others. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that one even made it back as a request this year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I know it didn't, but, you know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's always next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or we can think it up as, you know, a better idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion here. What if we cut the thirty, cut the twenty-nine six, and I fully appreciate what you're saying, that you don't want this to be a recurring thing every year, and I don't either. What if we explore, okay, what would be available out there for fifty or less, but not necessarily have to commit that we are going to buy it, but at least see what the possibility is for production value -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can go there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and can you offset that by efficiency. If you can't, maybe we don't want to do it, but at least take a look at that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I've got a question. What are you doing with the 30,000 you're talking about to develop a telecommunication ordinance? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cutting it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Why are we cutting it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's sitting in my office. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's done? MR. FITZEK: That's up to you guys. If we go forward with it, there's going to be a lot of legal expertise and a lot of expertise out there that we are going to have to have to fight that battle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean -- you mean used in defending it? MR. FITZEK: Or winning it, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I mean, we are talking about a million dollar revenue source. Do we need to spend $30,000 to protect that million dollars? If so, it's certainly worth it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we haven't made the decision whether to collect the million dollar revenue yet. We are still considering that ordinance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, let's at least flag that. You know, I'm for cutting it, but at least flag it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You mean you're -- are you saying that you don't support going forward with that and having a million dollar revenue? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm saying -- I'm saying that I think we are at risk on whether or not it's legal to collect that million dollar revenue. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's what the $30,000 is supposed to answer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, until we know the answer -- I'm just saying let's flag it because we haven't had the discussion yet about the ordinance, and I've done -- I mean, I have done a lot of research about it, had a lot of stuff put in front of me, and it's very questionable. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I -- I agree with you that it's worth the investment to see that. However, as a part of the county attorney's budget every year, we set aside a certain amount for outside consultation. I'm suggesting that's an appropriate place for it rather than have different departments budget their own legal budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, go back to what you were saying about the 50,000 -- up to fifty for equipment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's leave that, and we can investigate it between now and September, and if we don't need it, we can cut it out of there, but at least let's see what it is, and if there's some efficiency to that, frees up some of their time to do other more productive things, then perhaps it pays for itself. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And if it helps communicate information to the public. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and if we find that it doesn't, then maybe we just don't do that at all. MS. MERRITT: Mr. Chairman, could I say one more thing, please, and that is that I want to call your attention to -- that the bottom line of this budget is only thirty -- I shouldn't say only, but it is $34,000 more than our last year's budget. However, we would be happy if we could please have the opportunity to go back and to come back even as early as next Monday with another proposal looking at production equipment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's what's being asked, but it's being asked to be done within a $50,000 expanded service request. MS. MERRITT: I understand that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if you can have that information for us Monday, that's great. We can look at it Monday. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Super. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just quickly, up on the top on the base level, I know we have our two employees, and they take up probably the majority of that $170,000, but what else is in there? What, physically, day-to-day -- explain to me what happens there. MR. FITZEK: As in what we do or -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What do you spend that money on? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, other -- you have two people that take up a big chunk, and I know they do those things day-to-day, but I don't -- I don't think you each get paid 75,000, 80,000 a year, so -- MR. FITZEK: Not even close. That -- that is our computers, our work stations, our phone, power for the office, everything associated with operating costs. Also -- also in that is some consultant money also. There's about, I believe, 30,000 in consultant fees in that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what do they do? MR. FITZEK: They are helping us with our expertise in cable negotiations and renewals. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to complete our renewal before the beginning of fiscal year '98? MS. MERRITT: Yes, sir. MR. FITZEK: Hopefully so. MS. MERRITT: This board -- this board -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can take that thirty out. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MS. MERRITT: This board extended the life of the franchises for 60 days for both Time Warner and Media One, and the 60 days is concluded in early August, and we expect to have those renewals to present to you before that time, and in addition, we are presenting to you Tuesday a franchise -- a possible franchise for Marco Island television. I must tell you that all of these things take a great deal of clerical assistance. We also have another gentleman coming in next week to talk about a franchise for a portion of the county. We expect more and more of these to occur. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only -- if there's 30,000 in there, I would like to know exactly how much it is, but if there's 30,000 in consulting for the franchise fee renewal, that could come out because we're going to be done with that before the beginning of the fiscal year. MR. McNEES: There will be other people coming forward, I'm sure, seeking some sort of franchise. I mean, the industry is changing, and more and more people are trying to get into the game, so maybe you'll be able to cut some but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe I'm mistaken, but is it more complicated to deal with the large areas covered by Time Warner and Media One than the four streets that Bill Gaston wants to cover? MS. MERRITT: No, it is not. In fact, it is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. McNees was nodding and you said no. MS. MERRITT: In many ways, it is more difficult to deal with the smaller operator because of the questions that come as a result from the other operators. Competition is not something that has been going on in the field, and it is very difficult with the new legislation which requires a level playing field, and it is very difficult to get a level playing field when you're talking about a corporate versus somebody else. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I'm going to ask that we come back -- either come back to discussion on the dollar amounts in front of us or move to the next subject, because I'm not going to hear the pitch on the telecommunications ordinance today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's where I am with the 169,200. If thirty of that is to handle a consultant to handle cable administration -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make it one thirty-nine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- make it one thirty-nine. In the event that -- MR. FITZEK: Can we take a look at that -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I finish my thought, do you? MR. FITZEK: Sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the event that Joe Cable Guy comes in next January and wants to do that, I assume there's an expense we charge Joe Cable Guy for doing that. That will generate the revenue to offset any expense we need to hire a consultant at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if that assumption is wrong, we need to change that, because the fee should cover the cost of talking to Joe. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are we done with this? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, we cut another thirty from the top there, right? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So, what's the bottom line? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty out of the first one, took the twenty-nine six out, took the thirty out, and we will flag the fifty-seven pending their bring back on Monday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, are you -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other three are out, is that -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out, oust. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Clear direction is good direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's next? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's hope it's not another short brief summary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to go now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got to go. I've got to go. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are moving to community development. They have proposed expandeds of $79,400 on Page B, as in boy, 15. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to tell you, it's the only page I've got on expanded service where right in the margin, it says yes, yes, good, yes on the four items for my vote. So -- MR. KUKULSKI: For the record, my name is Tom Kukulski, budget analyst for community development -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, yes, yes, good, yes on expanded service in their budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, is good better than yes? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't ask me. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: B-15. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which book? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The summary book. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: B-15, little book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's actually B-19 -- baby of Bingo -- B-19. MR. KUKULSKI: The list of expandeds -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect -- MR. KUKULSKI: -- are on Page B-15. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Commissioner Norris is calling Bingo numbers up here; B-18, 1-27. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone have any problems, questions, concerns? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like them all. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did -- I did raise the question, the outside consultant is on the comp. planning? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Commissioner, Vince Cautero, for the record. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think with people with amazing capabilities like Len, we wouldn't need to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not an expert unless you get on a jet aircraft. You know that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can clone him. If we cloned him, it would cost more, you know. MR. CAUTERO: Reinhold -- or Barbara Cacchione, our comprehensive planning manager, who is also here today, can -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Another genius. MR. CAUTERO: Absolutely. We estimate that we will probably use that money for some design consultant work in our East Naples redevelopment project that Commissioner Mac'Kie is spearheading. We have a number of committees that have been started, and there's also a spin off group in Bayshore that are working in that area. The 15,000 -- $15,000 was primarily targeted for that project. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our people don't have the ability to do that? MR. CAUTERO: They do. It really depends on what direction we go into, if we're going to be talking about design guidelines and -- there's also some talk about a commercial appearance maintenance code which we haven't even delved into yet that the City of Naples has, and I believe we can write something like that, but we are really talking about someone to come in and facilitate the process for the people in that district. It's not necessarily -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Hancock, you should love this. MR. CAUTERO: -- someone to provide assistance for us. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that code is with the architectural standards that they have to have when they construct a building. I'm suggesting a code to require them to keep those standards. In other words, if your building needs painting, paint it. If your awning is torn, replace it, repair it, do whatever it takes to keep those architectural standards in effect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the way we generate revenues to enforce that is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'll get back to you on that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cautero, I have a question for you on this outside consultant. I need to know if we're contemplating hiring Andres Duany. MR. CAUTERO: We are not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. There would be at least one more zero if we were talking about Andres Duany. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shouldn't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can we stipulate that no cappuccino machines should be allowed with any consultant? MR. CAUTERO: We can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shouldn't that area -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's discrimination. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- pay for its -- I mean, we went through this a little bit with Marco last year when they were doing their master planning and all that, but if there's going to be additional costs, shouldn't that area be paying for it themselves as opposed to the MSTD? MR. CAUTERO: Well put. I mean, we discussed that issue, as you said, earlier, Commissioner. One of the things we are going to be looking at may be outside sources through grants, perhaps through the community redevelopment effort in that area which we haven't gotten into very deeply yet. We can find that. We don't know that now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to be looking at that after we go ahead and budget this amount or -- MR. CAUTERO: I would say, unfortunately, yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. CAUTERO: I didn't want to present it to you that way, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't mind 15,000 for a kick start, but I think we need to be fair to the rest of the community, and that a CRA does have its limits, and Davis Boulevard does have its limits, and so if we want to kick start it with 15 grand to the MSTD, I don't have a big problem with that, but let's put a big caution as we move forward on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to give me CRAs out in Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want my home to become a CRA. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You still pay the full tax level, you just don't know whether to begin to file. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know, you don't get it. It comes back to me so I can redevelop my home again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, are we moving on? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll have the only single family CRA in Collier County. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you through then, Mr. Cautero? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions on code enforcement? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Spin more. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Done with that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes our discussion on the unincorporated area of general fund. We are moving to our special revenue funds now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Special revenues. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Which begin on Page C-2 and 3 which is the community development fund. Again, just for orientation's sake, this is the fund regulating the building industry and the issuance of building permits and all costs associated thereof. No ad valorem taxes; funded by building permit fees, principally, as well as development and planning related fees, just for your orientation, and Mr. Kukulski is the analyst. I'll turn it over to him. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We on C-2 in the summary. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUKULSKI: Summary pages are on C-2 and C-3, and the list of the expended service requests are on Page C-5 for the community development fee. The community development fund overall showed an increase in carry forward balance, and the carry forward balance is basically funding the expanded service requests, and as I mentioned, they're listed on Page C-5. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I look at Page C-2 in our summary under community development and the transfers from general fund and HSTD at 20.1 percent and 10.6 percent increase, explain to me where that's mitigated or offset elsewhere because -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Those are expense transfers out. Essentially, those are transfers to the general fund for the annex related to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand, but that's -- they would be under the transfer heading. Okay. Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. That's a revenue to your general fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My wife wanted to drive -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, I like those numbers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It should be higher. Okay, never mind. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I went through that one last year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to see if you're awake. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Deja vu. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, credit where credit is due, Mr. Cautero. When Commissioner Norris and I first got on the board, one of our primary complaints in the board as a whole then was the level of service being provided, and actually, to all your staff, the level of service being provided in the amount of time it took to get things done, and just looking here in our big book, the performance measures in how well we are doing. A lot of credit is due you and the whole staff because we have dramatically improved in five years, and we have pretty impressive numbers here. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not to mention quality. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Moving on. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. No questions? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Expanded services, C-5. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, we aren't normally that easy on that department. We just raked them over the coals last year. MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, is that what happened? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Look at the transcript from last year, and it will be a lot clearer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We got blood out of that turnip last year, so '- MR. FERNANDEZ: Sounds like you heard the message loud and clear there. MR. McNEES: He just called you a turnip, Vince. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Mr. Kukulski, where are we now? MR. KUKULSKI: That was the -- that was the completion of the community development fund, 113. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUKULSKI: Then there are other special revenue funds under community development. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have a question. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Hang on. Hang on. I think Commissioner Constantine has a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On C-5, expanded services. MR. KUKULSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty thousand dollars to produce an educational brochure to identify exotic plant species. How are we going to distribute those, to whom and what impact do we expect them to have? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And do they include the carrot wood? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ah, they do not. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, again, for the record. This came out of the recommendation that EPTAB brought to you earlier this year, I believe in February, and you asked for a cost estimate on what it would take. Part of that is with the code enforcement expanded request, and the other part of -- that we recommended to the county administrator's office was the $30,000. The goal is to submit it to as many single -- submit that brochure or mail it to as many single family home owners as possible or make it available to them through other means if we don't mail it. We are estimating twenty-five to 30,000 copies, and the cost would be $30,000. It's purely discretionary. We present it to you because you asked for the cost from EPTAB's recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the reason -- I mean, it may be a very good idea, but if we don't know how we are going to distribute it, and it sounds like we're not sure yet, then that kind of raises a flag. It may be the best piece in the world, but if nobody ever sees it, it doesn't do us a whole lot of good. MR. CAUTERO: We will probably mail a large majority of them. I would think if we produce 30,000, I would like to mail out between twenty and 25,000 bulk rate. We're looking at approximately 12 to 15 cents per mail out on that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like junk mail. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's my question. I mean, how many people, when they get this, are going to read it? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Junk mail. MR. CAUTERO: I couldn't predict that. Again, it's purely discretionary. I can tell you that the staff did not make a hard recommendation to support it. We presented it to you because EPTAB brought it to you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps this is one -- MR. CAUTERO: I don't have a strong feeling for it, quite honestly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are going back on what we decided on a previous hearing. I guess my suggestion before deleting it might be to print a number of them and put them in fertilizer and garden shops where people who give a whatever about their lawn may be appropriate to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what we decided in a previous hearing was to look at -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Almost slipped, didn't you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a sign of getting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we decided at a previous hearing was to look at it and explore it as an option, and that's all we are doing here. We didn't say we were definitely going to go forward. My concern is -- I mean, if I already own a single family house and this comes in the mail and my house was built before '89, it doesn't impact me anyway, and I don't know how we have anything -- you know, I don't know how you differentiate that. I just don't see a very effective distribution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Mr. Cautero is not going to argue with us on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if we were -- you know, if we were going to spend $30,000 for some sort of environmental education that we're going to try to give to the public, I'm not sure that this would be it; A) the issue or B) how we would do it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like a cut to me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a cut. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got the cuts. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. That moves us on to Page C-7, community development, the pollution control fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That's what we -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: They begin on C-15 in the detail book. I can probably just brief you, though, from the summary book. The pollution clean up fund, 108, is essentially -- we receive contracts through funding from the state to clean up sites that are contaminated with petroleum products. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a real dumb question? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, me'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why can't this department go burn that dirt at the airport? MR. SMYKOWSKI: George, were you here for that discussion about the Marco Island Airport? They have some contaminated soil. MR. YILMAZ: I'm sorry, I was not. MR. SMYKOWSKI: They have, basically, a pile of contaminated dirt that they need to have cleaned up, and the question is, can either your department do it or would it be eligible for perhaps funding under the pollution clean up and -- you need to state your name for the record, too, just to start off. Thank you. MR. YILMAZ: For the record, pollution control, George Yilmaz. Yes, me'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, just that there's -- please talk to the Airport Authority about some contaminated dirt that they have at the Marco Island Airport and that they were seeking budget funds to have it removed and see if that isn't something that these two -- that this fund could accomplish for them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as part of that discussion, too, when we do the transfer -- and Nail was involved. It wasn't Mr. McNees at the time, but when we do the transfer with the state of Jane Scenic Highway and that, one of the things they specifically requested, knowing that PBA used to be down there and was a little careless with some of their fuel, was that if there was some environmental concern there, the state be responsible for that clean up. They were transferring it to us, and if they should have liability for any pre-existing condition, and that was a sticking point, but to the best of my recollection, that stayed in. The state had balked, and that's why we didn't have the agreement the first time around. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it did ultimately stay in. So, I'm not sure why we would be spending money on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you sure it wasn't removed by Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm pretty sure it wasn't. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm really pretty sure -- I'd be real surprised if -- so that would be something else real important to look at. MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. I'll talk to John Drury and look into it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, about both issues. MR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, and ship program, also same thing, we get funds and disburse funds, so it's -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct, and the fund -- the pollution control fund is a countywide ad valorem tax. There's a slight tax decrease proposed of note. Mr. Yilmaz, based on need and use, transferred one of his employees to the community development fund which is supported by fees. So, we are attempting to work within the constraints of the existing budgets and re-allocate the resources to where they are most needed, and again, that's taking an employee who was funded by taxes now to being funded by building permits. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good idea. This is a -- I'm sorry, but just one time, because I think you'll care about this. This was a -- this was a referendum -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that indicating that perhaps he didn't care about other things? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: He wants to turn the page. This -- this was the tax, the special tax passed by referendum that's up to half a mill. MR. YILMAZ: One tenth of a mill. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Up to a tenth of a mill., and it's in perpetuity. It's forever. Is there ever going to be a point in time where we're going to -- when the public would reasonably assume that thank you for taxing us that tenth of a mill., but we don't need this tax anymore? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, eliminate it? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Eliminate this tax, that was my question. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, because theoretically -- because it's only up to, that theoretically, we can make that a zero every year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I just wonder -- you know, we look at this in special funds every year as if it were a fee or -- it's really just a plain old tax. People did vote on it and assess it against themselves, but we can make it stop. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, one of the principal activities, though, is water quality monitoring within the community. It's certainly an important issue. MR. YILMAZ: As a follow up to your discussion, Commissioner, we currently use -- and since this special tax has been imposed upon, we have not used more than 50 percent of one tenth of a mill. So, we add on everything we could to make sure that we make best use out of every dollar, and our primary focus has been drinking water resources and groundwater resources more than -- and others. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You may remember two years ago the extensive water quality questions we asked because the testing program was widespread and not really yielding any usable -- so we've restrained that to those things that are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only reason for bringing it up is I want you to notice it for future reference, that it's in a special revenue section, but it's a plain old property tax, and we could look at it in future years. I'm done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You might give that direction to the county administrator. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. County Administrator, so noted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Under your list of things to do for next year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That moves us to Pages C-10 and C-11 in your summary book. This gets us into the MSTD -- principally, the MSTD use for things such as road maintenance, street lighting, the beautification districts. As I alluded to in my opening remarks, the board has a little more of a limited policy making role here. There are citizen advisory groups within each of these districts working through staff to communicate their needs and bring forth a budget that represents the needs and direction from those advisory boards. There are expanded services on Page C-11 in the road construction, road maintenance districts. You're seeing the impact of median beautification efforts and the ongoing cost of maintenance in those regards. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Bobanick, on -- it seems to me last year we added a mowing crew, not for the beautified areas but for the general areas, where we tried to trim and maintain something below 18 inches of grass in the median or along the side the road. Is that right, we added the one crew last year? MR. BOBANICK: For the record, my name is Dave Bobanick, interim director of transportation. That was additional work taken on by our existing landscape crews. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We didn't add a crew or we did add a crew last year? MR. BOBANICK: We did not add a crew, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we contract more out to -- did we do something? I remember getting a memo four or five months ago that said people could -- I had some complaints on how often the medians, and I don't mean the beautified medians, but the regular medians were being mowed, and from -- someone in your department had sent something back and said, we can probably expect that every two to three weeks instead of every five to six weeks because we are now either contracting or had a crew or -- MR. BOBANICK: Perhaps you're referring to the fact that we have a mowing crew for general roadside mowing by contract. It's production mowing on some of the more rural roads in the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we adding -- are we asking to add anything more with that this year or are we happy -- we're satisfied with the level of mowing? MR. BOBANICK: We are satisfied with that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question just -- I don't know which fund number one, but it's one of the MSTDs, and it has to do with the widening of the East Trail in the fact that the program by FDOT currently shows street lights on one side of the street instead of on both sides, and what I'm told by transportation people is that if we wanted to -- if we ever want to get lighting on both sides of 41 on the East Trail, we have to, this year before they start construction, put it in a budget to show that we have the extra one hundred and thirty some odd thousand dollars that it would take to put in the street lights on the other side. There's that, and there's a whole lot of -- you're going to be shocked. There's eight foot wide concrete strips down the middle of that that I would dearly love to see us do something, colored concrete or some pavers or a little bit of landscaping or something, and we have to do that in -- as I understand it, we have to have that in this budget so that we can show FDOT why they should add that to their contract. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't disagree with you, but I think these MSTUs all have advisory committees. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the MSTDs is what I'm talking about, the road district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But even these MSTDs -- oh, you're talking about just the road district MSTD. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. I'm not talking about the MSTUs. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I was down below that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. BOBANICK: On January 7th, I believe, and I can't remember the person's name from East Naples who made a presentation to the Board of Commissioners requesting consideration for landscaping improvements on the East Trail as a future project, and board direction at that time was to develop a -- to work with FDOT and -- in the development of the medians on the East Trail to make sure that provisions were put in place for landscaping efforts and so forth. Our arterial consultant is currently working on that. I know of -- I've not had any indication that we have to have anything funded in Fund 102 in order to accomplish this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I've gotten as far as to get estimates on -- that the FDOT budget for lighting on the East Trail is one hundred and seventy-five some odd thousand dollars. If we wanted to -- if we wanted to get lights on both sides of the East Trail, we would have to budget $135,000 to buy those lights to put them in because we would have to do that as an add on to the FDOT contract. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions: One, that's a state project, and two, why would we want to have them on both sides? Aren't the lights out there pretty extensive, pretty bright? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, the lights that they have on the plans right now, I think are going to violate county ordinance because of spill over into neighborhoods within the Davis triangle. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would we want to add more? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we want a whole different kind of light, and I mean, that's the next thing. We want this cobra head light instead of the lights that they have on the plan, and I wish you would say you want to have decorative lights, and that would be another $102,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, but those taxes are paid by the people in that -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: In that district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- HSTD district and -- I mean, if you want -- if you -- if you're asking to jump that budget by those amounts -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that road district number one? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't even know what district it is in. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that road district number one, is it? MR. BOBANICK: I believe -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The East Trail. It's not the one that you would think it is. MR. BOBANICK: If you'll excuse me for a second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wouldn't it be less expensive to put some shields if they are going to flood into neighborings than it would to put in a whole new light system in for another 135,0007 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's -- that's certainly an issue. I mean, there's a lot of ways of looking at it, but I want you guys to know that I was very surprised with the plans that we saw from FDOT; eight foot wide solid concrete medians. I wish that we would put some money in to do something about those -- to have some alternatives to those, and unless we put it in now, we don't have anything to go to FDOT and say, we don't like that. Right now, if we go to them and say we don't like it, they say, tough, because you waited too long, you don't have any money. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Why are we doing the concrete medians? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Eight foot wide concrete medians and lights on just one side -- a lot of six foot wide concrete medians. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's no maintenance to a concrete median. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's their standard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, what I hear Commissioner Hac'Kie saying is, ask them to do curbs instead of the concrete median which means you're then going to have to accept in that district the maintenance of those medians until they can follow -- fall into some type of a planting plan that is in concert with what we've adopted countywide. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is what I'm talking about; not any kind of sodding, but just some ground cover, you know, that doesn't require mowing or -- you know, something like what we're doing -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I think that's a planting plan that needs to be in concert with what we are doing countywide. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's why, frankly, I didn't bring up the planting part. That's why I didn't bring up the landscaping part. I'm just bringing up lighting and, you know, some general improvement budget in that fund. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But unless you agree to take over the maintenance of those medians, they are going to build concrete. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you want them to do curbing instead, you're going to have to get a -- just a mowing maintenance cost of those medians for minimal maintenance and agree to take that over. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do you want to flag the MSTD road district one, put together these costs? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it one or three? MR. BOBANICK: If I may, that might be more appropriate as a capital expenditure rather than a maintenance expenditure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I hate to get it into capital expenditure because you know how much more complicated it gets then. For one thing, it goes to general fund. For another thing, it goes to OCPM. So, you've got all those fees on top. I'd like to just spend real money on dirt. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Edward Finn, operations director. When Dave refers to capital, he means the transportation capital plan which is funded by impact fees and gas taxes, and I think maybe we can come up with a little more coherent approach to this discussion if we wait for that to come up. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll be happy if -- if -- the majority of the board would agree to flag this, ask staff to come up with some kind of a plan before wrap-up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not comfortable committing to a specific project out of gas taxes and impact fees without looking at a whole big picture. I mean, I'm sure there are places all over the county that have things we would like to do, and I'm not ready to say the East Trail is the one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- and frankly, that's why I was asking for it out of this fund because, you know, I'm willing to live with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- Mr. Fernandez, does -- I assume when the state does a project, they are required to adhere to standard ordinances, standard -- I mean, usually FDOT is pretty good to work with. They are not going to set up lighting that floods into areas. I mean, we don't allow ourselves to do that. We'll set up shielding and so on. I assume they would be required to do the same or would certainly work with us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, it depends on the requirement. I think sometimes they argue that the state regulations and requirements take precedent over county, and it has to do with the whole home rule issue that we fight with our association all the time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they were wonderful when they were here whatever night, Monday night, in saying how much they want to work with us on this, but they were also saying, guys, we've left the contract. The contract is left. If you want us to do anything different, if it costs a nickel more, it's yours, and so I would like for us to have a few nickels available to do something about those eight foot concrete medians -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I suggest -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- something about the lighting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the maintenance of medians subject to the MSTD road district fund? MR. BOBANICK: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is the maintenance of medians subject to the MSTD road district fund? MR. BOBANICK: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's one issue. So, if by wrap-up, you want to propose an increase in the MSTD road district fund to cover the maintenance of grass medians -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we are sleeving them for irrigation. We are getting that far. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- then you've covered the maintenance cost and the request for curbing instead of solid medians, I think could follow. The other -- MR. BOBANICK: If I may, there won't be anything to maintain in the upcoming fiscal year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. BOBANICK: We just won't have anything -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably two years. MR. BOBANICK: -- constructive. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Probably two years. MR. BOBANICK: Pardon? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Probably two fiscal years. MR. BOBANICK: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I need it -- MR. BOBANICK: And we can address that on a future budget, obviously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, it doesn't have to happen this -- the other thing you're talking about, the capital, the problem is, if we start putting capital into these, we have altered the copy of what the HSTDs are for. They are really for roadway maintenance in those districts. If we start putting capital expenditures in here, then we need to modify our policy for all districts. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's why I'm willing to say I defer how to do this, and I would ask you guys to challenge our staff to come up with what if -- where should it go, but let's not ignore the issue of eight foot wide concrete medians. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Be so challenged. MR. BOBANICK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Before wrap-up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Hac'Kie, I just encourage you on those lights, look at -- I think you can probably achieve what you described for a lot less with some shielding and creative use out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'll tell you, you guys are going to want to do something about this because I know that we are not going to spend too many dollars like the City of Naples is doing to make the upgrades of theirs, but neither do we want to see the line from the City of Naples to be all these gorgeous palms and then the concrete starts. That's not what East Naples deserves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- I think we just addressed that with the medians. The lights are what sounds like is left. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, and the jack and bore of the -- I don't want to have to jack and bore those eight foot wide concrete medians. I would like for them to be curbed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Didn't we -- I thought we just addressed that. We said that we would put the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We did. We did. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, the median issue is done. We are going to take care of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was she here? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we don't need to go back -- so, all we are talking about is lighting, right? Those are the two issues, median and lighting. So, go forth on lighting. MR. BOBANICK: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any other questions on the street lighting districts, beautification MSTUs, drainage and roadway or revenues? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I'm thick. Where is the money that I'm going to show to FDOT that says instead of the concrete medians, give me curb and gutter? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The next year's budget. We can't budget for it in this fiscal year because the cost won't be realized. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they won't do it if I don't show it to them this year. They're going to build concrete eight foot wide if we don't show it to them. Help me, Adolfo. MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. It's the Florida DOT standard operating procedure that prior to letting the construction phase, a participating -- another municipality has to put 110 percent of the expected construction amount into an escrow account that they will manage, and then if there are excess funds, they'll give it back to you at the end of the project, but their requirement, it's common, is to have all the money in escrow prior to them letting a construction contract. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Mac'Kie has told us they've already letted. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they told us Monday night that they would do this if we would come up with the money. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, all we need to do is figure out how much it would cost to mow the medians you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Construct them as curb and gutter instead of -- construct them as curb and gutter instead of as eight foot solid concrete. MR. BOBANICK: As I indicated, we do -- our staff is working on a plan and working in cooperation with FDOT to make the necessary changes to make those medians ready for landscaping. When the project -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're showing you some -- they've shown on their plans what is currently scheduled to be landscaped, and nevertheless, there's a lot -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let him finish because he's going to tell you that he has it under control. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think he does. MR. BOBANICK: I -- I -- again, as I indicated, FDOT is willing to work with us to make some changes even after the project is let in order to have the landscaped median. At which time, if there is additional monies required, we'll still have plenty of time before the project is over to consider what it's going to take and how much the cost is going to be. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about what Adolfo just said about having the money up front? That's what they told me. Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. There is a construction element of this that I have experience with, and that is that when you pour an eight foot wide concrete curb, there's a cost. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When you run a linear foot of curbing, it's a lesser cost. So, FDOT would be happy to do curbing instead of an eight foot wide concrete median because it's going to cost them less money. All we need to do is to provide a commitment of maintenance to them, and they would be willing to do that. That's what Mr. Bobanick is telling you, he's working on that, but the bottom line is, it costs less to run that linear foot of curbing than it does to pour an eight foot wide span of concrete median. MR. BOBSICK: If I may, can we come back to you with our plan and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please, at wrap-up. MR. BOBSICK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Moving right along. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's only four o'clock. yet. It's not even 6:00 COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I wanted to talk about Bayshore, but I guess I'll stop. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, if I may. There's one issue regarding Fund 102 which is one of the road districts. The board is going to see an agenda item Tuesday on that. Their proposal deals with funding a major engineering review of the Marco Island area associated with the master plan. The funding source for that engineering effort is going to be Fund 102 or the proposal is. I believe you're going to see that agenda item proposes a millage increase or a tax increase above what you're seeing on Page C-23. The scope of that is about $4.25 per thousand increase to fund the Marco Island effort, and I just want to give you a heads up on that. Mr. Smykowski asked me -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's the total increase. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the boundaries of 102, it's much more than just Marco Island. What else is it? I mean, how big are the -- who all is going to pay the tax for Marco Island zone? MR. FINN: The way that will be set up, it will be earmarked coming from the portion set aside for the Marco Island area. The district itself includes Marco Island and a substantial portion of East Naples. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, will East Naples be paying for the Marco improvement or will that -- MR. FINN: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- only be paid for by Marco? MR. FINN: It will be paid for by Marco. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Mr. Finn, did you perhaps misspeak? Did you mean $4.25 per 100,0007 MR. FINN: I believe you're correct, Mr. McNees. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, it's going from approximately thirteen dollars and change per 100,000 to seventeen. MR. McNEES: Dr. Biles was having a stroke, and I thought I'd better save her from herself. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't worry, Fay, that only comes to about $400 a house. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifty cents a day; sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else on this? Okay. Moving right along at such a rapid pace. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Tourist development funds? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Tell you what, we are at four o'clock. When was our last break; 1:30, 2:30? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: 2:30. Let's keep going. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you okay for another hour at least? (Reporter nods head.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Next item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Tourist development funds on Page C-15. Ms. Gansel is the budget analyst. I think she can walk you through. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: C-15 of our summary? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. MS. GANSEL: Yes, commissioners. Jean Gansel. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a page in the big book? MS. GANSEL: In the big book is C-87. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. GANSEL: Essentially, what we do with the tourist development tax is that we put it in a reserve, and then as the TDC and the board reviews it, those funds are allocated. We do project upcoming revenues, and we have our projecting -- sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anyone have any questions on this one? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. MS. GANSEL: I do have two things I want to say. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, okay. MS. GANSEL: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's get the half things in there. MS. GANSEL: There are two things. The turtle monitoring is in there. Also, I just want to say that we have -- in category A, we've budgeted a little over two million dollars that will repay the Marco Island beach renourishment or pay off that loan, and that is something that we have talked about for a while, and it is included in this budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. I like to hear that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The previous board direction in that regard was talk -- had talked about borrowing on commercial paper and repaying that debt, but our philosophy was, if we have adequate cash, why incur the cost of borrowing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- but on one of the -- we just saw an item just a little bit ago that had the Marco Island beach renourishment appropriated this year. We just saw it. MS. GANSEL: That's not the debt service fund. This is -- we are paying off in the debt service fund, the two million dollars. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. There is no proposed tax levy on that beach front property. There's about two years left on that bond issue. There is not a proposed tax levy. That's in fund. MS. GANSEL: I believe the fund you're speaking of is the capital fund. It was just on that past page that we looked at. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MS. GANSEL: That's not the debt service fund. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What is that; 15. MS. GANSEL: Yes, that's right, 159. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What is Fund 1597 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's coming. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It says the Marco Island renourishment. MS. GANSEL: Right. MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall from the budget office. Just give me two seconds, and I'll get to the page. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's C-62 and 63 in the detail book. MR. TINDALL: I'm sorry. What was the question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is that fund? MR. TINDALL: The purpose of the fund, it's for the purpose of minimum operating expenditures associated with -- there are many portions of previously generated funds that are being held in reserves for future uses. Let me just read you the goals of the district and all that, and I'll give you an idea what it is for. The Marco Island beach renourishment and public access, municipal service taxing unit was created and established for the purpose of providing for beach renourishment, improved storm protection of beaches and public access to beaches and to do all things necessary in connection therewith with the boundaries of the unit. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why is that not the same thing? MR. TINDALL: This is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's an ancient MSTD. We haven't actually levied taxes since FY '89, so this is just residual cash from previous tax levies, and Adolfo, if you could -- MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, yes, that's correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Can value add to that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where did I see that before? We are levying something this year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we are doing is expanding built up reserves on an annual basis until that's depleted; is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: For some beach maintenance operations, monitoring mostly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that just reflect what's left in the account? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. That's the break water. I think we paid from that. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MS. GANSEL: The other one is the debt service when money was borrowed to renourish the beach. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Question answered. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Moving right along. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Moving right along. Thank you, Ms. Gansel. Another fine, fine presentation. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Where were we? That moves us to Page C-19 with the fire control districts and two kinds of small operating funds, the 800 megahertz for operations, the 800 megahertz radio system and that small fund for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance funded by handicapped parking fines, a portion thereof is utilized to fund improvements for handicapped access. I'll turn it over to Ms. Leith at this point. MS. LEITH: For the record, Shelia Leith, office of management and budget. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Leith, is there anything you really have to get on the record here because this looks fairly straightforward to me? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Me, too. MS. LEITH: The only thing I would like to mention is the expanded service request in Fund 188 is actually moved ahead and will be on your agenda next week. Rather than being an expanded service request for next year, Mr. Daly is looking to move forward with that in this budget year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, it's coming out of this budget and coming out of reserves on Tuesday if we approve it? MS. LEITH: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. LEITH: Oh, yes. There's one more -- one other thing I need to mention here is that the Collier County Fire Control which is the unincorporated area of the county that's outside of any of the fire districts, there's a reshuffle of monies going on within the various fire districts that are paid from that fund, and from what I understand from Ms. Flagg, two days ago, there was an agreement reached on that where the Isle of Capri will now receive instead of -- I believe they were receiving $6,000 previously annually, that that's going to be increased to $33,000 annually, and then the rest of that -- of the monies will be split between East Naples, Golden Gate and Ochopee. North Naples has dropped out of the mix where they have been receiving $10,000 per year up to now, and that's -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: There's a two mill. tax levy in that area for the outlined regions that's split, apportioned among these four districts. Basically, we are recutting the pie based on the number of responses and the associated work -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which makes perfect sense. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- involved, and Ms. Flagg indicates that an agreement has been reached. That is good news. MS. LEITH: Yes, there will be some sort of executive summary coming forward and a contract agreement -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. MS. LEITH: -- arrived at on that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But our budget prior to that was predicated on this assumption, and we wanted you to be clear that it was. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any concerns? None. Next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page C-22 and 23, our -- the balance of the special revenue funds, the Golden Gate Community Center operating fund. We'll talk about the museum fund. There's a courts fund, clerk records monitorization and the Sheriff's E-911 phone system fund. There are some expanded services proposed on Page C-23. MR. OLLIFF: Fund 130 is the taxing district portion of that fund, the confusing split of funding sources that we described when we were looking at ad valorem taxes. This is the actual taxing district portion, and it's gone up one-half of 1 percent, primarily just to cover some increased operating expenses, but you will also see the same list of capital projects down below and the fair share of the MSTU -- excuse me -- the MSTU is bearing for those. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on 198 museum, help me with that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that the one that Ms. Goodnight asked us to hold for wrap-up? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's absolutely correct, and she was, specifically, interested in the last item on the page, C-23 is the requested but not recommended caretaker position that she was hoping would be added to the budget. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Did I understand her correctly that if we had that caretaker position, that would eliminate, like, the need for a ground maintenance person -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what she said. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- that this person -- this person would take over that duty? MR. OLLIFF: Ron and I have calculated -- we've figured there's about $8,000 in operating expenses that you can back out of your budget, your operating budget for Roberts Ranch with the position. Instead of having a contractor go out to Immokalee and cut the grass, the person who would be hired would actually cut the grass, and her expense estimate was a little higher than ours. We had estimated a little lower salary range for this position, primarily because you're providing housing and the utility cost for that. So, we were talking about a salary of $17,000 for that position and -- with an understanding that they would also maintain the property, show the property for school groups. So, our total cost was twenty-three thousand seven, and you back out the $8,000, we are down to around 15,700 for that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To get a house and 17 grand, I'll take it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Currently, isn't the property closed off? MR. OLLIFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sold. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, I mean, we're -- it's not saving too much in the way of caretaking if it's not open now anyway, and it's an added expense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would there be any potential revenues from groups, visitors, anything like that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They said they were going to present us with a whole business plan, remember, at wrap-up. I think we told her we would -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then why are we discussing it now? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I think we should -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think what she's looking at is if it's put in the budget now, that they would come to us, but it's still my understanding, Pam, even if she does that or if they, the Friends of Roberts Ranch does that, we'll still have -- we'll still be incurring this cost. I believe that was the way I understood it anyway -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they want -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- but there would be a plan associated with it just to how they are going to go ahead -- and perhaps it sounded like they're -- at some point in time, there may be some revenue generating things coming forth. I'm not -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just like to discuss it then. MR. SHYKOWSKI: From a funding issue standpoint, the museum operation is now a TDC -- is now TDC funded with the 7 percent that is available from category B. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Is there anything available from TDC for this particular project? MR. SHYKOWSKI: There's a reserve of $21,700, but there are some other expanded services. MR. OLLIFF: We have some other expanded service requests coming out of this fund that are within the allotment that the board set aside for the museum, and frankly, in our own world, our expanded requests that we have in front of you are higher priorities for us than is the Roberts Ranch position. If you were to approve the budget the way it's currently structured, it would actually require an additional transfer from general fund into this fund for the difference between the two positions. So, if we said it was 15,700 was the difference, that's what would be required from general fund in order to make this cost inter balance. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no objection with any of those things. That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Including the inclusion of the Roberts Ranch? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yes, but the -- but Ms. Goodnight wants to come give us a preparation, so let's flag it for wrap-up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Include for now the requested but not recommended item to the tune of $15,700 to be discussed further at wrap-up. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And at this point, you could always, at a future date, without affecting -- if you decide to fund that from the general fund, you could take it out of reserves. So, you know, in setting the millage rate, you can make that decision at any point down the road pending commitment of funds on their part, et cetera. So, you have a number of options in that regard. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Next. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That moves us to debt service; not a whole lot to discuss there. That's Page G-3. Essentially, all we do here is budget, obviously, for outstanding principal and interest payments on existing county debt which is limited. The most significant issue was the one identified by Ms. Gansel, the retirement of those Marco Island bonds with no proposed tax levy for the beach front property on Marco Island, thereby substituting TDC revenue as the repayment source, but aside from that, there's really no policy decisions to be made in this area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well then, that pretty much means we don't have anything to do. Next. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That gets us to, essentially, our general fund -- or non-general fund capital which would include like your parks impact fees and library impact fees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Page numbers. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll turn it over to Mr. Tindall. MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall from the budget office. We need to go to Page H-3 near the back of the large book. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, our summary book is -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Done. MR. TINDALL: Not going to be used for this discussion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Because what we are looking at here essentially is the individual projects proposed for funding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And these are all impact fees and -- is that impact fee alone or impact fee and sales tax revenue and gas tax revenue and other things? MR. TINDALL: Primarily impact fee and gas tax revenue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And gas tax, okay. MR. TINDALL: We covered the property tax type revenue. MR. SHYKOWSKI: As we cover each fund, we'll identify the type of funding that is utilized. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. TINDALL: We'll start off with a discussion of the regional and community park impact fee funds and the projects requested. As you can see, we have a summary on Page H-3 which shows the entire parks capital program. We -- we finished a discussion of Fund 306 today, and the remainder, if you look on the columns under FY '98 requested, that shows for Fund 345, the regional park impact fee fund, what's being requested which is one project really, 428,900 to complete the second park project, and then the Naples and urban Collier County park impact -- community park impact fee fund showing a million six for the South Naples community park project and $10,000 for Golden Gate Estates and some new project requests for parking lots, shade structures and a water play area as well as a fitness center. That's all in Fund 368 which, as I said, is a Naples and urban Collier County community park impact fee fund. The remainder of the expenditures requested is the Immokalee Community Park impact fee fund which is -- there's being $9,000 requested for the Immokalee sports complex, and we can go into the individual fund summaries which start on Page H-4. We got it broken together in a little bit more readable fashion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, because there's a couple of those I have questions on. The first is the fitness center at $725,000. It's not ringing any bells. I'm trying to -- I know we have a fitness center in Golden Gate, but I'm at a little bit of a loss there. MS. RAMSEY: Paula Ramsey, parks and recreation. This particular fitness center is an expansion of that one that's existing there now. I have some data if you would like to see that, but what we're looking to try and do is hook that up to the aquatic center and make it one facility. Right now, it's currently behind the admin. building, and it's about 2,200 acres, and we're looking to -- acres, I'm sorry -- square feet, and we are trying to expand that to about 5,000 square foot, add aerobic facilities to it as well as baby-sitting which we don't have currently, which would entice younger families to participate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sounds like a little mini YHCA going there. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How did that happen? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Help me understand again, the priorities established in this were a combination of parks and rec. advisory board recommendations and in some cases, board direction such as the South Naples Community Park that we specifically said go this way instead of that way; is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It might -- has this board -- other than budget time, has this board been given the opportunity to set a priority schedule among the projects or is that pretty much what we are doing here today? MS. RAMSEY: That's some of what you're doing today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just -- I know the fitness center is overly utilized there. It's extremely popular. What are the offsetting revenues for memberships on that, and that's probably what you have, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just happen to have a hand out on that point. MR. OLLIFF: This is one of those facilities that we did not know how popular it was going to be when we first went into the business, and I think we're sort of victims of our own success here. The popularity of it, it actually far out stripped the facility that we had available, and I think that the projections that she shows indicates that the project is actually a very good revenue generator for us, and with aerobics, we'll even be better. I'm sorry. Tom Olliff, public services administrator. MS. RAMSEY: The numbers you have in front of you are very conservative. It takes into account a ten percent -- or $10 fee increase when we expand, and the numbers are generated using the discounts that are current. A number of county employees are utilizing this facility as well. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the current fee amount? MS. RAMSEY: Well, the current fee is $160, but when you look at the discounts, and when I divide it all up, I come up with about a $99 per adult annual fee at moment -- at this moment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just so I get an overview picture, I understand that request. The water play area, is that in addition to the Golden Gate pool? MS. RAMSEY: No, actually, that is in addition to the Vineyards, and I have -- I don't know where my stuff went. I have a photo of it. It's a zero depth play area similar to what you see at the activity pool at Golden Gate accept there's no water standing. It's a sprinkler system activated by the children. That particular part, especially, is very hot, and I thought that this would be a very nice diversion. It's one of the things that instead of putting up a pool, it would be much more cost effective, and it still does the same kind of purpose. It cools the kids down. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No lifeguards needed when there's no water. MS. RAMSEY: That's exactly right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or no depth. Okay. While -- I'd like to see the picture of that also. Shade structures, 200,000. MS. RAMSEY: There's two different parks we're looking at. There again, next to this water play and the playground at the Vineyards, will be to put up a shade structure for the moms and their families so they will be out of the sun, and also, again, at Veterans. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the dads in case they want to take the kids down there. MR. RAMSEY: Well, I would hope so, yes. I'm sorry. I apologize. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's all right. We refer to all secretarial positions today as she, so -- okay. Parking lots. MS. RAMSEY: Because of the growth in Veterans, roller hockey rinks and all the other equipment that we put in there as well as East Naples, we are looking to try and put in a few more parking spaces in to accommodate the low drains peak times. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The only thing that I look at this and I would like to see some money being applied to, if not this year, next year, would be beach parking. It's something we don't -- we don't have a plan for it, per se, but it's something that I think is increasingly -- needs to become a priority. We are looking at grants and so forth on the Bluebill side if we ever -- you know, if we can get to a development stage there, but it's just noticeably absent as I look at the whole range of things here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things we talked about is trying to put together some comprehensive plan for beach parking and all other. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, but we haven't -- I don't know that the board has given direction to staff to specifically do that. We've talked -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we did. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- MR. OLLIFF: Actually, if you turn your page, and you'll go to Page -- to the regional park impact fee funds. That's 345. That is the funding source that we have traditionally used for beach and beach parking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. H-5, is there a line on there? MR. OLLIFF: No, that is -- that is the funding source, though, and one of the issues we've got, and, in fact, on Tuesday's agenda -- you keep hearing that. I can't wait to see Tuesday's agenda, but on that agenda, you actually have an item that talks about a parks master plan. The difficulty that we have always had is historically when you established regional park impact fees, they never took into account a need for beach parking, additional beach parks, beach access points, and why that was left out, I cannot tell you. Regional parks were a large two or 300 acre passive park, but no one ever considered beach parking. So, you don't really have a funding source that's dedicated for that, and so what we're going to ask you to do is actually to relook at your regional park impact fee and actually go back and develop a level of service that incorporates beach parking spaces so then when population comes in, there's going to be a standard that the county has to have for additional, either beach parking or accesses, and dedicate a funding source for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That -- that's the -- that's the commitment level I was looking for, Commissioner Norris. I know that we had talked about it and asked for it, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We gave specific direction a couple of weeks ago to start work on the plan. That was shortly after Commissioner Mac'Kie suggested that we build a parking garage down on '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did not. Don't repeat it. It will just cause more trouble. Don't repeat it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It was only three stories. MR. OLLIFF: But what you see in the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's parking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you're determined to say it again, John. Don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tract K on Marco Island. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That isn't what I said. MR. OLLIFF: The reason I pointed you to Fund 345 was just to show you that you have a fairly limited funding source, and all of those regional funds are generally being devoted next year to your regional park construction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to listen to him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all right. We're going to have a fistfight over here. You go right ahead and listen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you guys want to go inside and duke it out? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Take it outside. He's a karate guy, though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I asked this when we discussed the South Naples Community Park, but the anticipated regional park site that is going to be in the North Naples area when it's decided upon for location and so forth, what -- what time frame are we looking at for that if -- knowing we have a limited funding source, what are we looking at because I just -- MR. OLLIFF: We are looking at Tuesday for some direction. We are actually coming back to the board as part of that master plan with a couple of sites that we are looking at and some funding source options for the board to consider to be able to do that, but again, it's a change in the whole way that we are doing park development hopefully in the future. What we're -- in essence, what we are telling you on Tuesday is that we have a good system of community parks, and it doesn't make much sense for us to continue investing in that same type of park because from a park system standpoint, there are parks that you don't have, and it makes more sense to invest in other types of parks, and we are going to try and steer the board and our parks capital plan toward regional type parks, the first one being in North Naples. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That will -- that will keep me from crying over the fact that there's nothing in North Naples in this entire year's capital plan. MR. OLLIFF: Water play system, shade structures. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the one shade structure at Veterans, but I'm just -- Vineyards Park is on the other side of 1-75, so I don't consider that North Naples, but -- okay. Just trying to -- trying to be parochial as best I can. Not doing a very good job, might I add. Okay. Any questions on those items now that I've wasted a lot of time on them? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Parochial. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Parochial. While you guys are doing your jobs, I'm just not doing mine. Okay. Next. MR. TINDALL: Mr. Chairman, next we will be going to Fund 350 which is the EHS impact fee fund which is on Page H-10. What you'll see here is total of project or capital expenditures of 210,000, which includes one medium duty ambulance and associated medical equipment and radios which is one hundred and ten and $40,000 respectfully, and aviation repair and maintenance expenditures of $60,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, that ambulance and equipment is associated with that new Bonita Shores. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Bonita Shores, yeah. Since we approved the personnel, we ought to give them something to ride in and carry people around in. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Indeed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Next. MR. TINDALL: Okay. The library impact fee fund shows a total of project expenses of 930,500. The non-project expense of 17,500 is for a vehicle, and we are showing 740,000 projected and impact fees, and you can see a breakdown of the project expenses as far as the Harco Island library improvements and the north regional library for 205,000 for FY '98. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Jones, this 17,500 for a vehicle, is that your personal Hercedes we are putting on the ticket here? MR. JONES: John Jones, public library director. No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I didn't think you could get one for that price. Even you couldn't do it. MR. JONES: No, I own a Cherokee. I'm going to hold out for a Cherokee, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any particular color? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What kind of tag? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Did I read this correctly in that the end of fiscal year 1998, all reserves will be depleted? MR. JONES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of the 39,400. MR. JONES: We have -- this particular report doesn't show the unbudgeted impact fees. MR. OLLIFF: If you look up under the appropriation section, the reserves are 392,400. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Commissioner Hancock, that thirty-nine four is the statutory 5 percent revenue reserve on the estimated impact fee revenue collection. State law says we can only appropriate ninety-five cents on the dollar. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I just missed it then because I looked at -- at appropriation revenues with no leftover reserves. Show me where the leftover reserve is on this. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Last line before the total appropriations. It says -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 392,400. MR. SHYKOWSKI: 392,400. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we on Page 107 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Page 11, library. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I pretty much figured we were on library. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that's on Page 11. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'm not seeing it, but I'll take your word for it. Right here, okay. Okay. I've got you. Thank you. Kind of like a business plan, I want to see it before I improve it. HR. TINDALL: Any additional questions on library impact fees? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. Thank you, Mr. Jones. MR. TINDALL: What we would like to do is cover the utilities capital when we discuss the utilities operating budgets in that context when we do enterprise funds on Monday. So, what we would like to do at this point is skip to the roads capital, which starts on Page H-16, and to help with the discussion, we have prepared a page on Page H-19 which shows the entire '98 budget request as far as total projected expenditures as compared to the latest version of the adopted road plan to show the variances from the adopted road plan for particular projects, if you look on Page H-19. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is one of those things that just mirrors our previous direction on priorities with one exception. If -- and this is a huge if. If the paper was correct, the new section of Livingston Road is included in this funding plan that is north of Immokalee; is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. We have put monies into the Livingston Road project to cover all of the additional right-of-way we need for that project. So, the money you see in there, the million and some odd dollars is for right-of-way acquisition to buy all the right-of-way we need for that corridor. There is no construction funds. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, the construction funds that have been talked about by the developer out there and any impact fee credits that they have been hinting at and so forth, none of that has -- has been really discussed or decided on, so it has no impact on this budget? It's just purchasing the right-of-way? MR. GONZALEZ: Just purchasing the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And there's no impact fee deal there; we are just buying it outright? MR. GONZALEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what I like to see, advance right-of-way acquisition. Any questions? MR. HcNEES: You will see an impact fee agreement on your -- either on your agenda, probably for your first meeting back, or if it's a consent agenda item, perhaps approved in the meantime for the other -- the east/west segment of Livingston Road, a different developer. While you're asking the question, but it's a different issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, and those will be reviewed individually and decided upon and -- MR. McNEES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the timing of those roadways' need to the balance of the county is going to be the key in that discussion, I think, for me anyway, so -- Okay. Any other questions on transportation projects? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, next. MR. TINDALL: If there are no additional questions related to the road plan, all that's remaining is just some miscellaneous capital funds which we can discuss to the extent that you'd like. They begin on Page 30. The Wiggins Pass dredging fund is, basically, inactive. It has carried forward -- and reserves budgeted for -- and indirect cost charges budgeted for FY '98. Same with the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This $93,000 of carry forward that we are continuing to carry; is that what I'm getting? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Being used this year. We are doing the dredging this fiscal year, aren't we? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, this fall. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MR. TINDALL: The Marco beach renourishment fund, there were some expenses -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next. MR. TINDALL -- in the amended -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MR. TINDALL: -- budget in the current fiscal year. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next means continue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Naples Park, next. MR. TINDALL: Naples Park drainage. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a done deal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Next. MR. TINDALL: That's pretty much a done deal, that's correct, and of course, the road assessment fund is basically a use funding source for other areas. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. No questions there. MR. TINDALL: And that's it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With the exception of a brief wrap-up, we then have public speakers, and then we are done. So, Mr. Smykowski, do you want to give us any -- anything you deem happy news at this point? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, no happy news at this point other than we are done for the day. Perhaps that -- but for public speakers. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the total. MR. SMYKOWSKI: On Monday, we will be looking at the enterprise funds, the internal service funds and the trust funds which delayed the board. There's no policy decisions to be made there, and wrap-up at that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those first three items shouldn't take very long. So, the bulk of the day, if any, will be spent at wrap-up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I ask everyone to bring their notes and concerns and things. We do have public speakers registered. We have one. Let's go to the public speaker then. MR. McNEES: That would be Janet Vasey. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know you folks have done a lot of work, and we didn't have the timer in place yesterday, but we -- there's only two of you today, but let's be as concise as we can. Thank you. MS. VASEY: Okay, great. Thank you. Janet Vasey, for the record. What we wanted to do was go over a little bit the rationale of how we came up with the numbers in case you find fault with any of that and don't want to use them, and also, I've just broken out the general fund part of that so you will be able to tell, at least my version, and then we can have the real version later from Hike. Before I get started, though, I would like to negotiate the finder's fee for this money that can be deposited with the Greater Naples Civic Association. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll tell you what, you'll get the same share I do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. VASEY: Rats. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In fact, you can have my share. MS. VASEY: Oh, boy, now we're talking big bucks. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: They call us commissioners, but we don't work on commission, unfortunately. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another pun. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was actually -- that's joke status; out of the pun category. MS. VASEY: Okay. Basically, the COLA we wanted to describe a little bit since that one is sort of a big number, and we weren't really sure what was happening in the budget, but we were aware that there was the pay plan adjustment in April of '96, and it was our understanding that at that time, everyone got the proper pay alignment for everyone. Some people got pay raises, and some people didn't, and you tell me whether there's -- where there's any problem. So, we thought that when the pay raise was given in April of '97, that that was the one year cost of living, that that's where we were. So, when we saw the pay raise on October of '97, that's where we weren't sure why that was being given and why it wouldn't be in April, and there may be valid reasons, but that was our thinking, and that's how we came up with the number. When we talk about that number -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's focus on the number, because the board kind of gave direction today to do that, to move it to April. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, we gave direction to move it to April. MS. VASEY: I'm sorry. I thought you still had some questions on those. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We just need to know how much. MS. VASEY: Okay. I came up with -- you said one seventy, Hike? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Uh-uh. MS. VASEY: I thought that turned out to be a pretty good number, too, and I beg your pardon for even doubting you. I think one seventy looks like a good number. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think his head just got bigger. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I breathed a sigh of relief because she agreed with me, actually. MS. VASEY: Hey. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we are in agreement. We've actually done that, and 170,000 is -- MS. VASEY: Yeah, that -- that would be the share, and we already identified 500 for the sheriff, so that part is already gone, and the rest would be the constitutional officers. Eric, do you want to do the next one on revenue? MR. WATLER: Yeah. Eric Watler, GNCA. My apologies, I thought I would have time to finish this sweet in my mouth, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure, you eat; we aren't, but that's okay, Eric, we won't hold it against you. MR. WATLER: I'd like to address revenue. My background is a commercial background, and so I remember well that life begins with revenue, so I think it's pretty important. When I raised this a little bit yesterday, I kind of thought I got kind of a glazed feeling that expenses are kind of firm when you can cut those, but revenue is kind of a bit, you know, cloud pushing and admonition from the county manager that, for goodness sake, don't forecast revenue you're not going to make, and that's a pretty good admonition, too. However, if you don't give people who are managing operations challenges to perform such as increasing revenue, then they won't rise to the increased number. So, I think there's a balance there. So, based on that kind of premise, our suggestion is, by looking in the books, and I have the page numbers if they'll help, in facilities management, we thought there was room for a $100,000 increase in revenue based on history and kind of performance; the library, $40,000; parks and rec., $120,000; storm water, $40,000. That comes to a nice round number of $300,000. We felt in looking at the numbers, that in going -- and they probably would need to be refined a bit, Mike, I'm sure in your office and then give the challenge to the people managing those operations to produce that revenue. It did not look unreasonable to us. It wasn't pie in the sky stuff at all, and I think 300,000 added to revenue is every bit as good as 300,000 reduced expense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How -- do you have ideas about, for example, the park and rec. number? I mean, how might they -- from what did you extrapolate the conclusion that they could generate that? MR. WATLER: If you could look at Page 89 in the big book, if I got the page number right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I suggest something, because I -- I think I would have the same question on several of the categories you've identified. MR. WATLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you have each of those kind of enumerated in a backup piece on how you arrived at it, do you have that by chance? MR. WATLER: No, I just looked at the numbers and compared the numbers of previous years and what was written down for this year, and thought, why would that drop or why did it stay static when there's been a history of improvement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So, you really don't have any logical basis to make your conclusions on other than you just said, last year's number was bigger than this year's number, therefore we should add more? MR. WATLER: Or it's gone down. Why has it gone down? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Without knowing what the circumstances are? MR. WATLER: Without knowing what the circumstances are. That's why I'd like for you to refer it back to the managers to see if these conclusions are valid. They look valid relative to the numbers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to do that. I'd like to ask those -- those department heads or division managers to look at those numbers and either tell us yes or no and why not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, if you would give the departments to Mr. Smykowski that you reviewed. I think the trend analysis that you looked at to arrive at what you thought was a reasonable expected number is what's being questioned. So, if we have a solid trend analysis on that, then great. Let's determine that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please. MS. VASEY: Also, something on that. When -- when we were looking at the departmental revenues, which is all of your county -- county manager offices, we noticed that between the forecast period, which is where we are right now, and the end of the year last year, that the revenues went up $500,000 just in this three month period, and so that's where we were getting a lot of it. Right now, the program between forecast and current next year is pretty much the same. It's four million eight versus four million eight, and so there's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And last year -- MS. VASEY: -- no increase programmed at all, and so that went into the discussion. It's not -- it's not strictly a trend within that office. That's where we thought it was more appropriate, but when you look at the totals too, we found that there was major understatement of revenues at this time frame compared to what showed up at the end of the year. So, that went into it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I'm not mistaken, in the past two years, what has happened is if that occurred, we then lowered the rate further after the trim notices were sent out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that -- I'll be verbal, I think Neil talked us out of that. I think we started wanting -- we talked about doing that, and then we got our conservative speech about being careful with revenues and that kind of stuff. MS. SHYKOWSKI: The last two years at the final public hearings, we have decreased ad valorem taxes based on actual knowledge by virtue of the fact we have 11 months of sales tax in the bank at that point, and your forecast is very good. Your revenue sharing number is known because once the state gets through, once we get our June distribution, that's the end of the state fiscal year, and if there's any excess distributions to be received by the county, it's now -- we receive it at that point, and our remaining three months is a known figure based on the state's budget for the upcoming year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You can tell us that the revenue issues are better addressed at the final hearing. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes, and I'd like some opportunity as well to digest what they are proposing and have an opportunity. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying as well, though, that it's been our history that we become confident in those numbers at the September hearing and have been able to reduce the number. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. Taxpayers have received the benefit of that additional known amount, and taxes have been reduced accordingly based on additional revenues that you've received. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It sounds like a question of timing, whether we do it now or do it then, and I'm more comfortable in September making that final adjustment. MS. VASEY: Yes, we did say in our remarks yesterday, and of course, that holds true, take another look at everything in August and see if any of this makes sense, but we thought it did, and we were working really from last year's budget forecast, you know, at this time frame versus the actual. So, it would not have captured anything that happened at the end of the year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That will also give us an opportunity to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sit down with them. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- ask to see their work papers or how they arrived at their figures, and we'll work it out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WATLER: I think you will remember too that yesterday we did say we were able to get a much better handle on the sheriff's budget, for example, because they provided us with eight months actual, and when we looked at it, it is pretty good, and if we could do the same here, that will be even more helpful. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we do that, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, they've come in in the past and utilized their work, and any information we have is public record, and they are free to come, and they have taken us up on that. MR. McNEES: And for the board's information, on the departmental revenues, for example, parks and rec., we give as much scrutiny at staff level and manager's office to their revenue budgets as we do to their expenditure budgets. So, the fact is that we didn't just scrutinize the expenditures and sort of take the revenues for granted. They justify those numbers to us just as much as they do their -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we tend to look at the expense side and not the revenue side. MR. McNEES: I just want you to understand, those don't go without a lot of scrutiny, and we try to get them as accurate as we can. MS. VASEY: And I would like to second that. We were there while this was going on, and there were a lot of things, and we would have brought it up earlier at the time of the reviews, but it wasn't until we did the overview analysis that we came up with how different it was between forecast and end of year, and that's when we came up with it, but we did raise some issues, and we saw Mike increase the revenues on several occasions, so we appreciate that. MR. WATLER: We would like personal responsibility for one item of revenue increase, which I think Mike will remember. Do you want to tell them what that was, Mike? MR. McNEES: Now you're really putting me on the spot. You had so many good ideas, I'm not sure I can remember all of them. MS. VASEY: We'll take that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was called -- that was called the cross stroke. Knock you off footing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Animal control licenses are going up as a result of their recommendation. MR. McNEES: And it was a good one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mike gets the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: So pet owners, direct your calls to -- MR. McNEES: I believe my comment was, I wish I thought of that because they were right on top of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anything else on that list? MS. VASEY: No. Oh, not on that one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the list, yes. MS. VASEY: I was going to finish the last two items on -- or the last couple of items on the list. The phase-in of new hires, here you may very well want to change how we did things, but this was our thinking. We looked at all the expanded programs, and we took the total personnel costs on an expanded program, and then we tried to identify any of the operating costs that went with those personnel costs, because there was a lot of operating costs that were contracts that, obviously, didn't go, and we did not take any of the capital costs because it might be later in the year, but it would still be next year. So, we took all that, added it up, and our logic in using a four month hire leg was -- I've often seen things like that spread over a year, you know, just assuming you would get it over a period of a year. So, that would have given you six months of money. I've seen where it physically has happened as early as a couple of months by the time you do position descriptions and do the hiring -- or do the advertising, and get the people to interview, and then you make a selection and two weeks' notice and all of that. So, our margin there was between two and six months, and we took four months. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How does the attrition factor -- when I brought that up, the balance of the board said, yeah, but we've already factored that in the four percent attrition. MS. VASEY: Well, the 4 percent attrition, I normally think of that as your current on board strength level. That's your normal people leaving and positions being filled, and that's based on people on the level you've already got. New hires I've always considered a little differently, and I'm not sure what your rationale is or -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the difference between a new hire and a completely new, newly created position? MS. VASEY: Right. Oh, what is? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The new hire could be someone that's being hired to fill an empty existing position. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think what she's saying is that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That then is handled under the 4 percent attrition. That's where we budget for that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But new positions. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but if you create an entirely new position, then what you're saying has some validity, is you could phase those in, but that ignores then the needs of the department who requested the position in the first place. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Like, for example, if parks, one of their ranger positions, they aren't going to hire that person until October or until -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: December. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- December, then don't budget -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then what she is talking about is fine, but you don't know that without knowing the operational constraints of the particular department. MR. HcNEES: Let me '- MS. VASEY: That's really -- oh, go ahead. MR. HcNEES: Maybe I can explain our logic, and maybe when I'm finished, Ms. Vasey will agree and maybe not. I think we can legitimately save money by not hiring newly created positions until later in the fiscal year, and sometimes we'll do that. Where that money comes back to you then is in the next fiscal year as carry forward. You saved that money. You have the benefit of that in the next fiscal year. The reason we stopped phasing in positions is because it's essentially a game. You say, I'd like to have ten new park rangers but they're only going to cost you, you know, half because we are not going to hire them for six months. Then you have that other half that's a guaranteed can't avoid budget increase in the following fiscal year. You've given yourself a false economy that you pay for later. The way we do it now, sure, you bite the bullet now, but if there's a savings to be gained, you can still save that money, but you don't build in for yourself an automatic uncontrolled budget increase that you're facing before you even do anything new next year, and we used to do that. We used to sell the board, sure, we'll phase this one in, and we won't hire him until August, and it looks great, but in the long haul, you pay for it later. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We had some -- correct -- and in some cases too, there's budgeted revenue that's associated with the new position directly offsetting the cost. Obviously, if the position is not on board, sure, we are not expending the money, but we also are not taking in the revenue that is associated with that position. A number of cases in recreation where Hike pushed the departments along Mr. Watler's logic that you have to push them, and yes, you can have this position, but you have to budget associated recreational programming fees or other revenues to support that position. We are not going to fund it out of ad valorem, and obviously, if that position is not on board, that position is not generating the fees, so the fee revenue is not being generated. MR. HcNEES: Phasing in a position makes it easier for us to sell to you because we can sit here and say, it's not going to cost you very much, and we don't want to use it because it's false economy. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It becomes a crutch. MR. HcNEES: If you want us to look at more aggressively leaving positions open for a time to generate additional carry forward for the following fiscal year, fine, we'll be happy to look at that. It's a good money saving tool, but we just don't think phase-in is a good budget tool because it only is a false, short-term budget economy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Enough said. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next. MS. VASEY: Okay. The next item on the list was reducing the contingency reserves in 1998, and that referred to the fact that contingency reserves are calculated against the total dollars that are given to the constitutional officers, and we have a pretty clear feeling of what that turn back is, clear enough that it's already in the revenue side. So, our suggestion was, instead of calculating the 5 percent revenue reserve -- or I'm sorry, the 5 percent contingency reserve against the total amount of money that's transferred to the constitutional officers, just do it against the net amount by subtracting the expected turn back, and the rationale there is -- you really pretty much don't expect that -- there could be some differences in actual versus budget, but you do have a revenue -- I mean, you have a contingency reserve of over five million dollars, and this is only $150,000, and that's not a big deal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that idea a lot, but Mr. Smykowski told me that that was not -- that we had a made a mistake about the way that was calculated. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. In fact, the general fund budget increased almost twelve million dollars. Five percent of twelve million dollars is another $600,000, but actually, our budget reserves decreased two-tenths of a percent because we did not calculate them this year on the transfers made to other funds because those funds, obviously, have their own reserves. So, we've already -- I feel we've taken a step in the right direction already, but we want to -- don't want to go too far in that direction. Again, that just reduces the carry forward you will have in the subsequent budget year that would be unspent reserves and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We don't want too much carry forward because that taxes this year for next year. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I understand, but you also had -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then we don't have a mixture. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess from a practical side, if -- let's take the sheriff's budget. If something happens, we get a natural disaster and the sheriff has to use his budget plus his reserves, if we are looking at just one department at a time, then the reserves are adequate because they are collected across many departments, but in a natural disaster situation, I remember this discussion we had with Mr. Doyle, where various departments all have to tap those reserves, then we really have less than 5 percent of the total available that was budgeted to each department, and that may put us below what is an acceptable standard by -- that the state looks at, because that 5 percent was not a magic number out of the air. If I remember correctly -- MR. HcNEES: That's a minimum. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it's a required amount or -- am I incorrect in that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think there's 5 percent required for under collection. That's not a reserve -- well, it's a reserve, but it's not a -- it's really a negative revenue is what it turns out to be. You have to budget only 95 percent of your revenues. That's by state law. Also, by state law, you're limited to 10 percent of your funds, of each fund. Your reserve for contingency can't be larger than 10 percent of each fund. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, there's not a minimum; there's a maximum. MR. FERNANDEZ: There's a maximum. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, we've set 5 percent, and really what you're requesting has the same equivalent of saying, instead of 5 percent, four and a half. MS. VASEY: I must have said something wrong because I'm not talking about the revenue side of the equation. I'm talking about the appropriation side of the equation. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We understand. MS. VASEY: And that -- and Hike told me how he calculated it. The calculation is taking the total -- the subtotal for divisions, subtracting out the subtotal for transfers to other funds, which is not where you have the sheriff and the other constitutional officers, then you add in -- you add in the subtotal for the transfers to the constitutional officers, and then you subtract out the supervisor of elections. So, that number does have the total amount that's transferred to the constitutional officers in it, and that was the part that I was trying to get out. MR. HcNEES: And that's appropriate. I don't believe the sheriff does maintain his own reserves. When he needs more money, he comes to you to tap your -- to tap this general fund reserve. He doesn't have a separate reserve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I thought. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And in the case of Hurricane Andrew, I realize -- tell you there's imminent threat of a hurricane on any given day, but in that year, we did use a significant component of that reserve, and that's exactly what it's there for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the heart of your question is, is there duplication -- are you dealing -- talking about a duplication of reserves between the constitutional officers and the general -- no? MS. VASEY: No, sir, it's not a duplication. It's just the idea of netting out the money that you don't think -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: She's saying use the net -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then net. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- the net constitutional '- MS. VASEY: Yeah, use the net. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- less turn back -- gross budget, less turn back and calculate the reserve on that component as opposed to using the gross budget. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you're going to calculate reserves as some percentage of the total amount, do we want to use the big number or the big number less what they are going to give us back? I say B. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What she's essentially saying is stop saving 5 percent of reserves on what you expect them to turn back. That's what she's saying. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Exactly. MS. VASEY: Yeah. That's a much better way to say it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like it. MR. FERNANDEZ: The issue here is really, have your reserves been sufficient, has your method of calculating your reserves been sufficient, have they given you more than you needed or less than you needed. If they've been more sufficient notwithstanding Hurricane Andrew year, then you can afford to reduce the base upon which that calculation is made as they suggest, and you don't run into trouble. Really, keep in mind, the reserve is there for unanticipated expenses that you're confronted with. Either you missed your estimate on what expenses would be for one reason or another or you had expenses that you didn't anticipate. That's why you have reserves. The budget is a plan. It's not an exact process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our reserves have been adequate, so I don't have -- I'm just trying to understand the concept. MS. VASEY: And I blew something on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, okay. I think you might be hearing a majority support for that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't. You guys don't like that idea? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we're close enough to -- close on our reserves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not sold on it 100 percent on the concept. MS. VASEY: It was offered as a suggestion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sure, no. MS. VASEY: If you're not comfortable with it, that's fine with us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I appreciate it, and we can change our mind on Monday, and we can change our mind in September if we like it better then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: September is the time to change our mind on that subject. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we flag that then for further consideration? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm keeping this sheet, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We will normally talk about reserves in September anyway. That's -- every year we talk about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a feeling these two might be back in September. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You reckon. Okay. Remind us, guys. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We are done for the day, though, right? MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any other speakers? MR. McNEES: One. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, one more. Fay Biles. MS. BILES: Yes, Fay Biles, president of Marco Island Taxpayers Association. I have a question. Last year and the year before and every year we keep hearing about how the case court -- the court cases keep -- you know, every year, it's more and more and more, we need more courtroom space. We need more judges and all this type of thing. I'm just wondering, and I know nobody likes to hear where I came from or this type of thing, you know, up north where we lived and so forth, but our judges work from 9:00 to 3:00. Where I come from, they work from 8:00 -- the courts were open from 8:00 in the morning until at night. In fact, I got a speeding ticket one time at two o'clock in the afternoon, and I had to report to traffic court that night, but the judges didn't do traffic court. It was -- what are those other people called? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Magistrates. MS. BILES: Yes, whatever they were, and they handled the traffic court, but why, before -- we have new space and more courtrooms, why can't we suggest that our judges work from 8:00 in the morning until five o'clock in the day. I too have gone to meetings over in the courthouse where the courtrooms were vacant. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some of them do. MS. BILES: They do? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Some of them do. MS. BILES: Well, I know usually it's from 9:00 to 3:00 is what we have said. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since they -- we don't really have power over the judges as elected officials, that's something I think the state, either constitution or state statutes would govern or the Twentieth Judicial Circuit would adopt as a policy, one of those two bodies. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The third choice would be your most, you know, your most likely, and that -- talk to your administrative judge. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Judge Starnes in the Twentieth Judicial. MS. BILES: Okay. I mean, I think Mike would be very happy to go that route because I get tired of hearing more courtrooms, more judges and all this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have you talked to the county judges or circuit judges? MS. BILES: No, I'm talking about what we can control here in the county. I don't know anything about the state. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: County and circuit is what we have locally. MS. BILES: County and circuit, I guess, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I suggest a two step approach? MS. BILES: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One, talk to Frank Baker about the actual work '- MS. BILES: All right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's where you should go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- schedule of the judges -- MS. BILES: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and based on that information, go to Hugh Starnes, the chief judge of the Twentieth Judicial, and that would -- you would hit both fronts that way, but you would hit it on an informed basis to Judge Starnes from Judge Baker, and he's a super guy. MS. BILES: Well, I'll talk to Judge Baker first because I know him, but doesn't that make more sense to you than add all this new space and everything else? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think someone said earlier, a 40 hour work week sounds like a good idea. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say, Fay, you need to talk to somebody over there and get -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know they have night court. I know they have Saturday court. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I know that there are some -- I know some of the circuit judges, they've got like -- on a weekend, they are on call, and they work 24 hours -- I mean, they are on call, and they may be down here at seven o'clock in the morning on Saturday morning or they may be down here at two o'clock in the morning or they may be down '- MS. BILES: Additional duties. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. MS. BILES: Well, I'll do a little study and find out what it is. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. That's the reason I would agree with the chairman, that I think you need to check with some of the rest of them. MS. BILES: Just trying to save money. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. To wrap up today's meeting, we have a memorandum from Mark Middlebrook. He has asked about domestic violence court and so forth, and I encourage everyone to, at least, take a look at it because I believe our questions were informational, and the report from Mr. Middlebrook is that regardless of Judge Wilson's, whether it be threat or promise to resign from domestic violence court, that those cases would be teassigned to another judge, so the domestic violence unit would continue. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It's required. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. So, I think we can just -- you can just ball that message up and throw it away because we still have to deal with the domestic violence unit itself barring the, like I said, the threat or the promise, whatever it is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's irrelevant to the existence of the unit. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I have more information on the question that was asked earlier about the HSTU for the sheriff if you would like to hear it today or hear it in a memo or however you'd like to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How long will it take? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two seconds. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, we can wait that long. MR. FERNANDEZ: The county was sued in 1979 by Naples. In the resolution of that suit, you adopted -- the board adopted Resolution 80-152 in August of 1980. That set forth the structure of those HSTUs in that resolution. That resolution was incorporated into a final judgment which was rendered by the court in September of 1980, and the court retained jurisdiction. I think that means you can't change it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That deals with law enforcement specifically or all elements of them? MR. FERNANDEZ: All of them. It was based upon -- which was also incorporated into the final judgment, it was based upon a study done by Frank Spence & Associates, and that study set forth those expenditures that were countywide in nature and were not countywide in nature, and the fund structure was set up as basically -- based on that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the circumstances have changed in the interim. Maybe we can revisit that at some point. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have to revisit in the court but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Is there anything further? Seeing none, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIHOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Kaye Gray Dawn Breehne as