Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/21/1999 B (Budget Workshop) June 21, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP JUNE 21, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:15 a.m. in a BUDGET WORKSHOP SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Michael Smykowski, Budget Director Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BUDGET WORKSHOPS THURSDAY,.JUNE 17, 1999 FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1999 MONDAY, JUN~ 21, 1999 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will conduct a budget workshop at the Collier County Government Complex, 3301 Est Tamiami Trail, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Naples, Florida. Copies of the agenda for said meeting will be made available to the press and may be obtained at the office of Management and Budget, same location, same period of time. Thursday, June 17, 1999 - 9:00 I.m. General Overview Ad Valorem Tax Implications Debt Service Funds (200's) Trust Funds (600's) MSTD General Fund (111) Special Revenue Funds (100's) EnterpriSe Funds (400's) Internal Service Funds (500's} Capital Funds {300's) Friday, June 18, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. General Fund (001).Overview General Fund Operating Divisions: BCC County Attorney Management Offices Support Services Emergency Services Public Services Community Development/gnvirorunental Services Public Works Courts & Related Agencies State Attorney/Public Defender/Court Costs Airport Authority Operations Review of General Fund Supported Capital Projects Constitutional Officers: Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Clerk of Courts Sheriff's Office *Monday, June 21, 1999 - 9:00 a.m. Wrap-up * Discmsion ~garding Co~ Admirdglzntor's ~fformance Ev~don c~r~. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and e~idence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN ':' DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s/Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerk (SEAL) ........ - ...... June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call to meet-- call to order the meeting of the Board of Collier County Commissioners. If you'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. My thought was that we'd start this morning with the comp. plan issues. Is that acceptable or did you have a different schedule in mind? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, we don't have a presentation this morning on the compo plan issues. In fact, the staff is already in Tallahassee to discuss that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Then what we need to have, I guess from Mr. Varnadoe if nobody else, is a copy of the current draft of the recommended order for the board to look at, because I need to, on behalf of the board, be clear that I'm going up representing their position and not my own. So, I want to be sure that you guys either agree or disagree with the draft recommended order. I'll tell you, from what I understand, it basically says everything that we talked about most recently, I guess that was what, Friday -- or George, why don't you tell us as odd as that may be. I guess that's the right thing to do. You're -- MR. VARNADOE: I'm just going to run through what's in the draft, so it's not an advocacy point. George Varnadoe for the record. Yeah, we had a conference call with Teresa Tinker of the governor's office, administration commission office on Friday morning with your staff and the DCA and other interested parties, and it was more of a clean-up and clarification than anything else, and I think the basic proposal remains the same. There is an acceptance, if you would, of the proposal for the eastern Collier properties, that is we can take up to three years to do a study and come back with amendments that will guide the growth and the protection of agricultural natural resources in that area. In the rural fringe area, the same language applies, that is that you will do a study before you adopt any development activities out there in the interim. There will be no residential development, golf courses or commercial. However, the order does recognize and actually recommends that you take those in phases or by geographical areas. So, it doesn't require you to go the three years before you would adopt remedial amendments for those areas. It does go through specific times for rescinding the noncompliance amendments that we proposed. It has another time frame for adopting protections for natural resources and critical habitats, and during the time periods these studies are going on and the only limitation on adopting remedial amendments to allow development, if you would, in the rural fringe area is that those protections be in place prior or simultaneously with that. In talking with DCA staff and the administration commission staff, given the recommended order that we are working with, I think this recommended final order is probably as -- gives the County as much flexibility as anyone thinks they can given the constraints and the recommended order from Judge Meale, and I think what we are looking at here is the state, to the best they can, telling us what we need to do but not how to do it and not when to do it. So, I think it is bringing back to the local community the ability to get involved and determine how we are going to do this and when and not -- but just Page 2 June 21, 1999 simply the state telling us what we have failed to do, if you would. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically, the good news is -- I mean, sort of good news, bad news, I was surprised, as I think some of you were, when -- having heard Governor Bush and Secretary Seibert and others talk about bottom up planning, and then all of a sudden, what the Board of County Commissioners asked for was summarily denied. In fact, what this recommended order appears to do is set some parameters. We will identify natural resource protection areas. We will focus our discussion around how to protect those resources, and we will get data to determine what is appropriate in all of those areas, eastern Collier being one and the rural fringe being four others. This is -- personally, I mean -- the reason I want to be sure that I'm advocating the board's position, to be really blunt here, is because I personally like this recommended order so much. I mean, it is an environmental order. It's a natural resource protection order. It's a thou shall go forward, you know, and protect natural resources, but that's different, frankly, from what the board originally voted on. So, as I go up there, and hopefully you guys are going to authorize me to say, yes, we like this. We accept this. We agree to work under this. I just need to have that specific direction from all of you because I want to be sure I'm speaking for the entire board. When I'm as happy as I am to be saying what I'm going to be saying, I have to worry if I'm speaking for the majority. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think I hear what you're saying this morning, and I want to make sure I understand what George is saying. The eastern area, I think it's very, very important for everybody to understand that this is a study, and that there's an oversight committee, and that oversight committee is the final determination here. Just because you take the data, it's not a fait accompli. It says they're studying it so that we can come up with reasonable solutions in the rural area, and, in effect, there's a moratorium there until this is done, and I don't know how to get this across to our community that nothing is going to take place other than what we have stated is what has been going on there in the past. There is no future development. Also what I hear is in the rural fringe area, and we have the four natural environmental protection areas. Somewhere between 90 and 180 days we are developing criteria around those, and, in effect, there is a moratorium during the process. Nothing will be further approved by this board until those standards are developed, and I think this is critical, because within that -- I was thinking this weekend, we certainly have to have a water management plan. We have to have green space or green way protection in there. We are certainly going to do some sort of cjustering criteria, perhaps it's the same as what the Conservancy had advocated, that this board had advocated before we got shot down into this process, and there will be some sort of mitigation going on throughout this whole process to protect those areas, and if I'm understanding that correctly, I can totally support that and communicate to the community, we, in effect, are doing what we said we would do. We are to reduce density, and we are going to make sure that what we do, we are going to do it right, and we are not -- and we are slowing the growth process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's slowing to a standstill for now until Page 3 June 21, 1999 we can identify what the natural resources in the area can stand, what level of development they can stand. So, it's absolutely slowing it to a standstill. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And we are not hurting our building community because, the way I understand it, we've probably got a 12 or 14 year backlog on everything that's been issued. So, nothing is grinding to a halt. We are catching our breath to make sure we do it right. Am I on the right track here with this, George? Am I understanding it correctly? MR. VARNADOE: Generally, Commissioner Carter, the order doesn't go into the detail, tell you how to do the studies or who will be on committees or anything of that nature. What it does say is the County, go forward, and through a community based effort, do these studies. Come back with protection for the areas and then adopt the legal amendments that guide growth or development or whatever is going to happen, protection of ag. in these areas, but it doesn't tell -- I think that's the important point to recognize, it tells you what we have to do but not how to do it. So it leaves it up to the local community to decide how we do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's a real important point that I've started -- I made half of and didn't make the whole point, and that is, when I was initially disappointed in -- questioned whether or not we were actually going to see bottom up planning instead of top down planning like we had in the past. While this does, this recommended order does say thou shall protect the environment and limit growth, it says, you decide how to do that and you decide that based on a community based, a community participation study with real science, with real information, but do it -- you do it from the bottom up instead of them deciding on high, what's the right number and just drawing lines on our maps. They're telling us to -- MR. VARNADOE: You have to remember that we are the ones that brought limiting density to the table or reducing density. This order has nothing to do with that. This order says, you didn't protect the -- you don't have the right policies. I think we are protecting the environment. We don't have the right policies in place to show anybody else we're doing it. It's -- we don't have the right policies in place to show that we are going to protect critical habitat, and that's what this order deals with, and the only way it deals with density, it says, since you don't have these policies in place, how can you know where growth should be happening outside your urban area until you've had these protection policies in place. It's like, go study them, put them in place, and then whatever else you want to do, we'll be judged against whatever protections you have in place. CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: I would be really proud to go and say in front of the governor and cabinet that Collier County recognizes that while our environment has been protected in our county, while the private sector has done a good job, we recognize that our comp. plan has not gone -- has not done what it needs to do as far as providing the policies to protect the environment, and we are committed to doing that, and we are committed to doing that through this community based study program, and that I can report that this board is committed to protection of natural resources. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to saying we will clarify policies and so on. I think you need to be very Page 4 June 21, 1999 careful in saying we recognize our LDC doesn't do something, just for legal purposes down the road. I think the way you phrase that is essential. MR. VARNADOE: I'll get copies of this for all the board members. The one thing that I might want to bring to your attention, I think it was something Commissioner Constantine brought up Thursday or Friday, whenever, these run together and you have so much fun, and that is you're going to be gone for a month. I think that there was -- sitting in all these meetings talking about all these people, the intervenors, DCA, the governor, the cabinet, the staff, aides, there was recognition that the Immokalee Road corridor that's west of the estates, whatever that's called, not the one up by Corkscrew, but the one that's before the turn there, was -- has the least environmentally sensitive area and everybody has the least concern about that. You might want to direct your staff to start gathering the data analysis in that area, nothing else, during this time period you're gone so we get a jump on that area, because unlike Commissioner Constantine, I want to get stuff back up there to them and see how they are going to react to this so we don't have a moratorium that goes on indefinitely in the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The only thing you're telling us, George, is start with the least sensitive, work out the plan and work to the most difficult, and that's -- I'm hoping that's what we are going to do here. MR. VARNADOE: I just hate to see us lose a month on that effort, that's all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I assume that the -- what you just described, and I had the same conversations with state officials about the prioritization of the natural -- MR. VARNADOE: You were there when we talked about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- resource -- of the natural resources of those four fringe areas. What I'd like to direct staff to do is to begin work on the easiest of the four. I think that's the easiest of the four, but I would like to just give them that -- that instruction. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might even ask, if it works, if they can do so, the State's indicated two of those four are what they consider not very sensitive or not nearly as sensitive, I want to be careful, I want to be sensitive to how I say that, but they recognize two of those are much different in nature than the other two. Two are very environmentally sensitive, and -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: But I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- if it's possible for our staff to do those two hand in hand, be less sensitive, great. If they can't, pick'the most sensitive, I agree. MR. CARTER: But I think what will probably resinate well with the state and for our own community is, if we do these is we've really got to focus on a water management plan and green way provisions in these areas no matter what we're talking about to make sure that -- that we're really doing the right job here, and if we go in with that attitude and show them that we are doing those things, I can't imagine them not saying that we are on the right track with this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mike, George, what are the natural resource protection areas that we'll be identifying? There's Camp Keis, Okaloacoochee, CREW -- MR. VARNADOE: If you will -- if you'll give me just a minute, I'll read those to you, because I don't want to be accused of not Page 5 June 21, 1999 being accurate, and I don't remember them all. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would this help? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that it? Is it just three? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think so. MR. VARNADOE: No, there are several. The Camp Keis Strand, the CREW Lands, which hook up, according to how you want to define that, the CREW Lands are at the top, and the Camp Keis Strand comes down, so that's really one area; Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade, and South Golden Gate Estates. Now, that's -- they are not telling you that's the only ones. That's the ones you have to do during the interim period before the study goes forward. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the order doesn't say what the repercussions are of identifying those in our budget. It just says thou shall identify them and then develop criteria about how to -- MR. VARNADOE: I think -- again, I think they are trying to leave the county as much flexibility as possible in how you approach this as long as you do the job, and I can read that to you if you want, just one paragraph. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wish you would. MR. VARNADOE: The Camp Keis Strand, CREW Lands, Okaloacoochee Slough, Belle Meade and South Golden Gate Estates shall be mapped and identified as natural resource protection areas, and this is talking about during the interim period, not at the end of the studies or anything. The general location of these areas shall be identified in the proposed amendments setting forth the assessment -- that's the assessment process. When we send those policies up there, we're going to have identified those areas in an assessment process -- and establishing the interim development provisions -- that's the moratorium said nicely -- these areas shall be refined as actual data and analysis is made available. Within these NRPAs, only ag. and directly related uses and one single family dwelling unit per parcel or lot created prior to June 22nd, 1999 shall be allowed. So, what they are saying is, here we are -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What we're calling the moratorium criteria, what we're politely calling the moratorium is what's going to be allowed in those natural resource protection areas? MR. VARNADOE: No, the -- in the assessment area, which is every -- the whole area -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which is all of it. MR. VARNADOE: -- rural, we are saying what we won't do, and we have a list of 15 items of what we won't do; no residential development, no golf course development, no commercial, no package wastewater treatment, no extension of central water and sewer, no commercial or industrial except for gas and telephone facilities, things like that, no hotel/motels. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But in the NRPAs as they are -- MR. VARNADOE: NRPAs are little more restrictive as to what can happen during this -- again, this is just during that interim study period. At the end of the study period, if you come up with, for example, the -- called the Immokalee Road core and you say, this little area here is the only thing that's really environmentally important in there, then I think the extent you identify that and say what you're going to do to protect that, then those can be more liberal or more restrictive. That's up to you. I think that's -- Page 6 June 21, 1999 this is just an interim gap measure, if you would. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And to the extent we were worried, guys, about the farm fields being in the middle of some of the areas, the order does say these are interim sort of rough lines and that they will be refined as we get the actual data. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nobody is the -- are we trying to refine. those boundaries within this interim period or -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- are we going to -- are we going to kind of envelope these NRPAs and then bring in the boundaries, the actual measurements at some later date? MR. VARNADOE: No, we are going to be sending these up in September, and I hope to the extent that we have -- we'll use the most accurate data we have at that time, Commissioner Norris, and make those boundaries as realistic as we can, and then during this study period, if we find it can be more narrowly drawn or they need to be broader, this gives us the ability to redefine those, but I hoped that we were going to use the best data we've got when we do these in the interim period. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but my question was after the study period. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, you can't ~- one of the purposes of the study period is to identify the specific boundaries, and you are allowed to change the boundaries of those NRPAs, yes, if that's your question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: During -- at any time as the data is developed, and that's the other interesting thing. We keep talking about, you know, how we know we're going to prioritize the fringe and what we're going to do first and that kind of stuff. What the order says is, as you develop data, bring it in and come in with interim recommendations, and it doesn't say you have to wait three years. It doesn't say you can do it -- you can't do it sooner than 18 months. It says, as you develop it, bring it, you know, with interim amendments. What would be appropriate, Mr. Fernandez -- well, first of all, let me say this. I hope that, as obvious as it is to have had Mr. Varnadoe making this presentation to us, that it won't be -- that he's criticized for having done that since it -- I don't want to say that he's the best that we've got right now, but having -- in the absence of having any staff, which is really surprising to me. I thought surely staff would be here when we had scheduled this for discussion, but I will tell you from my read, you've just got a really accurate factual presentation on what the recommended order says from Mr. Varnadoe. What would be appropriate at this point? Would it be a vote from the board to endorse the draft recommended order? Do you just want to give me instruction on behalf of the board to go up with that and tell the governor and cabinet that we agreed to it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, given your comments about the sensitivity of the role you're being asked to play with respect to the representation of the board on this matter, my answer is that it's really up to the board and how comfortable it feels giving you specific direction in that regard. I would think it would be appropriate for the board to consider a motion endorsing the recommended final order. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree. I think we need to make sure that it's clear on the record what we want our chairman to represent up Page 7 June 21, 1999 there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, I'll be listening. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It wasn't, but I will make, I guess, a motion that we are -- does anybody -- first, before I make a motion, does any of the board members have any concerns or suggestions for alterations to the recommended order at this point, and if -- oh, you do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just the suggestion I made earlier that we are extraordinarily careful not to say -- not to suggest in any way shortfalls in the LDC or the growth management plan; just verbally we are looking at new policies; we are looking to do a number of things. The way you worded that, I fear, sets up litigation for the future. I just ask you to be sensitive to how you verbalize that tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll certainly consult carefully'with the county attorney's office about what can and can't be said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not just that. I'm not just asking you to consult. I've just -- that particular way was -- I think can be damaging in a number of ways if we start listing our own shortfalls. DCA, God bless them, can do that all they want, but let's not start apologizing for this shortfall, that shortfall and start doing that ourselves. If they've listed something and we're entering into an order, great, but let's not even set up the possibility of other issues being raised outside what's right there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and that's an important distinction, because you know that if I were speaking for myself individually, I would be happy to acknowledge that we haven't done a good job protecting -- developing policies to protect natural resources in this county, but I will not make that acknowledgment on behalf of the board. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The only thing I would ask in this process is that perhaps they will look for some base standards. As we go through this they'll say, you know, we need to have this, this and this as base to everything that we do, and I'm comfortable entrusting that to you that we do that so that becomes like a foundation, and then there can be variations off of that depending on the area we are dealing with, and they may ask for that, and that may be a part of the negotiation that says, well, will you -- will you do these things, like as I said, a water management plan, like green way protection, and I think we all concur on that. So, I'm not uncomfortable with that. That gives it -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I understand it, actually, we're not going to be doing a lot of negotiation tomorrow. This is either pretty much take the package or don't take the package, is it not? If we don't take the package, then they may impose something, but I'm not sure there's going to be any negotiations to any degree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right, and my -- my mantra -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we're past that now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- my mantra as I understand it would be we are committed to a community based program of involvement, of designing standards from the ground up based on actual science and Page 8 June 21, 1999 real data for all of these areas, and we'll bring that back to you, the DCA through interim policies. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if I can make a motion then. MR. VARNADOE: One comment, and, again, in all being appropriate, but from somebody that's been up there and gone through these sessions, if this is going to be the recommended order, if this is going to be, in effect, attacked tomorrow or challenged tomorrow, my sense is it's going to be from Tom Reese (phonetic) on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation in trying to put more specific burdens on the county and telling you not what to do but how to do it, when to do it. You know, I think one thing you should do with your chairman is say we've read this. We may not like all of it. We may not like some of the things you say about our comp. plan. I think we did a good job, but this is as far as we want to go. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: That's just a suggestion just from knowing who's going to be there and what they are going to be saying. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because what it says doesn't limit anybody anyway. I mean, if what the science supports is strict environmental protection, then that's what we will come forward with. That's what we are committing to. If what the science supports is some flexibility, then that's what we'll come forward with, but -- but what I like about that recommended order is it says community based, real science based, let us go out and find out what we ought to be doing instead of deciding today, you know, making specific commitments, we'll instead make commitments to work through the process. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think one of the points you make there is absolutely essential, and that is what the science supports, and while, obviously, when we say community based, we welcome anyone to participate in that. If we appointment any type of committee or counsel or whatever we entitle it, I hope those people will all have some sort of professional training, either in the environment or in planning or in something, because if we are going to make sure that this is science based, we need to make sure that the whole process is done that way and that the participants have a clear understanding of that, and, again, realizing anybody from the public can participate, but those people who are formally going through the steps should have some sort of training, education or professional knowledge. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, Commissioner Constantine. I think -- I think what we are saying from this dais this morning is that door is open for people who will come forward with that background and experience and sit at the table as reasonable people and talk this process through and not sit out on the outside and throw rocks and say you're not doing anything right. We've got the door open. We are going to do due process. We're giving people an opportunity to participate. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me see if I can make a motion then that everybody is happy with. I move that we endorse the recommended order and that we appoint our chairwoman to represent that position to the board tomorrow in front of the governor and the cabinet. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Inclusive of all the aforementioned -- Page 9 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Certainly all the perimeters of discussions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, not all the aforementioned because there was some dichotomy, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But basically stick to the four corners of that document. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That -- that sounds reasonable. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. Who wants to talk about the budget? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski does. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning. For the record, Michael Smykowski. We have the budget wrap-up list. You should each have one in front of you. For members of the audience, on the front table, there are wrap-up lists. We would propose you just kind of walk through them one by one in the order in which they are on the list. COMMISSIONER CARTER: May I inject, I don't know where it would be appropriate to put this in, Madam Chair, but I'd like to bring it back to the board and see if we can make it a part of the discussion this morning. In regards to Healthy Kids, I had a conversation with some of the people in the private sector this weekend. The proposal back to me to bring to this board was that they would do a public private partnership to expand the program up to $30,000 coming from the private sector if we the board would match it on the other side of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you say that again? I'm sorry, because Mr. Weigel was whispering in my ear during the first half of it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I talked to the some people in the private community this weekend. They said to expand Healthy kids, they would do a public private partnership with this board, that is we expand it, they would match 50/50. Otherwise for every dollar they would put in, we would match a dollar. If it's 58,000, they will take half of that and they will raise it if we do the other half. So, I don't know at what point it would be appropriate to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do they care if we raise the other half privately? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then it all becomes private. If we can raise it all privately, just the people I talked to said they would be willing to go on the line -- they said -- we used 60,000. I guess it's fifty-eight or 59,000, whatever it is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's eighty-six. MR. FERNANDEZ: Eighty-six. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Eighty-six? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. They said they would go half. Otherwise -- if that's eighty-six, what is that, 43,000? They would come up with 43,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume money is money, and if we came up with 43,000 from someone else, that they'd still be willing to donate that. They're not demanding that the taxpayer pay the other half. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What they are telling us is that they, from Page 10 June 21, 1999 their perspective, I have to go back, they believe that they would be happy to do a private public partnership, meaning that they figured the board ought to have -- make some commitment to this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think there's definitely a feeling in the medical -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: But if you can raise it all privately, then fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. There's a feeling in the medical community, among other places, frankly, that there is a public role in the Healthy Kids program. Every other county that participates in it has their funding made through the public sector, but I will continue to say that if you can keep on showing up with 100 percent of the money without a tax dollar, hot dog. That, philosophically, is not the way I think it should go, because I think there is a governmental role. Nevertheless, don't look a gift horse in the mouth has been my perspective on the private dollars. I'm impressed, frankly, Commissioner Carter, that you were able to come up with the 50 percent match. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, these people said they felt that it was a gift program, but they felt that we should do something on our side, too. So, I put that in front of the board as a possibility, and they said they can raise it by September. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, under budget wrap-up, where would that -- that would come under general topics, flagged items? Where would we put that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't believe we flagged that out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, we didn't. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We didn't flag it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question is, do we want to talk -- if we want to talk about it today, where would we put it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: You could put it under flagged items. That would be fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Put it there. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I interpret Mr. Carter's remarks as essentially requesting to add this to your agenda for today's discussion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. That's all. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I guess what we're saying is, if that's the case, if that's the wish of the board, our recommendation would be under flagged items. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. It's the last one under flagged items. So let's start at the top, GIS system. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, you had asked Mr. Skinner and his staff to be available to discuss the GIS system. He is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate that. He is and wonder if the two of you have been able to come together on a magic number of what we can cut out of the budget because of what is in Mr. Skinner's budget. Is there such a number? Mr. Skinner is here. I was asking you that question, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, Madam Chairwoman, I asked Mr. Ochs to get together with Mr. Skinner in the limited time that we had after our Page 11 June 21, 1999 Friday meetings to be able to arrive at that number. I know they had a discussion this morning. I very briefly spoke to Mr. Skinner, and he indicated that he felt we were in good shape. I think that essentially means that the comments that he had previously made to me indicating that his budget was sufficient -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To cover. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to make the maximum amount of progress in the coming year on GIS was the case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And just because I'm impatient, and apology like today, that would mean that we could cut the whole number out of our budget? MR. FERNANDEZ: I would defer to Mr. Ochs on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Good morning. For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. Last Friday we talked about 800,000 coming out of that original budget figure, and that represented two large contract efforts that had been proposed to do some survey work and some platametrics (phonetic), which is detailed mapping. Mr. Skinner, in discussions with him, has indicated they're certainly capable of doing that and willing to do that level of precision actually beyond what he might need for his own applications, but he would build that into his specifications with his contractor, and so on that basis, we certainly would have no problem with that number coming out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What was the total number, Leo? MR. OCHS: About 1.1 million. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that right? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One point one seven three. MR. OCHS: One point one seven, yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of that you're telling me you still need three hundred? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, and essentially what we would be looking to do, in talking, again, with Mr. Skinner, and he can address that with you if you would like, this is a -- this is an effort that's going to take more than one or two perhaps fiscal years to pull together on his part. In the interim, we have a number of quasi GIS efforts that have been ongoing around our agency for several years in the planning department, stormwater management, pollution control, your transportation area. We would be looking to take our staff over the next couple of years, coordinate all of those disjointed efforts, get those into a format that meshes and integrates with the specifications that Mr. Skinner's vendor will be using to develop the base map for this countywide GIS system, and that way we are not losing time while he's developing his base maps. We'll be working on our data sets and our overlays that we can then put on the base map when he's ready to deliver those to our operating departments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Comments from board members? COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, that means that we would take -- we would -- you need 373,000 is what I'm hearing. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to remind you from our discussion last week, this does not save general fund money because we had proposed to fund Page 12 June 21, 1999 this through sources other than general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It saves money nonetheless. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask a maybe stupid question. Abe's money is not general fund money either because it's fee money? So, this is a fee paid for program no matter whose budget it's in? MR. SKINNER: Abe Skinner, Collier County property appraiser. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for being here. MR. SKINNER: Thank you for the invitation. It's kind of hard to follow George Varnadoe after he's the very best you have. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, but you're saving us money, Abe, so that's okay. MR. SKINNER: Anyway, I have a letter here to each one of you assuring the county that whatever has been presented to us, the county needs can and would be met in our GIS project, and let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to run anybody's shop. It's hard enough to get a tax roll out, and that's my job, but I can see where there were some things in the county GIS system that might have been a duplication of what we were doing, and, of course, with the taxpayer in mind, we should always look at it from that standpoint. I also noticed that in the expanded services of the IT department, the first $298,000 was for second year of a five year development for a countywide mapping and land information system. Well, that caught my attention, and that's what we do. We have the maps. We have the information, and I just couldn't understand the duplication there. I understand the 800,000 was the next third and fourth thing that you were talking about cutting out, but I also looked at that, and like I say, I'm not trying to run anybody's shop. I'm trying to get a tax roll out. We are going forward with this. We've -- I'm kind of getting excited about it now. We are going forward with this even beyond the things that we need to appraise property. This system is going to enhance our present appraisal system a great deal, and we are going beyond that to get information out to the general public and to help the county with information to them. We are already working the county in a number of different areas. The triangle down on Davis Boulevard was mentioned. A lot of that information came from our staff. We developed that, and we are working hand and glove with your planning department along those lines. All of that information comes from us. We want that to continue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You beat me to the punch there in that I was going to ask Leo the exact question you raised, and that is there's a list -- an item listed here for four people and operations and capital outlay for doing essentially what Abe's folks are doing. That particular component, at the very least, Abe's folks are doing, and I'm having a hard time rectifying that $300,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I need to understand that better, too. It sounds like we could spend 800 this year and phase in the other work in future years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if there is some need for somebody to be doing -- taking their information and plugging in where we need it, I might be able to grasp that, but four people doing that -- MR. OCHS: Again, in the GIS concept, you have a base map, which the map is kind of like the tip of an iceberg, but all of the -- the Page 13 June 21, 1999 bottom of the iceberg, the part that you don't see, if I can use that analogy, is all the data or what they call attributes that will go on the map, and a lot of that has to be done in layering on top of the base -- the base map, and that's the primary product, I believe, that's being developed is that base map, and then each of the, not only your own county departments, but independent fire districts or other agencies will then develop their own data to put on what they call map overlays onto the primary base map. That's the effort that I'm describing here, not being redundant with what the property ~- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But will that happen this year? How can that happen this year? MR. OCHS: Because once we know the vendor and the specifications that will be used to design and produce the base map, we can then be coordinating the efforts -- the database and collection efforts that are going on in our various operation departments so that when the primary base map is handed over, we will already have developed those, what we call overlays, the database and the overlays that will then go on the primary base map. I think those efforts can run concurrently. They don't have to be sequential. So, that's why we were trying to maintain some level of effort. If you're uncomfortable with that number, we can try to scale that back, but it will just slow down -- slow down the effort. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't want to slow anything down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you convinced that you need four people to accomplish that at this point? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, and that's based on a lot of discussion between the IT staff and the operating departments that will be the primary beneficiaries, and that is your community development division, your public works division, your emergency services division. We've gone out and talked to all of the administrators and the people that work in the operating departments. They are the ones that are describing the level of work that they would like to see us help them -- help them do to get ready for the base map, GIS system that the property appraiser is developing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Will we need these people once this is all in place, and where I'm going with the question is, can you effectively lease people to do what you need to do until you're sure you need the permanent positions? MR. OCHS: It's the same question I asked, and it's a good question. There is ongoing maintenance, obviously, overtime as your systems expand. I'll take an example would be your water and sewer utility. One of the projects we may be working with public works on is developing the data set that will be the utility overlay on the base maps. As your utility system grows, you need to keep that updated and maintained, so I think there will be an ongoing -- as long as this county continues to develop at some level, we're going to need to continue to maintain that system. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I don't want to slow this down, and if you're saying this is what it takes -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't either, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I think Leo has answered the questions for me, that he needs the three seventy-three to augment what our property appraiser's doing, and so they can synchronize these projects, and if we're okay with that, I'm okay with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine. Page 14 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you have all four of these people up and running October 17 MR. OCHS: Well, if we get authorization, we'll start advertising probably in September when the board adopts the budget. We probably won't have them all on board October 1. It may be, given the type of labor market, particularly for information technology people, it could be the first of the year before we get all four on board. If you want to phase this in at some extent or cut that back by three months for a couple of these positions, we can certainly do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I'm wondering, only if that's realistic. I mean, that's 75,000 bucks. MR. OCHS: I think that is. I mean, based on our history of trying to find qualified ITP people in this market place -- after Y2K, it will -- hopefully, the log jam will break a little bit, but still, that's the first of the year. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, that would be about 31,000 a month. You defer that by three months, Commissioner, I think that's about $93,000. MR. OCHS: We can do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, can we make it two fifty instead of three seventy-one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think we're -- oh, yeah, I'm sorry. I was just looking at the top item, so, yeah, essentially. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Make it two fifty. Going once -- no, sorry. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Going once, going twice. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll support two fifty. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support two fifty. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm with you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. All right. Thanks. Next item is the weekly TV show. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had some conversation, I tried with two and actually only ended up with one who did some protection work, and if it's a concept that we think is worthwhile, what we talked about is if we are going to make this worth watching, there are some pre-production costs. You just don't plop down like you do on the Loveday and Lytal show and talk for a half hour and it's over. There's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Those were the days, Loveday and Lytal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The pre-production costs, you know, you may spend four or five hours putting your little snippets together and so on. You may, I think, over time spend a little less than that, but there's an hourly cost there. You can do your actual shooting of live to tape in here. You don't need to have studio time or any of that, but -- and I don't know that we need to do 52 weeks a year. As funny as it sounds, it may be -- there may be a dozen of those that you can use as reruns. If it's about parks programs or about other things that are fairly consistent, come August, perhaps you don't need to be taping. So, I think if we looked somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty-five, we may even be able to do that, and that's some very rough numbers, but it's certainly a lot less than the one hundred that we had listed before, and that will allow us -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What was the number? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty-five, and allow us to get our feet wet, do what we need to do, Page 15 June 21, 1999 probably put together 40 pretty good shows for the year, and just bring in someone to assist us, someone who does that professionally to assist us at whatever the appropriate hourly rate is for that time. I think we may even come in less than that, but without having any formal proposals, I wouldn't dare to go lower than that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, it would be a thousand bucks a week to do this, ballpark? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It could be. I'm saying a little bit higher, but yeah, it could be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It costs you anywhere from 1,600 to 2,000 per show is what I've seen estimated. It depends on the number of shows. If you end up with doing 20 shows, it's -- you know, it's 40,000, plus if you do a little more. I can go with a number to do this show. I just really believe we need to out source it, that we do not have staff to do this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I think that was my suggestion is I think we can do better than 2,000, but that is bringing a body here a day, a week or something from outside to do that, not hiring someone to do it. I agree with you completely. Is fifty-five a number we can live with on that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I would hate to not have the show because we didn't budget quite enough money. Is fifty-five going to handle it. I mean, we are probably talking about doing 45 shows, wouldn't you think? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we can always come back in with a budget amendment if they find this isn't enough. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it would be a small number. That's probably true. I was thinking rather than have to come look at a budget amendment out of reserves, that we might -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Why don't you budget it for seventy-five, and then if you don't spend it, you don't spend it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you did seventy-five to 80,000, Commissioner Norris, I think you'd be there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You don't need my support, but I'm not going to go over fifty grand for this. I don't even think -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seventy-five, would that be acceptable to you? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I really think, and this is talking to people who actually do it, we can do 45 shows for 55,000 bucks, and I had actually plugged that in for forty, and I think that's a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about a compromise of sixty-five? Sold? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. And if we don't spend it, we don't spent it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, if you don't spend it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm convinced we'll get a contract for less than that, so that's why -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, good. That's great. Hopefully, but then at least we don't have to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support sixty-five. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sixty-five. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We may -- we may know the answer to that before September anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Excellent point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. Page 16 June 21, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand we have a consensus on the dollar amount. Can we agree on the number of shows you want to shoot for? Is 40 the right number of shows for the year? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that would probably not be quite enough. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's say a 40 to 45 range to be determined. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Computer redundancy, other jurisdiction -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: How many -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: How many shows did you finally say; 45? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Forty-five. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Forty to 45, yeah, and we can determine that as we go. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Phase it down in the summer, holidays and stuff like that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because, apparently, you guys understand this better than I do. This TV show is going to provide information like if you're interested in a parks program, here's where you go and sign up and that kind of thing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think it would serve all kinds of purposes; one, parks, two -- even issues like we talked about today, just to say this is what the stipulated agreement says and so on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With some graphics to just -- so that people know. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: These are the parts of the county that we are talking about, because when all of us say, well, those four areas, we know, but if you're watching on Channel 54, you may not have a clue -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: They don't have a clue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I think it's just good clarification on all of those items, and then some of them may be programs we have or vacancies on advisory boards or any number of things. It's just one more communication tool. COMMISSIONER CARTER: When we do our MPO program, if we come back with a public transit thing, that would be a part of it; our whole thing that we're providing for the disadvantage -- I can think of a million things that we can do with this that would communicate on an ongoing basis to the public. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the point -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, by going '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and the other thing is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sorry. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, no, you go ahead and finish your thought. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I lost it now, so go ahead. I'll get it back. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I was just going to say that judging by some of the letters we get, I think that a lot of the public does not Page 17 June 21, 1999 have an understanding of our road situation, level of service and all those kinds of things, and this would be a perfect opportunity -- and it may take more than one show -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- to get all of this information out, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the other -- the other really good purpose to use it for is to tell them what's coming up next week or the week after -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you know, a short segment at the tail end of every one of these or something -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or somewhere in there where you can say, an important issue coming up next week or the week after that or whatever is such and such. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think a fair comparison is we maintain a web site and spend money developing that, maintaining it and so on, and yet we have a very limited number of hits on that web site. We have some people that go to it, but it's not -- out of 200,000 people, it's not reaching that many. The number of people who actually tune into Channel 54 never ceases to amaze me, and that's going to far exceed, for the time being anyway, the web site. Who knows, ten years from now, the two will be combined, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okey-dokey. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, let's, just for fun, make it a unanimous, because I understand a little better what we are talking about on the weekly news show. Computer redundancy, other jurisdiction examples. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, the question raised on Friday was what other cities or counties are doing in regard to computer redundancy, and I believe Mr. Ochs at IT staff has, in that interim period, at least made some phone calls and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you, Mr. Smykowski, as we go through these, can you direct us to the page -- original page so we can kind of follow along? MR. OCHS: This is in your capital 301 budget. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Capital. MR. OCHS: It was a $107,500 request. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page A-58 in your summary book. MR. OCHS: Staff was able to reach a few organizations of comparable size, both in the public and the private sector, and as you might expect, the results of the informal survey kind of varied depending on each agency's level of tolerance, if you will, with risk or how much they believed in redundancy, kind of jumped all over the board. We talked to Allen Systems, and we talked to our clerk of the courts here locally. For example, the clerk maintains, what we had talked about Friday, a cjuster type computer hardware setup for the payroll application because of its importance, obviously, and in that kind of an arrangement, you have two computers running side by side, and if one fails, it immediately picks up the load on the other. When you have a payroll type of application or finance application, that level of redundancy is crucial, and it makes sense to do that. Other agencies for other applications don't find that level of redundancy required. Again, looking at our recommendation in the detail on that, we Page 18 June 21, 1999 had recommended some cjustering for some of our critical business applications. We also had some spare part top servers and other things to maintain the network. Actually, in going back and refining that list, our very critical need is probably about $65,000. The balance of that we can -- you know, we can call and be down for a day if we need to, calling and air freighting some of those things in, but we would certainly recommend that the board maintain a certain level of that appropriation to give us the backup that we need. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The original discussion I was persuaded by two arguments, one is that we've never had this type of failure, and the second one was that we would probably spend this money to save ourselves perhaps 24 hours anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think the other question when we asked about other communities wasn't just if they did it, but what their experience had been. Had other communities '- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In a necessity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- experienced failure? Were we just lucky that we never had them or has Lee County never had a failure. Has nobody in Florida ever had a failure. MR. OCHS: Oh, there has been failures, but I can't, in one afternoon of calling around, look you in the eye and tell you that we were able to develop a great deal of information. I mean, if we had a little more time, we could get into that, but essentially, what it comes down to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what. You've got 12 months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's exactly my thought. I think this gets cut out. What's the dollar amount here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One hundred seventy-five. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One oh seven five. I say it's gone. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's history. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would give you until September to come back with this. For sixty-five, I would do that. I understand where you are, Leo, from a business perspective. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unfortunately, for the whole -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- majority rule thing, we just lost it, or fortunately. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving right along. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, what's our tally? I meant to ask that to start the day. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're -- you've decreased expenses supported by the general fund 778,400 that are tax supported. In addition, the GIS budget request, you reduced $923,000 that will not have a millage implication. So overall, your cuts are nearing a million seven. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we just cut another one hundred and seven. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was already on the list. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, for general fund, we've cut seven seventy-eight? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a start. Page 19 June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Community development division, amount paid through indirect cost plan for attorney services. These guys told me over a break that they pay about $125,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: About a quarter of a million dollars. CHAIRWOMA/~ MAC'KIE: $250,000, I think that probably covers it. Any other questions on that? I wish we could do something more, but that just seemed more than fair. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have o- and that may be more than fair. Do we have any numbers to back that up or to suggest it should be higher? Certainly no numbers that would suggest it would be lower. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was based on the indirect cost of an allocation plan that was prepared by an exterior consultant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it included not only salaries, but desks and, you know, space. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's a fully loaded cost. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was fully -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we asked for wrap-up, I assumed we were looking for more information. I mean, you're not telling me anything different than we had last week. MR. FERNANDEZ: The two fifty was the number we didn't have. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The question was how much did community development pay through the indirect cost allocation plan for county attorney services, because Commissioner Mac'Kie was leaning toward charging directly, but the actual cost recouped through the indirect cost allocation plan is a quarter of a million dollars for attorney services provided to the community development fund. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item was TDC budget spreadsheets without the third penny. I'll hand those out. MR. FERNANDEZ: The board had asked for us to develop this budget without the assumption of the third penny being continued, if you'll remember, so we have the same budget format with the figures changed to reflect the lower revenue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, on -- the cover page reflects a five year projection showing the TDC beach renourishment funding without that third penny. You'd be bringing forth a surplus of 2.2 million dollars. The following page then shows what it would be if you retained that third cent. You would be at a surplus of 14.2 million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But there would actually be a couple of years -- if we don't have the third penny, there's a couple of years that we're in the red? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's in '02 and '03, '04. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if you look at your reserves, I believe drops to two oh six two. What is that -- is that in regards to the beach? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That really gets close, and if we have any kind of problem with -- MR. TINDALL: For the record, Phil Tindall from the budget office. That two oh six two for that last year is basically five percent Page 20 June 21, 1999 on the operating expenditures; just something we would need to be able to fund if -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: In this analysis, we made an assumption regarding, obviously, what projects would be budgeted in the years '01 through '04. We started with the proposed FY 2000 project expenses of 7.6 million and to that we backed out -- there was some non -- essentially non-recurring costs that are identified in the little box at the bottom of that first page; two million dollars for Lake Trafford. There were some parks projects and the Naples Pier, so 3.9 million dollars essentially of one time expenses. So, in terms of project expenses reflected in the period of '01 through '04, we took that 7.6 base line number, backed it down by the 3.9 and said, this is what it would look like if you had 4.1 million in project expenses year to year. Mr. Tindall did check with Mr. Huber and said that is a reasonable working number, obviously, when you're looking five years into the future. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that was going to be my next question is would you be sure that Mr. Huber has had this, and also, if you would share it with chamber of commerce and others, because they are going to be making a presentation to the board in August on the possible retention of the fourth cent by -- I mean the third cent by super majority. Other comments on this? Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one, and that is, what occurs to me is whether it's with a penny, without a penny, three years from now, ten years from now, if there is ever a shortfall on money set aside for beach renourishment purposes, I would hope that some of the money that the hotel industry is benefiting from right now would get shifted over, because clearly maintaining our beaches is the number one priority for the community, but I think what the public expects out of this more than advertisements, that brings more people to us in season. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully we don't get in that spot. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, that was informational. We appreciate you providing it to us and hope they'll -- be sure it gets disseminated to the right people. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we will. Thank you. The next item on the list was transportation disadvantaged. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This was the item I had mentioned at the end of the day Thursday, and I think we talked about it briefly at the beginning of the day Friday as .well, and then we apparently didn't formally poll the board, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What page is this? MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-26 is the community development general fund summary. It reflects the -~ COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this is the item where, right now they are trying to juggle if you have cerebral palsy or are blind or for whatever reason need to use the service. The last couple of years, unless it's a doctor's appointment, there's a pretty strong likelihood you're not going to get where you're going. If it's a grocery run or you've got to get to the pharmacy or whatever, our service has just not fulfilled those needs. Some of that will be improved as Intellitran is now on board, and Page 21 June 21, 1999 it appears they will likely be the vendor full-time later this year and are putting their own computer system in and changing the way they do dispatch and scheduling. There will be some minor improvement, but it still won't cover all seven areas, and to me, this just falls in -- when we talk about what government's role is, we talk about health, safety and welfare, and this is an absolute necessity for the folks who use this service. There's no frills about this whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, this is health. This is safety. This is welfare. This meets all three pieces of the test, and frankly, nobody could argue that we've had a lot of problems over -- since I've been on the board, anyway, four years plus, with the program, and this would be hopefully the solution to those because we haven't been able tomanage it very well because we've been too tight on the purse strings and therefore not providing for the need. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's a -- this will -- simply by adding two eighty-two, we've added a hundred from previous years anyway, and by adding that extra amount in, there are seven priorities that are allowed to use the service. It allow us to provide it for all seven of those instead of just doctors. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This will get it where it should be then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. Thank goodness. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good. Well, let's do it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For clarification, commissioners, the current appropriation in the recommended budget was 200,000. This would increase it to four eighty-two, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think you have consensus. Yes? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, but if we don't get good results in this fiscal year, next year is going to be a lot different. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is pretty much our policy -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All the time, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They can't come back to us and say they didn't have the money, John. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But they can't say that it was the money that caused the problems next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Utilities, explanation of lien revenue. I don't remember what that question is. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, this is the one where the information seemed to show a dramatic change. I believe one figure was $8,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then there was a very large increase from that. We have determined that the distinction here was a change in the coding information used by the finance department, and I believe Mr. Smykowski has a more detailed explanation for you, but it has to do with the difference in coding information on how -- and that means how the information is charged versus how it's budgeted. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. The public works staff had prepared just a little memorandum addressing actually both issues identified under public works, the explanation of the lien revenue now being classified in the general overhead on that page as opposed to within the water sewer budget revenue line items. Page 22 June 21, 1999 In addition, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had asked some questions related to retained earnings, profits and rates, and Mr. Finn had provided some graphs and the memo discussing -- discussing same. Essentially following the budget process, they have a ten year financial plan model, which would be updated, and they would assume would be done approximately in November that would also address a preliminary review of rates based on what is included in this year's budgets. You may recall the board did approve rates approximately 18 months ago. It was the last comprehensive rate analysis that was done, obviously, by an expert -- independent expert in the field in determining these rates. Public works staff, again, would propose to update their ten year financial plan model and evaluate where rates are at that point in time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Anything further on public works? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Discussion regarding reserves, our favorite one for the year, general topics. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And our county attorney -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess we are going to need our lawyer. We'll hold off on that one how about until we get -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Annual debt service on roads plan, the sixteen -- yeah. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was approximately 1.3 million dollars as a preliminary number. The roads plan that you saw reflected bond or loan proceeds of 16.1 million. The question was, what would the annual debt service requirement be if we actually went forth and issued those bonds. So, you're in the 1.3 million dollar annual range. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the more complicated question, but not for today, is how does that debt service -- at what rate does it increase based on the amount of principal borrowed if we were to increase the borrowing to upgrade our roads to a different level of service? That's the longer term question, okay, not for today, but certainly for transportation planning. Next, Mr. Weigel is here, so let's go back and talk about reserve policies. The fundamental question, do the reserve policies, Mr. Weigel, have to be identical for all constitutional officers? Is that the question, board members? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think across the board, what our policy is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, are you ready for the question and for the answer? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I thought perhaps you were reframing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm ready. Are you ready? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: I thought you were reframing the question whether it's across the board or distinguished on a constitutional officer basis. It's my understanding that the county has a policy generally affecting its general fund reserves, which apparently now is a set figure, a number. The question being, can this be distinguished. I was looking at it either in a departmental basis, what is the policy Page 23 June 21, 1999 and is the policy just merely whatever you say in a resolution, was the first part of review that I had. Well, clearly, you set your policies typically by resolution, and you have the ability to distinguish between departments, and, again, as I mentioned the other day, looking at home rule and the abilities of the county to fashion what is necessary locally, I think there is generally great flexibility there. The question of defensibility of a policy for county departments generally, which is different from the amount that may be established in that policy for constitutional officers, I just cannot tell you of the absolute defensibility of that or not at the present time. I have some personal reserves on the ability to successfully defend that. In looking, as an example, at the sheriff's statutes, particularly 30.49, which, again, you have before you, specifically Paragraphs 7 and 8 found on Page 370, it talks about there what would appear to be a type of uniform procedure, Paragraphs 7 and 8 to the top of that page, a uniformity in application; that the -- in regard to the sheriff, it's governed by the same provisions governing the amount in use for the reserves for contingencies appropriated in the county budget. That seems to indicate to me that there is a uniformity in policy generally as opposed to a distinguished policy for departments. In regard to constitutional officers individually, I think it would probably be important on the record in any budget year to have them indicate that they approve a particular contingent reserve application. That could become a part of that policy. Your policy could actually in place trust that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Have the constitutional officer consent; is that what you're saying, it would be important? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I think if you have a policy and the constitutional officer consents -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be a disastrous policy, because they could in any given year arbitrarily say, no, 5 percent isn't enough. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need 20 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I don't follow your logic there. MR. WEIGEL: What I'm saying is, is that if you want defensibility with constitutional officers with absolute defensibility is to have them agree to what it is you're setting in the process and your policy reflect that, but if you want to set policy ahead of time, which has a ceiling or a floor, I think that it has to be uniform at this point. Otherwise -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because what you described is essentially veto authority. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: No, that's not what I was attempting to describe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it is, in essence, saying if our policy is that they must agree to whatever number we set, if they don't agree, then we aren't following our own policy, so it is essentially veto authority. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may, first of all, I'd like to remark that from my experience, it's -- I've always complimented this county for the fact that we have formal policies with respect to a number of Page 24 June 21, 1999 items that many counties don't adopt formal policies for, and the reserve amount is one. Secondly, I'd like to approach this from a different standpoint and maybe ask Mr. Weigel if this works, and that is, is it appropriate to meet the needs of the constitutional officers collectively rather than individually, and if so, would that satisfy the statutory language that you referred to? In other words, if we put them together and indicate it as I said before, that their general -- that their reserve needs would be met by a general fund reserve amount, does that satisfy the statutory language? MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, it may -- this is rather unique and particularly the very brief time to review this, it may be defensible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And David, that's why I'm going to interrupt you, because, you know, maybe what we need to do here is we decide -- I know we have to budget an amount today for trim and otherwise, but this is such a complicated issue, it troubles me to -- it seems more appropriate to be a regular agenda item where the county attorney has researched it thoroughly, the interested parties have researched it, and we'd come back and adopt something on a regular agenda. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would concur with that. I would ask that the board, for today's purpose, not reduce the amount, the total amount devoted to reserves, that we would come back to you with some specific language on how that fund -- that amount of funds would be distributed throughout your budget, but I would urge -- based on the comments from the clerk last week and my own concerns, I would urge that you not reduce the amount that we have in this budget for reserves totally. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can agree to that if we can be assured that it will come back as a regular agenda item prior to the final budget hearings in September. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, I can arrange that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to suggest also that you -- that you poll some other counties for the way that they are handling their reserves. I know you had a list of half a dozen counties or so that seem to have -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- this particular issue under control. If you can find out how they do that logistically and legally, and perhaps we can piggyback on some of the stuff they've already done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And for comparison sake, if somebody has a considerably lower reserve, we might want to check their bond ratings and so on, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BERRY: When you say bond rating is the thing that concerns me the most, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if there is somebody out there with it lower and they're still carrying a great rating, well, great. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but I'm not at all suggesting that we're going to lower the amount of reserves that we carry. I'm just suggesting that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. Page 25 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it's the allocation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I can just put in one more remark about this. I was once before Standard and Poors for the purpose of having my bond rating re-evaluated. When I introduced myself, and I told them where I had been, cited the county I had worked for, he interrupted my conversation. He said that county had just received the largest increase or the greatest increase in the bond rating in the history of our ratings, and it was due to your fund balance policy, the fact that we had the amount of reserves that we had put into place. He said, you should put that on your resume, and I think I did. So, I just want to stress the fact that this is a very important consideration when the bond rating agencies look at our financial records. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. On this City of Marco Island prioritizing their own capital road projects, didn't we decide that was how we want to go? We just want to -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- allocate the money, let them decide how they prioritize it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. Obviously, since 4:30 on Friday, we have not done that, but we will. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any question from the board? That's our policy, right? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yep. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Legal issues regarding use of road assessments receivable fund revenue, I don't remember that personally. What is it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The issue there was there's an old road assessment receivable fund that we use as a revolving loan -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, that million bucks. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as a revolving loan pool, and the question is, can we just transfer that money to the general fund? I'll be honest with you. We are still sifting through the records. That -- that fund predates my employ with Collier County by some degree, and the records back then are not clear. It appears to be MSTU and/or assessment driven, so the question is whether or not, you know, that could be simply transferred to the general fund or not. That is something certainly we would have available for your September budget hearing, but we do not have a definitive answer today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's know it by September. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That sounds good; by September? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or sooner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or sooner if possible, but we'll be gone. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, if we can have an answer for -- on August 3rd would be the date we'd adopt your proposed millage rates. That would probably be a better time to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. List of general fund budget increases by agency. MR. FERNANDEZ: This was the question of the comparison of the county administrator's agency to the sheriff's budget over a multi year period. We've been able to put together a very abbreviated spreadsheet with just totals. You'll see on that sheet that the percentage change over that period of time is very close, but the Page 26 June 21, 1999 county administrator agency is, in fact, lower than the sheriff's increases over that period of time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's close enough we don't need to spend a whole lot of time. I think the sheriff's agency is going to want to see a copy of that. Close enough, we probably don't need to spend a whole lot of time talking about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, can we move on then to flagged items or do board members have any questions about that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is it break time? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we need a break? We might just be able to wrap this up. Are you doing okay, court reporter? Yeah, let's keep going. DOR, ambulance billing position, pending results of consultant study, I thought that one was just sort of going to stay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. On some of these flagged items, they are for longer term follow-up, not necessarily for an immediate action by the board today, but it helps to have them on paper to remember to follow up on them, and that is the case. We will be giving that consultant study shortly, so we'll be able to provide some follow-up fairly soon. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Same on the DOR, utility billing position? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Roller hockey rink, that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had just kind of thrown around the other day, and Mr. Smykowski talked about their cost versus Guy Carlton cost, and Guy Carlton came up and corrected that, and so -- Guy has indicated there may be a number of areas in which they would be more than willing to bid, may be able to. There are some areas where he doesn't know that he can, but there are a number of areas he thinks he may be able to provide the same services at a lower cost than our DOR is, and we may be late in the process to do that now, but that's something we may want to set out for a bidding process next spring in time for next year's budget season. If we can save some money on that and still get the service -- MR. FERNANDEZ: And he'll have plenty of room to do it now, right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. We'll pursue that to see if he can give us a competitive arrangement for -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- bidding for billing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, what will be the opportunity -- I'm sorry I missed that part, but the opportunity for him to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's gone, never mind. No, it's next year; just do it in preparation for next budget year, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good plan, because let's just get it as cheap as we can. Roller hockey rink, final land cost, was there a question about the final land cost? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the one I brought up, and Tom Page 27 June 21, 1999 may be able to help with this, between the land cost, what our new assessment of the value of that property and what our likely purchase price is. This is the one we just approved the offer on a few weeks ago was considerably lower than what had been budgeted there, even including the construction of the roller hockey rink. So, there might be an opportunity to cut a pretty good chunk off that 1.175 and still have the project. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. We have 600,000 of that project budgeted as a land cost item. If we think realistically, the lands are going to be a little closer to 400,00. My recommendation for you this morning would be to go ahead and just take 200,000 out of that project, move it into that fund reserve, because that is an impact fee driven project, but you can make that reduction this morning. That would be my recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll follow his recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He'll follow his recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's three. FAC dues, we don't have an option there. We're going to increase them. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we're going to be voting on that in Orlando this week, and hopefully, I can use my voice powers to get them not to go the two cents per person, but maybe we can cut it back to a penny. At any rate, we're trying to save us some money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a rationality provided for this, Mary Kay needs a new car? What -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We haven't -o we haven't seen a rationale behind it. We have to go and hear what they're presenting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that's a 28 percent increase, so -- 29 percent increase. MR. FERNANDEZ: Haven't seen a rationalization for it, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll let us know on that one when you next see them. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You bet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what we have to do there is budget for the increase and hope that we can cut it back. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, when we come back to our August meeting, I'll give you an answer on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, it stays flagged, cool. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll just leave it, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Polish off those powers of persuasion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is our cut number at this point? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Four ninety-six four hundred. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: So, about $500,000? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From general fund. MR. FERNANDEZ: General fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One point one out of the other, and we just did 200 K out of impact fees, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On the 500,000 that we've cut out of general fund, would those be funds that would be available for the next item, the stormwater clean out? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Page 28 June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you have this down here as a stormwater superintendent, but it really involved a piece of equipment and staffing to go out and -- well, describe it for us. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It was a big heavy duty pickup truck with a -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I just ask Mr. Boldt to come up and give you a summary of what this is. I think we described it last week as a -- as an intensification of our current capability to be able to increase the frequency of this. John, if you would elaborate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get into that, I want to be real careful that just because from general fund we've cut some that now we can spend that somewhere else. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Certainly not, certainly not, but I -- the reason I make that point is this was an item that the county administrator indicated the only reason it didn't make the list is because he was trying to stay balanced. Otherwise, it was something that he would recommend. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it was not recommended; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: It was not recommended initially. MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, stormwater. Yeah, this would -- position would increase my level of service I could offer by the addition of an assistant field supervisor, and as Mike said, a highly specialized piece of equipment that is computerized, one man operated, that could go out and spray our roadside ditches on his own as opposed to the way we're doing it now with a pickup and two people involved. This individual also would be highly specialized in providing some inspection, prioritization of scheduling of our systems, also training other personnel, some small engine repair that would make our operation more efficient. So, it's going to take it to the next level that we can perform. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me just ask board members -- well, I'll tell you first that the highest percentage of calls I get, even more than potholes or whatever, frankly, even more than growth management are - - COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I get more calls on specific complaints on flooding and stormwater issues than I do on anything else. It seems to me that this is what -- the people who call me anyway, want to see more out of their government than anything else I hear about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell them to move east where we are, and they'll be up a little bit higher. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's also an area where we have a large shortfall in what we have to do to play catch-up, and, John, if you're telling me that this -- this will enhance the process, that this is going to help us do a better job so -- that helps me in Naples Park and some of the other areas, then I can support you. So, that's where I am. I can support this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I really think we need it. Is there one other person interested? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to say that's going to help Naples Park, John? MR. BOLDT: It will help all areas of the county, especially Naples Park. We are doing -- we are doing a great job -- Page 29 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's doing about as good as John Drury; isn't he? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll support that, because I certainly get calls for the drainage situation, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Moving along. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm glad to hear it. Okay, Airport Authority airplane. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd say wait until next year. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't know. I ought to hear John's position again. What he was relating to me and what it does is save him time and helps him get grants. I want to hear that again. MR. DRURY: John Drury, executive director of the Collier County Airport Authority. As you know, our budget break even need was cut from last year to this year by about 50 percent. We've been cut down to about -- by $135,000, so we are doing well. What I recommend as an alternative to do this is to a lease purchase option as opposed to the full funding over a three year period -- over a three year period, and that would reduce our need down to $34,000 to do the lease option purchase, which is similar to what the EMS folks did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John, would this let you be leasing long enough that the purchase will come after you've repaid the county's loans? MR. DRURY: The lease is for a three year period of -- for a three year period, and at the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: When do you expect to be in the black and starting to pay us back? MR. DRURY: The business plan called for the year 2007, I believe. We are way ahead of that. We're going to update our business plan this year and put in the drag racing facility and the new incubator and some of the other things we've been doing, and we see that being a lot shorter than the original plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Shorter, because if you were under the original plan, you'd be like seven years out -- MR. DRURY: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- but hopefully you could be cutting that in half, and then -- MR. DRURY: I would say at least if things continue to go as they are with our fuel sales and our leasing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I -- I can see supporting the lease portion of your getting an airplane, and then once you're in the black with the county, you can decide to spend your money however you want to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's much easier to justify the efficiencies you described for us Friday with $34,000 than it is with close to a hundred, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At the end of the three year lease term, you own the plane? MR. DRURY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no balloon? MR. DRURY: No, no, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can support you on that, John -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's different. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- because I would propose this, I know the time that it will save you, and if we keep burning this guy out, what will it cost us to replace him. It's a -- Page 30 June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know if he's replaceable. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- bargain to spend 34,000 to put him in place. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sounds like you've got three for thirty-four. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. Since this plane is going to be in the county, are we now expected that if we do any traveling, that this is the plane we have to travel on? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. MR. DRURY: No, it's just available to you if your schedule and the aircraft's schedule -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would assume there would be some times like going to Tallahassee, it would be logical only because it's a nightmare getting there. I think there are others -- I see somebody who doesn't like small planes at the other end of the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: You just go right ahead and fly then. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, based on the aluminum pressurized tube I went to Tallahassee in the last time, I'm going to go with John next time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It took me a second to catch all that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you very much, unless it's got a couple of jets on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I know who's taking care of the plane. MR. FERNANDEZ: I just want to let the board know that I resisted the temptation to ask for a Ferrari this year, so I can be more efficient. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you just keep resisting, Bob. MR. FERNANDEZ: I can be much more efficient if I had a faster car. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, absolutely, if you can figure out all these different ways to save all kinds of money, then next year put in for a Ferrari. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know, a green Jeep comes to mind, but that's just old history, and that's kind of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you can get a lease option on the Ferrari, you know -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We can own it after three years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. As much fun as we're having, shall we talk about the photo lab for the sheriff's office. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I actually talked with Scott yesterday. He called me from -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: His hospital bed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: His hospital bed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He was in a little discomfort, and I'm, frankly, more comfortable than I was with it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don's in the hospital? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no, the photo -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, Scott, I'm sorry -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Scott Barnett. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Barnett. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, can you share some of that with us, Page 31 June 21, 1999 since -- or are you prepared to do that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm sorry, I can't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, then -- is it a secret? Somebody tell us what made you more comfortable. MS. MYERS: Jean Myers, budget analyst for the sheriff's office. Yes, it is my understanding that Lieutenant Barnett is not well enough to be here. He just wanted me to reiterate the issue of the obsolete equipment that we do have, and our -- we do need the photo quality for court presentations, and we also -- I also want to remind you that we do photos for other agencies, like the medical examiner. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we should go along. If they need that, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I will share with you. There's a multiple phase process when you do whatever you do with the photographs now and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sounds like three. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It sounds like you've got three. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- some of the stuff is legitimately broken. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Airport Authority, mitigation, vegetation management, that's on there for future, right, to determine whether or not we have a permit, and then we'll talk about it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are out for now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Out for now but still on for -- depending on the status of the permit. Copy of -- okay. Copy of City of Marco Island law enforcement implementation plan and the joint letter -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we will have that for your signature tomorrow morning. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That could be a problem, because I'll be in Tallahassee tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You've got a fax machine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You'll be back Wednesday, won't you? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll have it to you today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, I'll sign it Wednesday -- well, but they meet -- but they meet tonight. Don't they meet tonight? MR. FERNANDEZ: Can we do it today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need to do it today. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll get it to you today. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll get that done, have the sheriff's staff review it, and hopefully get his signature on it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And just -- I don't want to get into this, but you guys be clear on whose job it is to draft the letter. As far as I'm concerned, it's Mr. Fernandez's job. You go get whoever -- it says Sheriff Hunter to draft, I don't want to get into that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was my error. MR. FERNANDEZ: It should have said me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's -- want to talk about the possibility of a public private match on Healthy Kids, and then if there's any -- then there is, perhaps, the sheriff's item of joint stipulation of settlement that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's more of a commission item, not a budget item, and I wondered if we might -- I'd love to just have a Page 32 June 21, 1999 chance to read that already. You might want to tell us something about it, but when we get to that, I'd prefer to read it over and actually have a chance to review it rather than vote on it immediately. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's talk a little bit about Healthy Kids, and then we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, rather than just jump into a public private partnership after a weekend of not trying to bring the private money, I'm not ready to do that step yet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not either, and, frankly -- I mean, if someone had said, gosh, we'll put up "X" number of dollars if there's an equivalent number of dollars available and we can find those equivalent dollars privately, I don't know why they nor us would want to intentionally burden the taxpayer with it. So, I appreciate the call and the effort on it. I just like the chance to go out and try -- and obviously, you've already jumped on that, but a chance to go out and try to raise that privately instead. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I guess the -- unless Commissioner Berry has changed her mind, I guess the issue stays alive though for COMMISSIONER CARTER: September. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the August meeting to see what kind of report we may have on public private partnership or on full private funding. So, keep it on the list, Mike. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And each of us talks to different people, both in and outside of the health care field, so I'd encourage each of us to try to pursue that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On this stipulation of settlement, is there some reason this has to be attended to today? MR. SAUNDERS: Well, Madam Chairman, Burr Saunders for the record with Woodward, Pires, Lombardo law firm representing the sheriff. There -- I guess there are a couple of reasons why we want to wrap this up. We have a scheduled hearing before the cabinet aides on August 4th, and then the governor and cabinet on August 10th. Your next board meeting where there will be a full board isn't until August 4th, I believe. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Third, I think. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Third, the day before. MR. SAUNDERS: So, that creates a real problem, because we can't wait until August 3rd to find out if this is going to be resolved and then begin to prepare for the hearing on August 4th. So, that's why we asked for it to come up earlier last week and then -- for discussion today. Let me give you a little bit of information that I think might help as you go through this. For the last ten years, the sheriff has not taken a penny out of reserves, and I know there's been a lot of discussion about this is about money, not about philosophy. It is about philosophy. It's not about the dollar amount. The sheriff has not taken money out of reserves for ten years, and your department, I think, will verify that. I see that Smykowski is shaking his head no, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We cannot verify that fact. We believe the contrary to be true. MR. SAUNDERS: Well, if you've got some evidence of that, I'd like to see, because it's easy to say the contrary -- Page 33 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about you just discontinue the comments. MR. SAUNDERS: This year -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We used 200,000 -- MR. SAUNDERS: This year, this year is the first time that the sheriff has asked for money out of reserves, and it's been -- it's very clear that the sheriff is not going to be asking for 2.9 million dollars. That's clear. There's another thing that I think is important for you to understand, that -- we've talked about the statute and how it works. There's another section of the statute that I think is important also. You need to read it all together, and that's Subsection 10, and basically, what that section says is that once the sheriff has expended his or her reserves, and if there's an emergency and the sheriff determines that more money is needed, the sheriff can come to you in the middle of the budget year and say, I need more dollars for this, and you have to appropriate those dollars, and if you don't have those dollars, you have to provide what's called a voucher to the sheriff so that he can expend those dollars, and the county will basically have an IOU. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're telling us this because -- MR. SAUNDERS: This is just -- I'm just letting you know that there are provisions in the statute that ensure that the sheriff is going to be able to provide law enforcement throughout the year, and the philosophical issue is, the one that I think has been resolved, which is what discretion do you have in setting aside -- in determining whether those reserves are going to be available, and I think Commissioner Constantine, your motion was clear. I think the record was clear based on the conversation that you agree that you have to appropriate those dollars when and if the sheriff determines that they are necessary, and the statute provides for that, and so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think two things. One, we didn't -- this is not on our agenda. We didn't talk about adding it on our agenda at nine o'clock. I have a concern that maybe Mr. Weigel can help me with, that us just randomly adding this on because Senator Saunders walked into the room and handed it to us. MR. WEIGEL: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then two, if we are going to have the discussion, let's just stick to the agreement and talk about that instead of having a review of where we were or bringing up other fringe issues as part of it. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: First, is there a question, Mr. Weigel, about whether or not we can add this to the agenda at this point? MR. WEIGEL: To this agenda today? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is a continuation really of the budget workshop before. I don't think there's a problem in adding it to the agenda. I, frankly, thought this was a segue from the discussion concerning reserves anyway, because the discussion for reserves came up from this item on Friday, and as courtesy, we received this morning, and as courtesy, I reviewed it quickly and wanted the board to have it at the earliest opportunity. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have comments for us on whether or not this joint stipulation of settlement accurately reflects the motion that was voted on previously by the board? Page 34 June 21, 1999 MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, a few, just a few, and I appreciate to have the opportunity to review it today. Looking at it, at its paragraphs on Page 1, I believe that, although there's an effort, obviously, to state facts that preface the appeal in the first place, specifically at Paragraph 3, and Mr. Saunders and I spoke about this a bit, Paragraph 3, the second sentence is a sentence embraced by both the county and the sheriff, and I don't know that the county would really wish to embrace that second sentence. Perhaps they do, but I wanted to make sure that the board was aware of that. MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I suggested to Mr. Weigel that we simply say the sheriff determined that as opposed to having the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. MR. SAUNDERS: So, it's a statement of the sheriff's determination, and that would work perfectly. COMMISSIONER BERRY: To delete that sentence? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, just to add to the beginning of it that the sheriff determined that the 100 -- the one million dollar reduction in the budget would have resulted in, because that's -- MR. SAUNDERS: Correct. That's not a determination by the board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- his determination, not ours. So, that solves your issue there, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it does. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm only marginally comfortable doing that. I don't know why it needs to be there at all. MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't have to be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be comfortable if it wasn't. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this the one where it states that as resulted? MR. SAUNDERS: All right. Well, then let's delete that sentence. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The entire sentence? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The entire sentence goes. MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, looking at Paragraph 1, it became apparent to the sheriff requiring the sheriff -- just be sure it was his determination that he had to file the appeal. It wasn't a joint -- we are not jointly agreeing that he needed to file an appeal, but perhaps we are agreeing in a sense that he wasn't getting the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fundamentally, Burt, here's a question I have just from a drafting standpoint, it seems like all of these, one, two, three, four, five, six; yeah, one through six would be whereas's instead of that we jointly agree. You know, they are all background of how we came to be where we are today, which is typically a whereas instead of -- because then they are just informational. MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chairman, I have no problem changing that around so that those are all whereas's. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because the only thing we really voted on was seven and eight, and that is we recognize that -- I don't even know if we want to say an amount equal to the reserves. We're going to have to fix that, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I actually scratched -- pen scratched some of six and altered that a little, but seven that way where it says equal to the reserves, I think we are still dealing with what that issue is going to be, so I don't want to make any commitment there if we don't know. We've talked about fluctuating our reserves. Page 35 June 21, 1999 I don't think -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It seems to say a lot more than what the motion said, to be blunt about it. Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I have the transcript from that meeting, and I can read you the motion if you'd like to hear it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be great. MR. FERNANDEZ: This is at the bottom of Page 24 of the transcript of June 16th, 1999, and at that point Commissioner Carter has asked Commissioner Constantine to restate the motion, and his response is as follows: Sure, I'll read it. It's a motion to approve the settlement of appeal on the sheriff's budget, recognizing state statute allows them access to monies set aside specifically for that purpose, committing future placement of appropriate funds in the general fund, having written documentation from the sheriff's department, all of that consistent with county policy, and that policy, the amount and so on, may alter or the formula we use to set aside reserves in future years may alter, and it's contingent upon the sheriff's department agreeing to drop the appeal issue as well, all appeal issues, including the 250,000, and upon the commitment that was made from Ms. Kinzel. That's the motion. The comments about unfettered access and so forth were all part of the discussion but were not incorporated into the specific language of the motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just feel more comfortable -- item six talks about the unfettered access, unrestricted access. It goes on and says, recognize Collier County has no discretion or authority -- we can just shorten all that up by saying per Florida statute and MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry, the per Florida statute goes where? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might change some of unfettered and -- just that wording, I don't care for, but access to reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff within the county's general fund per Florida statute. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Why don't we just scratch Paragraph 6 and rewrite it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, just -- and go with wording similar to what you just said, Tim. That makes more sense than what's written here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the whereas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Rather than try to interpret that out, because, I think, Burt, we all agreed last week on -- that we were in agreement on Florida statute and so on and so forth. I'd rather -- rather than try to -- MR. SAUNDERS: You know, the whole discussion was what does the Florida statute say, and it was our understanding that there was general agreement amongst the board that the statute says that the sheriff has access to those funds and all the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're correct right there, and that's my whole point is let's just then say per Florida statute. MR. SAUNDERS: And then there's also the sentence in the statute about, and an amount equal to that of the other county departments, and that's what this paragraph says. Now, I don't mind changing the wording, but that's what the discussion was all about. Page 36 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Paragraph 7 didn't -- when you talk about equal amount, that was not part of the motion. I made the motion. That wasn't part of my motion. I understand we had a long discussion regarding that, but we tried to decide what that should be. Obviously, when we said our reserve policy or -- the sheriff can participate in that discussion, but we talked about whether he would have one base amount and recognize some departments need higher or lower or whether it's going to be all the same. We had the same discussion an hour ago over where are we with that. We don't have all our answers yet, and so that issue is still pending as to can we change that, do we have the legal authority to change that. We don't know, but we didn't acknowledge that they are all going to be the same no matter what on last Friday. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And Paragraph 7, frankly, appears to try to establish county policy with the use of that language in there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's unacceptable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Paragraph 8, however, I agree with you completely. MR. SAUNDERS: Well, we are not there yet, I can assure you of that, and maybe we all need to go back and listen to the tape of the meeting on the 16th. I did that, and if you listen to the overall entire discussion, it became clear that there were two issues that were resolved by the board, and, obviously, the devil's in the details, and perhaps we don't have a resolution of this, but the two issues were -- and Commissioner Constantine, in your discussion, you talked about unfettered access, and it was clear indication that the board doesn't have the ability to say no to the sheriff once the sheriff says this is what I need reserves for. Everybody, I think, understood that. Additionally -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me tell you, I have no question about whether or not it was unfettered, unrestricted access, that we merely are to be provided notice -- MR. SAUNDERS: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and then there will be a perfunctory budget amendment. That, I don't have any argument with. MR. SAUNDERS: We agree to that, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The equal to I have an argument with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was not part of the motion. We may have discussed it. The equal to was not part of the motion. MR. SAUNDERS: It was my misunderstanding then that the board had agreed to that, and that was the reason that I stated that we were prepared to dismiss the appeal. If that's not the understanding of the board, then we don't have a meeting of the minds here, and we'll just proceed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The equal to issue? MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So without Paragraph 7 as written, we don't have an agreement? MR. SAUNDERS: We need language in here that says that -- that talks in terms of the amount, because it says it right in the statute that the same provisions governing the amount and use of the reserve contingency appropriate in the county budget. Now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it says that in the statute, why do we need to have it in this agreement? Page 37 June 21, 1999 MR. SAUNDERS: Because the board has said on many, many occasions, including right now, that that's not your intention. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we've said that's not our intention. I've said, we are not sure that that's how the law reads, and we want a clear interpretation. We haven't declared what our intent is. MR. SAUNDERS: Well, the discussion yesterday was -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't realize we had a discussion on Sunday. MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry, the discussion on Friday was -- well, perhaps we can have a policy for the county, but we can have -- we can change that policy for other departments if they have to be involved with hurricanes and things like that, and so it's clear from the record that the commission is not prepared to say that the sheriff's reserves will be equal to the reserves of the other county departments. You're not prepared to say that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that's true. When you say it's clear from the record, I don't -- it may be to you. That may be what you -- MR. SAUNDERS: It is to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That may be what you inferred from the record, but that's not what I said, and I don't know, maybe the other commissioners have said that, but that's not what I said or indicated anywhere along the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought that's what the agenda item was on today's wrap-up, was to determine whether or not we could make variations among different reserve accounts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was, but there was certainly no intent that we were going to do that. It was having an understanding of what all our options are, and we still don't have that, and we've given our staff direction to do the research so that we do have a clear understanding. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Never -- and -- and that's more accurate, you're right, that we haven't made a determination because we still are awaiting legal interpretation, and we've acknowledged today that it's a complicated question, and we're going to have to deal with it later. As much as I hate to say this, if the -- if the issue hangs on -- if the settlement hangs on whether or not the board agrees today that whatever ~- that the county can only set one amount for budget reserves and whatever that policy is it has to apply equally among all constitutional officers and all county divisions, if we -- we aren't there. MR. SAUNDERS: And it doesn't have anything to do with other constitutional officers. You heard Dwight Brock indicate to you that his department never dips into reserves. There's a lot of fees generated there, and the tax collector's office, they don't use reserves. There's no statute that says that their reserves shall be the same as other county departments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's not. MR. SAUNDERS: There is one for the sheriff's department. No, there's not. Each constitutional officer has a separate budget statute. We are dealing with the one that controls the reserves for the sheriff's department which says that you shall appropriate the same amount -- Page 38 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's your interpretation. MR. SAUNDERS: That's my interpretation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The point is, we don't have, from our staff, that interpretation, and I'm not comfortable making a commitment to something that may be, in our attorney's opinion, contrary to state statute. We can't answer that question right now, so I can't make that commitment right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, I guess we don't have a settlement right now. MR. SAUNDERS: It doesn't appear so. MR. WEIGEL: Well -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, unless you have an answer. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- I think we have to look at this agreement that's put together as what is it attempting to do. We have an appeal for the budget item concerning the sheriff for this year. One might suggest that we are looking to settle the budget item for this year, and this document may purport to attempt to establish a legal interpretation and application of statutes to the sheriff for all years in the future. I didn't know that that's necessarily what the board was looking to do. We are trying to get through this year's budget and look at some broader issues concerning reserve funds and things of that nature, and that's why I had some question about Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 7 specifically there, because as I indicated at our meeting the other day, I think that if you read seven and eight of 30.49, and you may come tO a logical conclusion that the board has some choice to make there as to whether to put something in its own budget or in the sheriff's budget. If you put it in the sheriff's budget, he gets access by written request. If it goes in our budget, it's supposed to receive the same treatment that matters in our budget do generally, and again, looking back to the left side of that Page 3070 (sic), I have highlighted there to the left upper paragraph, the budget shall include, and all those things that it lists there are the first five items found on the previous page. It does not include the contingent reserves -- reserve for contingencies, item six on the first page. It all lends itself, I think, to the flexibility of the county. Again, ultimately, I don't know what a court of law will say as we look at this, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation that we've tried to give you at this point in time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, frankly, I think it's bad faith to try to hold up this on that issue. The -- the two questions that were being appealed -- MR. SAUNDERS: On whose part? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The sheriff and yourself representing, and the reason is simple -- MR. SAUNDERS: I take strong exception to the use -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can. That's fine. MR. SAUNDERS: -- of the term of bad faith which is inappropriate COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're at the podium right now. I'm at the dais, and I have the floor. Thank you. MR. SAUNDERS: You have the fault -- you have the floor, Commissioner, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Senator Saunders, you're out of line right now. I have the floor. Page 39 June 21, 1999 MR. SAUNDERS: -- you're not going to accuse the sheriff or me of bad faith. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll have a chance to respond. I can say -- MR. SAUNDERS: I'm responding right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- whatever I choose to say, and you're not going to respond -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. This isn't going to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in the middle of my conversation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This isn't going to work for the court reporter, so everybody pause for a minute. Commissioner Constantine, we'll let you make your statement, and then I promise you will get an adequate and equal response time, Mr. Saunders. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. The two issues that were appealed to the state were access to reserves and the Marco Island funding issue. We have and are more than willing to address all those. To throw in something extra, something that goes beyond that, something that tries to tie boards for all time in the future is not in line with what was part of the appeal nor what was discussed Friday, and so if you're saying that is the deal breaker, I do think that's bad faith because it's not what the appeal was about. MR. SAUNDERS: Bad faith is inappropriate. I take strong exception to that. We are here trying to resolve a matter that is of great public importance, and playing politics with the issue is inappropriate, Mr. -- Commissioner, and I take exception to that and so does the sheriff in terms of the utilization of the word bad faith. We are trying to come up with some language here that everybody can feel comfortable with. I'd like to deal with it in a professional manner. We don't need to get into name calling and politicking on this. Let's -- let's resolve the issue. Now, in terms of the statute itself, perhaps I can work with the county attorney to resolve some language here. The problem is that we need to have something resolved today, because we are not going to wait until August 3rd to prepare for the hearing before the governor and cabinet. That would be foolhardy, and so the problem that you're having is with my utilization of saying the same amount. Perhaps we can just state what the statute says in this, and the specific language says, the reserve for contingencies in the budget of a sheriff shall be governed by the same provisions governing the amount and use of the reserve for contingencies appropriated in the county budget, period. Let me put that statement in there as a quotation from the statute. I don't think anybody can disagree with that, and then we'll fight another day on just what that means. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And how that is applied to the county budget, how about that. I mean, that might be a reasonable middle ground, because then all we're doing is saying, this is what the statute says. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I -- MR. SAUNDERS: But Paragraph 6, Paragraph 6 only says that the board shall approve those budget amendments for reserves as requested by the sheriff and his written statement as to why he needs those. That's exactly what the motion was, so I don't -- I don't understand what the problem is with Paragraph 6. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with Paragraph 6. Page 40 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You did earlier. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nope. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I still do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unfettered and unrestricted, I don't have a problem with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but the final paragraph I just think is unnecessary, recognized, has no discretionary authority, blah-blah-blah, let's -- again, if we just put general fund per state statute. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't mind taking out that last sentence either. Do you, Mr. Saunders? Collier County recognized that Collier County has no discretion or authority to prohibit the sheriff -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just cut that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I mean, because you've already said it. It's redundant. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. MR. SAUNDERS: I have no problem in deleting that sentence. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, we delete that sentence, the last sentence of Paragraph 6. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we just --.after general fund, just put per Florida statute, period. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or just leave it out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just -- for clarification for me, that would be -- and that way -- because we all agreed, I think, Friday on what that interpretation was. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think we all agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, a majority of the board and the sheriff's department agreed. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that acceptable, Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, and obviously, I need to sit down with the sheriff and go through this, but we are going to prepare the document that reflects this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we still have an issue in Paragraph 7, don't we? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A big issue there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that a yes on per Florida statute? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest that this document be a verbatim recitation of the motion, and I think that's the appropriate language to use in this document. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's just that there was more to it than just the -- you know, oftentimes when we make motions, we say considering all of the discussions previous. I mean, we had such a long discussion. I just think it's more complicated than just what words happened to have ended up there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you read that motion again for us? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, I can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a motion to approve the settlement of appeal on the sheriff's budget recognizing state statute, allows them access to monies set aside specifically for that purpose. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Pause right there. Recognizing that state statute authorizes them -- Page 41 June 21, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Allows them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- allows them access to monies set aside for what purpose? MR. FERNANDEZ: Specifically for that purpose. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For that purpose. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I mean, there's my first example of why you can't just use the -- but keep going. MR. FERNANDEZ: Committing future placement of appropriate funds in the general fund, having written documentation from the sheriff's department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. What does that mean, committing future placement of appropriate funds in the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What that means is -- hopefully you know this, but what that means is, very simply, we had the discussion of okay, where does that reserve money go. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And because I believe the statute states that we put it in the appropriate fund or you can place it in the appropriate fund. It's at our -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our discussion was the general fund reserves -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- the general fund. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as the appropriate fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Okay. Is there more? MR. FERNANDEZ: All of that consistent with county policy and that policy, the amount and so on -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, that's a great legal agreement. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- may alter or the formula we use to set aside reserves in future years may alter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, would that be sufficient to be legally binding? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think -- if you're looking here to put in the facts of how you got to an agreement to dismiss, and this -- this thing can be dismissed unilaterally, quite frankly, but if you want to put in a bunch of facts in here, then that is a fact of the statement that was made, and it is what it is just like the statute is what it is, and you can recite them all in there, and it's not going to hurt anything, but you just want to be correct in what you're saying. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But you still need to get around to a now therefore the parties hereby agree that, and it couldn't be that, could it? MR. WEIGEL: Well, your now therefore could be the last paragraph that you -- or two paragraphs that you have there -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's what I think it ought to be -- MR. WEIGEL: -- eight and nine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- with some change in Paragraph 7. MR. WEIGEL: I mean, you've got to have an operative paragraph. That's for sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, if I may, this can be dismissed unilaterally. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think bringing it back to the board requires a complete rehashing of the issues again, and that's essentially what we are doing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. I mean, what we discussed before, you know -- Page 42 June 21, 1999 MR. SAITNDERS: Madam Chairman, the manager simply tried to unwind the settlement, and I'm not sure what the point is in that. Certainly, this can be -- the appeal can be dismissed unilaterally. That would be on the sheriff's behalf, not on behalf of the county commission. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we certainly anticipated a settlement agreement in our -- earlier in our discussions, and, you know, nobody can relate better than I can being on the losing side of a minority vote, but, you know, this -- this is one where the majority of the board agreed to settle it under certain conditions, and it's important enough that we need to just hang in here a few minutes longer. I think we can do this. We're down to a couple of words in Paragraph 7 as best I can tell. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have one other change in Paragraph 6. I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's talk about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd just like to lose the words unfettered and unrestricted, and -- MR. SAUNDERS: Well, we are not going to agree to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me explain why. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's just hang in there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is it about your district anyway. This interruption thing from your district. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what it is, it's where we live. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would the inclusion of per Florida statute -- I think that just becomes redundant and unnecessary when it says, the Board of County Commissioners, that the sheriff shall have access to reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff within the county's general fund per Florida statute. It's telling you that anyway. Our discussion -- I mean, we can reference discussion from that hearing if you want from our discussion the other day. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Senator, that's what you were asking for, and that's the case you made is to have the access to the funds per Florida statute. I mean, that was your case. Why would you not agree to that now? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I -- MR. SAUNDERS: Commissioner, the answer to that is an obvious one, and you know the answer to that, and that obvious answer is that this board, individual members of the board on the record have said that they are not going to provide access to these dollars. You, sir, have said that specifically. Commissioner Berry has said that, and the question was, what does this statute mean. We were simply attempting to resolve this appeal by the board understanding what the statute said. There is a certain level of uncomfort, discomfort in simply saying we will settle this -- the sheriff has access per the statute because you, ladies and gentlemen, are going to interpret the statute, and we just happen to disagree with your interpretation of the statute. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think our discussion the other day says a majority of the board agrees with your interpretation of the statute, and -- I mean, I have no -- MR. SAUNDERS: We're putting our -- we're trying to put our definition or interpretation of the statute in this document so you can say that. Page 43 June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the whole point of the settlement agreement is that there has been a disagreement about what the words of the statute mean, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I think I was is I have no objection -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, darn, I guess it happens even in your district that people interrupt others. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, I was interrupted mid sentence is the point. I have no objection to saying -- to referencing somewhere in here our discussion from last Friday, you know, so that that's clear, so it's, you know, per state statute and our discussion, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could I make a suggestion that we take out unfettered and unrestricted. We take out that last sentence and add the words, per Florida statute, at the end of general fund and then put a comma and say, which provides for unrestricted access by the sheriff upon filing of notice to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You just moved it. MR. SALrNDERS: I don't have any problem with that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that or is that not what we agreed to before? Mr. Weigel, first. MR. WEIGEL: I'm trying to recall what we agreed to before, because it seems to be in Paragraph 6 -- again, if you want to isolate this a little more to the 1998 budget, you might add the words 1998 dash '99 reserve funds found on Line 4 of Paragraph 6, shall have, whether it's unfettered or unrestricted, shall have access to the 1998, '99 reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff, blah- blah, it continues, but I thought the agreement the other day was that in this year -- and the clerk came forward through his representative and said it's in your general fund, therefore -- first he stated, but I believe incorrectly, that the sheriff could access it automatically. Then he made a call, and Jim Mitchell came back and said, no, that requires a budget amendment, and so the board, I think, agreed and said, okay, we recognize that mechanically where it is, it's going to take a budget amendment. We will approve the budget amendment upon the request of the clerk, and in the meantime, Crystal Kinzel was saying we don't anticipate more than 1.2 million. So, I think if we want to add the specific language of mechanically how it's going to be done, I think that the board may have approved to -- approved to approve a budget amendment for the request that's made, but that is the form that it would take because the money finds itself in the county's fund not the sheriff's budget this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your recollection mirrors mine exactly. I think we need to be a little careful realistically to say -- how we say that, but -- and that's why I think per Florida statute is adequate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But per Florida statute is the whole debate. MR. WEIGEL: I think the sheriff -- pardon me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He says Florida statute says one thing. He says Florida statute is another thing. We, as the majority of the board, have agreed that what it means is if you file a budget amendment, it will be on consent agenda. We appreciate the notice and acknowledge that it will be approved. Page 44 June 21, 1999 MR. SAUNDERS: You know, we don't need the board to say we are going to appropriate dollars per Florida statutes. We know you're going to do that whether you want to or not. Somebody is going to tell you you have to do that per Florida statutes. The question becomes, what do you think the statute says. Now, we have an appeal before the governor and cabinet to address that issue. We thought that the board had agreed what that statute said, not for 1998, because we are not interpreting a statute for 1998, '99. We are interpreting a statute that will apply until the statute is changed, and that interpretation was that the sheriff would have unrestricted access to those dollars when and if the sheriff determines that those dollars are necessary and the sheriff files some information with the county board of commissioners to indicate where those dollars are going, not as a request for approval but simply here's the dollar -- here are the dollars that I need, and the board will approve this. I thought that that was what the board said that they agreed to. If you're simply going to say, we're going to appropriate as required by statutes, I don't need a settlement agreement that says that. That doesn't say anything. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because then we'll just go argue again before the governor and cabinet about what the statute says, which is actually what we don't want. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we need to, because the majority of the board has agreed with it, but why -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, let's just put it down here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- why that has to be written out and -- it's just overkill, I think. MR. SAUNDERS: If the board agrees to that, then I don't understand why we can't put that in writing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because for the simple reason that there are -- there are items in here that raise other issues other than what the board agreed on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I'm not going to let us get distracted. Right now we are on Paragraph 6. We're on how we described what the board agreed to with regard to the potential restriction or no restriction on the sheriff's access to those funds. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, again, my suggestion would be rather than trying to redefine the statute in this item is just reference (A) per Florida statute, and (B), if it makes you more comfortable, reference our discussions from last week and from today, for that matter. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we just lift a few words out of that though instead of just referencing -- just because the sake -- good lawyering on a settlement agreement is that you incorporate the understanding of the parties in the four corners of the document that is the settlement, and so it would be good lawyering if we could say take out the unfettered and unrestricted if it's a roadblock and just say shall have access to the reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff within the county's general fund pursuant to Florida statute, which provides for unrestricted access to the general fund reserve upon filing an amendment to the budget. Does any -- MR. SAUNDERS: I don't have any problem with that. I will tell you, Commissioner Constantine, if you listen to the tape, you specifically use the words unfettered and unrestricted. I mean, in Page 45 June 21, 1999 your voice it's on the tape. Now -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, couldn't we just go with the alternative suggested now and not have the who said what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, so let's pause here for a second. If you can live with that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- that's not taking us anywhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, can you live with my proposal? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can live with your proposal, because I think it's saying the same thing, and we get rid of some stuff that is making some other people feel uncomfortable. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any possibility there with you, Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you repeat it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That -- I'm going to read the whole Paragraph 6 the way I think it would be. At a -- at a special meeting of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on June 16, 1999, Collier County stated officially in the form of a resolution a -- MR. SAUNDERS: We're going to strike out the word resolution, because it actually was not a resolution. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Just stated officially. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Stated officially. MR. SAUNDERS: Or approved, Collier County approved. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Collier County approved by a majority of the Board of County Commissioners that the sheriff shall have access to the reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff within the county's general fund pursuant to Florida Statute Section COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Blah-blah-blah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- whatever it is, comma, which provides unrestricted access to the general fund reserves upon amendment to the budget. MR. SAUNDERS: Upon -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. MR. SAUNDERS: Upon request of the sheriff, because that's the exact language in the statute. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What you just said was unrestricted access to the general fund reserves. I'm not going to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, no, to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what you just said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the portion of -- you're right. That's a good catch. He doesn't get the whole general fund reserve. Provides unrestricted access to the portion of the general fund reserves set aside for the benefit of the sheriff upon notice to the board by use of a budget amendment, because we've got to just go ahead and put in there what the vehicle is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Okay. Then all we have left is Paragraph 7, which I scribbled it out so hard on my page, I can hardly read the words. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't see any point in seven now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't either. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just take seven completely out, because Page 46 June 21, 1999 it's just redundant now the way you've rewritten six. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a possibility~ Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: That's a possibility. Let me -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the difference between written information, which was one of my concerns, that's in Paragraph 77 See, I just find it -- I just cannot understand why -- I know what it says in the statute, and that's fine, but I can't understand that if you just basically tell the board or the administrator or whatever what you want to spend the money for, it's probably going to be approved, and what's so bad about that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The only difference here in that and what the majority agreed to in this settlement is you take out the probably. It's going to be approved. MR. SAUNDERS: Exactly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's all -- that is the only difference. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. COMMISSIONER BERRY: See, I just -- I just cannot understand how anyone operating in government why you should be so afraid of just saying and stepping up and telling people what you want to spend the money for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we -- just before we go -- MR. SAUNDERS: And there's no objection to doing it. That's exactly what the sheriff is going to do. The problem is that you can't say that the -- that it will probably be approved. It has to be approved, and that's what the statute says. That's what the settlement agreement says. That's what the motion said. So, I realize that there's a disagreement on part of the members of the board, but that's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One second. Can Paragraph 7 come out, Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: I believe we can take Paragraph 7 out. I'm actually going to have to discuss this with the sheriff, but just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At what point -- I mean, hopefully, you have some latitude here because at what point if today isn't -o you didn't want to wait until August 3rd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, it's got to be today. MR. SAUNDERS: I think what has to happen is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to reconvene today. MR. SAUNDERS: There's going to be -- once we finish this discussion, which I think we're just about finished, the board can then make a motion -- this is basically an offer on the part of the board for me to take back to the sheriff, and I will take that back to the sheriff. He's either going to say yes or no. If he says yes, then we'll prepare the document, and we'll have the chairman signature stamped on it because it will be approved for legal sufficiency by the county attorney. There's no other way I can do that. I can't get a hold -- CHAIRWOMA/~ MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. SAUNDERS: -- of the sheriff and bring him in here and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to understand clearly where we're going. if this would reappear several more times? MR. SAUNDERS: I'm not authorized to bind the sheriff on this proposal at this point because of the change, but I'm confident that we'll have it done. Page 47 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, we've removed seven? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have. MR. SALTNDERS: We'll remove seven. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And number eight, after the word sheriff, I'd just like to put above agreement in consideration by Collier County of the above agreement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That says the same thing, in consideration of. MR. WEIGEL: How about in consideration of the recitals above or something like that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: -- because it's going to be whereas's before that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they are going to be whereas's and then six and eight are going to be the -- or actually, I guess eight will be the only now therefore, sorry. I've been afraid to recognize you, Mr. Fernandez, because I would think when we were getting somewhere, you would have something. MR. FERNANDEZ: My original comment had to do with the language in seven, but since it's been stricken, it's now moot. However, the word unfettered does exist in eight, and it was stricken from -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That we just removed. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, we are going -- I think what the board needs to do now, if I might be presumptuous for a minute and suggest a procedure, that the board take a motion to offer a settlement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me interrupt you for just -- because Trish just came to tell me that Sheriff Hunter is on his way. He'll be in the room in one minute. How about if we take -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about if we do this. If we read through the changes that we've made, and tell me if this makes sense, and see if there's a general agreement, and then when the sheriff arrives, you and he sit down, and we can reconvene in ten minutes, but not have to go through it all again and extra time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That way we decide if we've got general agreement with whatever that wording is. You sit down with him and run through that, and if you-all are both happy with that, then great, we don't -- all we do is come back and -- we don't even need to come back, frankly, if we've got a majority of the board then, but then if the sheriff says, gee, I'd like a shall instead of a may or has some change, we are still here to take care of that, but that allows an immediate response. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, I think we have done that. We have gone through it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I read through, because we've made several changes? I just want to make sure I understand all of them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There was -- on the front page, I only have that last sentence of Number 3 stricken. That's the only change I've got on the front page. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Me too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that these, instead of being items of agreement will be recitals. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then on Item 6, it now reads, at a special meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners on June 16, 1999, Collier County approved by a majority of the Board of County Page 48 June 21, 1999 Commissioners that the sheriff shall have access to the reserve funds set aside for the benefit of the sheriff within the county's general fund per Florida statute, which provides unrestricted access to that portion of the general fund reserve, blah-blah-blah, whatever it said, for the sheriff, specifically set aside for the sheriff -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Upon filing of a written amendment to the budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- upon written request via budget amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And seven is out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seven is gone. Eight now says, the sheriff agrees to dismiss the appeal of fiscal year '98/'99 in consideration of the recognition by Collier County of the above recitals. MR. SAUNDERS: Just so I understand, that resolution of this is indicative of the fact that the board will approve those budget amendments for use of reserves, that it's not a discretionary action, you're going to approve them? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assuming in the year 2016 some board decides to fight and go to an appeal, there's nothing we can do about that, but yeah. MR. SAUNDERS: But that's the intent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it is the policy of this board, and somebody correct me if I'm stating this wrong, because I think this would be important, it is the policy of this board that the budget amendments when filed for this purpose will be consent agenda items,. and they will be automatically approved. The process is perfunctory. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question. How come when Guy Carlton or Dwight Brock come in the room, they are completely out of breath, and when the sheriff comes in the room, he's all cool, and he's -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's not even breathing heavy. MR. SMYKOWSKI: He walked over. COMMISSIONER CARTER: He walked over. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It could be that. SHERIFF HUNTER: They climbed the stairs. MR. SAUNDERS: Perhaps -- perhaps we just need a restatement, so -- now that the sheriff is here, we can -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we break for ten minutes, let our court reporter -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, can you -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let the court reporter have a ten minute break. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you explain to him what we've done. We'll be back in -- MR. SAUNDERS: Can we make it like a five minute break? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Five minutes, that's what I would hope. MR. SAUNDERS: I've got to give a speech in Fort Myers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll be back in five minutes. I'm not going anywhere. (Small break was held). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll reconvene the Board of County Commissioners. It'd be really great if the parties with whom we are negotiating would come back into the room. Did you discuss our proposal with the sheriff, Mr. Saunders? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, I did, and the issue of -- I think what the Page 49 June 21, 1999 board is doing is deleting the references to the amount, and the sheriff is in agreement to accept that for the purposes of this settlement. We will settle it along the lines of what we discussed. Now, there may need to be some restatement for the record as to what that is, but I think that we are pretty clear. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we read it verbatim just before the break. MR. SAUNDERS: Madam Chairwoman, what I would ask the board to do then would be to approve the settlement based on the discussion that we just had, authorize the county attorney to prepare with the sheriff's counsel the document, and then we can stamp your signature on it and get it out to Tallahassee this afternoon or tomorrow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I make a motion we approve the agreement consistent with the verbatim reading I gave -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Five minutes ago. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 60 seconds before the break, and -- which I think cleared each of the issues, each of the questions we had. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does this agreement, Mr. Weigel, bind us for any future years, because we can't speak for any future board? This is strictly for this year, correct? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would like the record to be clear to that effect, and that that is the desire of both parties, that this is an appeal for the 1998, '99 sheriff's budget, and that in the dismissal of the appeal, that all issues are taken care of in regard to this budget. I do have some concern about the board, for purpose of terminating an appeal process, obligate itself to future applications of the statutes pertaining to the sheriff's budget, and the example I'll give is this, under Paragraph 8 under 30.49, it's on the second page of the statutes that you have, we are talking about in this appeal the items placed in the budget of the Board of County Commissioners, the contingent fund reserves were not the sheriff's budget contingent fund reserves. It states that it should be subject to the same provisions of law as the county annual budget. For purposes of dismissal of this appeal, agreement to dismiss, the board is agreeing, and apparently going on record to state that it will agree to an automatic approval of the budget amendment notice that the sheriff will provide if he needs to during the course of the remaining budget year, but remember, it's supposed to be the same way as applies to all the rest of the county. Any other department of the county has to make a budget request, a budget amendment request, and the board has the ability to say yes or no to that request, and I don't believe -- we may be contrary to the law in the big picture if we go on and on in future years to say the sheriff automatically gets a budget amendment if the money is in the county's budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to respond to this, because I think we are opening up a can that we don't have to open up again, and that is, Mr. Saunders had said he's looking for what the intent of the board is. I think you realize, we can't bind a board in the year 2016, but we can declare what our intent is, and I think we have. So, I understand what you're saying, David, and I understand -- I think all of us understand, we can't bind boards five years from now or ten years from now or 30 years from now, but -- Page 50 June 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Or a year from now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Yeah, for that matter, I mean, a year and a half from now, we can have three new faces, and who knows what happens, but I think we've made the intent of this board very clear, and that we agree with where the sheriff is trying to head with this, and I think that is spelled out pretty well in here. MR. SAUNDERS: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So what you're saying, Commissioner Constantine, is regardless of whose budget it's placed in, it's the unrestricted access? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not saying that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no, no, no; no unrestricted here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not the way -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not saying that at all. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. I just wanted you to clarify that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It was the portion of the reserves that were specifically set aside for the sheriff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was your catch, and Commissioner Mac'Kie changed that word. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. So the amount of reserves that are specifically set aside -- okay, and then what happens after that? If those are all used, then what happens? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then the sheriff has no more. He can't dip into the parks and recreation -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then there's a separate procedure to go through. MR. SAUNDERS: Now, I don't think anyone disagrees that 5 percent of the sheriff's budget or 2.9 plus million dollars has been set aside for the sheriff -- for the benefit of the sheriff. Now, Commissioner Berry, if the sheriff uses all those reserves and needs more reserves, under section -- Subsection 10 of Chapter 30, he comes back in and asks for additional dollars, and we don't need to get into that, because that's not going to happen, but your question was what happens then -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, just like anybody else in the event of an emergency can come in and say, we've had a hurricane and we need to amend -- we need a budget amendment, would you please approve it. Then he would be in the would you please approve it posture with regard to -- MR. SAUNDERS: With the right of appeal to the governing cabinet if you deny it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course, but with regard to the portion of reserves set aside for the sheriff, he can access that money merely upon notice by virtue of the filing of a budget amendment. That's what we are saying. Does everybody agree that that's what we are saying? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think I -- again, we worded that, almost identical to that. It was different by two or three words, but almost identical to that was what we read, and I would like the agreement to read exactly as I said in my motion verbatim to what we said just prior to the break, because I think we covered that point very clearly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So, there -- was that a motion that you made? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I did make a motion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll second the motion. Page 51 June 21, 1999 MR. SAUNDERS: The motion includes that language and authorizes you -- your signature to be affixed by the county attorney once we get the document to reflect that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd love to see the agreement, but -- I'm only a fax machine away. MR. SAUNDERS: You're authorizing to sign it then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be better. Is that acceptable to everybody? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ah, passes unanimously. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Any other business to come before the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, before we adjourn, I would like to thank our county administrator and Mike Smykowski for an excellent job in presenting this budget to us and walking us through. I think from my first time in the process, it was easy to follow, and you did a great job in helping us get to where we need to be. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. I'd like to recognize my staff. I've been the principal spokesperson at the microphone, but I am not certainly the sole person responsible for putting this budget together. The budget staff in the front row, Gary Vincent, Michelle Johnson, Phil Tindall, Tony Gambino (phonetic) and in the budget office right now not with us is Pat Lehnhard, our star secretary who put together all the books for you. So, I certainly would be remiss if I didn't thank her for her efforts. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would like to add to that the division administrators and the department heads. They all participated in this effort. They all assisted with this -- it's a very complex, and it's a very lengthy process, and I just want to express my appreciation to all of them as well as the constitutional officers for their participation in the process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm glad you did that and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- we appreciate that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd like to thank my dad, because yesterday was Father's Day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sincerely appreciate the great work you've done. Did you have another comment? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairwoman, we had another agenda item that we had intended to present today, and that was the mechanism for the evaluation of the county administrator. Commissioner Carter has sent to you a list of management abilities that he's asked each of you to reduce the list from 50 down to 30. Essentially, we don't have a finalized document for your consideration today. I guess it will have to be presented at your next meeting. It was our hope to try to do that today, because I had committed to bring you something in June. Page 52 June 21, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that, and I hope everybody will, as promptly as possible, get your 30 back to Commissioner Carter so that we can get that document done. I guess our goal now will be the August -- is it 4th. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 3rd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- August 3rd Meeting. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you get that back to me this week, I can do the composite and get that back out to you so that by the time we get to August 3rd, we'll have a pretty good system. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you so much for reminding me. I apologize to everybody for having forgotten to bring that up. Anything further? We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:45 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF OL P · . · , ~ .~TTEST: " ~: ~WIGHT E. BROC~'j CLERK $1g~atUrt"'~a~eI minutes approved by the Board on ~ as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn Breehne Page 53