Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/18/1999 B (Budget Workshop) June 18, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOP OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 18, 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 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 .U'A'A~ U~' PUBLIC MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BUDGET WORKSHOPS THURSDAY,.JUNE 17, 1999 FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1999 = MONDAY, al~ 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 a.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| i, · 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/Environmental 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 · l~nday. June 21. 1999 - 9:00 a.m. Wrap-up ~ D~cuss|on ~2ard~2 Cmumy AdmW.~n~xof$ Performance Bvahm~on creeds, . 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 COLLIEH COUNTY. FLORIDA PAMELA S. MAC ' KIE. CHAIRWOB~ "' DWIGHT ~. BROCK, CLERK By= /s/Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerk June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning. I call to order the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for the workshop on the budget. It's Friday, June 18th, 1999. If you'll stand for the pledge of allegiance, then we'll get started. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just before we get started on the budget agenda today; you guys know we advertised as a regular meeting so we can talk about a couple other things. Mr. Weigel has some news on the fireworks ban issue that he wants to inform us about. And I -- frankly, just out of frustration with the headline in this morning's newspaper over Commissioner Constantine's memo, want to talk about just generally what are the differences between the original settlement agreement that you're proposing we go back to and what's on the table today. So I wanted to add those two things to the agenda. Not suggesting we have to do those first, but at the will of the board, if you'd like to hear those. You want to talk about that stuff now or do you want to talk about the budget first? COMMISSIONER BERRY: We can talk about that first, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Real quickly then, what's on my mind about the memo that you wrote, Commissioner Constantine, is basically let's compare what's on the table right now from the state to what was previously on the table when we were in the settlement negotiations stage. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's a good exercise, only because I think it's very confusing, depending on who you talk to at the state or who you talk to on our team, we don't all get the same picture, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So here -- this is -- and I just to think it through. I mean, I haven't made myself a little chart or anything. But just to think it through, the state -- the most important piece of the original settlement proposal to me was the identification of Natural Resource Protection Areas and the fact that we were going to finally create NRPA's in this county, and they were identified, although the lines on the map as they were identified by our staff were acknowledged as rough lines and not perfect lines, but better than nothing, which is what we've had all these years. The state's requirement now, just on that issue, the settlement requirement, what we're going to -- what is in the recommended order from the administration commission is, thou shalt designate NRPA's. So the piece that was the most essential to me, which was the Natural Resource Protection, we are going to do. Whether we like it or not, we're going to have to designate Natural Resource Protection Areas, even on private lands. Now, under the settlement proposal, the NRPA was going to have a density of one unit per 40 acres. Under the state proposal today, there will be zero development in those areas, pending a three-year study. Under the settlement agreement, in the non-NRPA areas in the Eastern Collier, there was going to be a density of one to 20° In the state proposal, the development is zero for a period of three years. And then there will have to be data to support whatever development comes over zero. In the original settlement proposal, in the rural fringe, we had density of one to five and Conservancy, TwinEagles open space requirements. In this proposal for the state right now we have no Page 2 June 18, 1999 density and to be negotiated open space requirements, but we're on notice, frankly, that the -- the Conservancy standards weren't even acceptable to DCA staff as to the whole fringe, might be as to a couple of sections. So I guess my net bottom line here is the -- to the extent that your goal is to protect natural resources, to reduce density, the state proposal does more of that than our original settlement proposal. Unless I'm missing something. And I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it doesn't allow development, but only on a temporary basis. And I think the key to what you described is pending a settlement. And so where we seem to have gotten -- the point we seem to have gotten to is that there is no plan except that we agree to talk more about a plan and that we won't do anything, or we won't allow anything until we figure that out. But my point, and I think it was fairly concisely written in the memo, was just that we have a plan that we paid some national experts to come in and lay out for us, and it is one to 20 and one to 40, which realistically, so someone can develop at one to 40, so what? That's not bad. I would rather have that definite plan now. I just -- I think -- I don't think it was overstating what I said in the memo. This is an historic opportunity. This is the single most important and biggest issue in the seven years I've been on the board that we've dealt with. This has the opportunity to have a huge impact on the future of Collier County on whether -- you know, we talked about the numbers, and that's 53,000 units or 100,000, 125,000 people, fewer people than would be here if we didn't make any changes. And that is just a huge step in the right direction. I think it goes along with what DCA has been asking, and there are some fine-tuning in there that needs to be done. But it goes along with what they've asked. It goes along with obviously the consultant's study, but it goes along with what the public is asking us to do. And my concern is the public isn't asking us to talk about it for another three years, they're asking for action. And I'm not just saying so let's just randomly take action. I'm saying we have a very well researched, legally defensible eight-month-in-the-making document that came out of a lot of work and a lot of meetings individually with us and then us as a group. And I just feel bad that we've kind of summarily dismissed that. Because I think there's a great deal of substance in there and I'd hate to just put that off and not do something. I fear that we're missing a wonderful opportunity here. And the difference is just we can make a commitment to something that is very restricting and has a huge impact, or we can make a commitment to talk about it some more. And I would like to see this board take that action. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just don't think that's a fair characterization, because the commitment that we make under the proposal that we have on our plates today from the state is thou shalt not develop until you can prove with data analysis that there is support for the developability of property, despite its impacts on natural resources. It's more restrictive than the one we currently have from our experts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only on a temporary basis, though. It is more restrictive until we have a plan. But what we're being told by those experts, by the George Varnadoes and A1 Reynolds of the world Page 3 June 18, 1999 is, that land's not going to be developed in the next three years anyway. So it's not really any more restrictive. And if you have 1 unit per 40 acres, that's not a threat to be a new development anyway. But they're telling us that won't be developed anyway in the next three years, so it's no big deal for them to give it up in that amount of time. So if it's temporarily more restrictive, it may be on paper. But I think realistically, if you plug that in, what's going to happen off Oil Well Road or somewhere? It's not going to happen anyway between now and 2002. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess what's occurring to me just right now, so -- you know, the danger of thinking out loud -- but maybe what we ought to do -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pause, pause. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, pause, think, come on. Maybe what we ought to be doing, though, is the state proposal for zero for three years and a commitment that at the end of the study there will be no greater densities than 1 to 40, 1 to 20, and Conservancy open space requirements in the fringe. Just a thought. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, sounds to me like, Commissioner Constantine, you're asking us to go back where we were before we even started. And the board's already voted 4 to 1 not to do that, but to go ahead and try to work this out a little bit differently. That doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that we're not going to use a lot of the data that was generated by these consultants in whatever shows up as a final plan. But on the other hand, in fairness, we need to give these property owners some input into what we're doing, or proposing to do to them, and that's really all we're asking. Now, you've mentioned that the public wants us to slow down development. Well, putting it at zero for three years will do that for awhile. And there's absolutely nothing to say at this point that what we end up with won't be exactly what you're saying anyway. So, you know, I really -- we've gone a long ways on the course we've been on, and I think we should stick on the course to see it through for now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I guess the urban fringe, we're not going to see three years on the urban fringe. We've talked about 90 days or 120 days. So I think -- I don't mean you intended it to be misleading, but I think it's misleading to say we're not going to see anything for three years. I think we all have a goal of trying to settle that urban fringe area by the end of the summer. So realistically we will continue to see things there, which is fine, as long as there's a good plan put in place. But, you know, to talk about zero or to talk about putting a specific into place now in that rural area, again, the folks who own that have said it's not viable to develop that now anyway. They've acknowledged that. So, you know, on one hand you can say well, why then not talk about it? But I guess I am a little frustrated that we have spent three and a half years since we first talked about this idea in '95, getting to this point, and at the end of all that say well, we'll talk about it. And those folks have had ample opportunity. I understand the exact -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll respond to that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the plan we had. That doesn't necessarily have to be that exact plan, but the memo had just Page 4 June 18, 1999 said I wondered if we couldn't refocus on some of those issues as part of our discussion these last few days. Because I think there's still a possibility, whether it's that exact thing or not, to have more specifics in what we commit to next week, as opposed to just saying we commit to talk about it and, you know, we won't do anything out there until we figure it out. But I just hate to have no answer at the end of all this time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I would support -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time's up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, it was your turn, John. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I appreciate that. The thing is, you make the argument on one hand that nothing's going to happen out in the rural area anyway. What we are addressing in the very near future is the important parts of our county that need to be addressed first, and that is the urban area. We don't even really have an argument, as I understand it, on the urban area. We've reduced that from 4 to 2 per acre with 3 as a possibility, and even, you know, possibility of 4 but unlikelihood of that. So we have done some density reduction in the urban area. The rural fringe, for all intents and purposes, we're going to probably do some density reduction, but more importantly, we're going to set the environmental standards for that before we're going to be allowed to do any more development in there. That's the kind of thing that's exactly what the public has expected of us. And then once again, we all are in agreement. Everybody's in agreement, that there's no development pressure out in the rural area. Therefore, I don't see the harm in letting the property owners that are affected on those huge amounts of land to have some input and help us with whatever determination we finally make. And as I said before, it may very well be what you're proposing right now. But we need to let them have that input. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, the only worry is we did make a commitment to the urban reduction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You and I started this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Years ago. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The state has expressed some concern that boy, if you reduce in the urban area, does that contribute to urban sprawl? I think if -- as long as we do all three of these steps, then no, it doesn't. Because they don't have anywhere to go if we're 1 to 20 or 1 to 40. And then you've achieved everything you want to in all three areas. My only worry, if we don't do the rural now, is that they start questioning the urban, can that contribute to sprawl? We don't know what you're going to do out there. If you have fewer items here it's going to encourage more. I think if we do -- you look at the big picture and we do all three pieces, that's just not accurate. But, you know, as long as the board is committed to still following through on that, that's a giant step in the right direction all by itself. And it may just -- you know, it's a difference of opinion. It's frustrating to have gone three and a half years and still not have us have a clear direction. And if we don't, we don't. But, you know, we all get frustrated by the process that is government sometimes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we're going to have NRPA's finally. Page 5 June 18, 1999 And if you're interested in identifying some development limitations within -- some density limitations within NRPA's, even though they are going to be privately held lands, I will go there. Because I think there should be no development in these areas that are so significantly environmentally important. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think to me, Commissioner, that is the real issue here is the rural fringe, to make sure that we end up with a good plan in the rural fringe area where we protect these areas, where we reduce density, we reduce development. I know where I am on -- I'm with you. I know where I am in the urban area. I am comfortable with the rural area, only because it gives me more data with an oversight committee that there's not going to be any funny things happen here. But I do get intelligent data to finally end up and say, this is the mapping that should be there. And when we make those density reductions in the rural area, then we will have done it from a basis that everybody says here's a common basis to do that. We're right back to the fringe area. That's where I think the emphasis needs to be. And I want to see us pull in the tightest possible standards there to do that and not have it go on and on and on. And I thought we were going to do this on Monday, so I haven't had a chance to go back and review that data again. But I think that's where we need to be. And I will totally support the strongest standards that we can get in that rural fringe area to make sure we protect the environment, protect the lands, and slow the growth process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I agree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, on the NRPA's. I just -- the only concern there is I want to make sure those lines are drawn appropriately. And we all know where they're drawn right now. Go through some ag. fields and active farming, and that's obviously not what anybody intends to protect. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and the other thing is, just on the -- because the fringe is the part that counts. Everybody knows that there's not any development pressure in the rural area. And that's again, like you, Commissioner Carter, I'm willing to accept -- reluctantly willing to accept the delay, because it gives me more data and more science. But the critical piece for this board is going to be in the rural fringe. I just want to keep saying this, that we know that The Conservancy standards, which were more restrictive than the majority agreed to, are not enough to the DCA in all four of those. Maybe enough in some of those rural fringe sections, but are not enough overall. So we've got to get really serious about the protection of natural resources in those areas. That's where the immediate challenge is going to be. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I think the DCA has said to us that they have not looked at all of those areas equally within the rural fringe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They are saying here are the critical ones and we want to make sure we have the best standards. And that's where I am. I want the best standards for that. And let's rank order these or whatever we need to do. It's not the one-size-fits-all situation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final note on the rural area. The only other worry when -- and I think it was Commissioner Norris said what is the urgency here? As time goes by, if we're three years out from now and three months from now we have settled the rural fringe area and some development moves forward, then as time goes by, Page 6 June 18, 1999 pressure does increase closer to that rural area. And as a result, the values may increase and reasonable expectation may increase from where it is right now. Everybody has acknowledged that expectation isn't there today, including the people representing those homeowners. And I think it's hard for them. You know, they've said that we would go to court. I think it's difficult for them to say they're going to have a legitimate case when they've acknowledged on the record that there's no development pressure today, there's no marketability today. Well, then what value are you taking away if we change it today? I just worry that if it's three years from now or three and a half years from now, some of those factors have changed and it changes what our ability to do in those areas are. That's the other place I was coming from. I don't know if -- obviously you all aren't ready or the majority isn't ready to move forward with the specifics now, but CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, not today, but maybe Monday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And maybe we can do something Monday. Or if we choose not to do that, maybe we can set a shorter timetable than a three-year, for that very reason. I just fear that if we get to be three years or beyond, some of those values or reasonable expectations may have increased, making it more difficult for us to make that decision three years from now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anybody else have a comment on that particular point? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And thank you for indulging that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, me, too. I just think it's a useful exercise. We have so few opportunities to talk to each other about it, it's a good idea to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we should always meet every day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One last point on that, Commissioner Constantine. If it was a two-year period, would you feel more comfortable, or 18 months, if they could shorten up the time coming back with that process? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I would be most comfortable if we could commit to something specific now. But the shorter the time frame, the more comfortable I am, just because I think there are legitimately going to be increasing pressures over time for those areas. If you look back -- I always use the example when they talk about what growth will be 15 years from now, I think of what was here in Collier County 15 years ago. But you even go three or five years ago, what has happened in that five-year window, it's not that hard to imagine how much that pressure is going to increase to the east five years from now. So, yeah, I mean, if we can make that an 18-month window, that certainly makes me more comfortable than a three-year-plus window. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a refreshing conversation to hear us talking about how we're going to protect natural resources and reduce growth. That's just -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Have we decided yet who's going to pay for that study? I hope we are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who's going to pay for the work -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The three-year thing? Wow. You hope we Page 7 June 18, 1999 are? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think we better. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gulp. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm sorry. Absolutely. If you're going to go into this, I think we ought to do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think there is a very reasonable perception -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from the public that the development community pays for it -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No other way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then they're going to get what they want. And they may or may not, but that perception will certainly be there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's -- what do you mean? It's already -- we've already been accused -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- you know? And as far as I'm concerned, let's step up to the plate. We got the problem, let's pay for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, let's just go back 12 hours, 18 hours, when we stepped up to the plate to put more landscaping in around the county. Surely we can spend the same amount of money planning growth for the next 25 years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not going to be cheap. I mean, it's going to cost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's it cost? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's going to cost. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's it cost? It costs a half a million dollars? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Half a million dollars? Ballpark? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. MR. CAUTERO: Roughly, yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: If you want to take that concern off the street, then I think you better step up to the plate and pay for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Interesting. I hadn't considered that there would be support for that, so -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think we can do it any other way, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's really interesting. Okay. Mr. Weigel, can you tell us a little bit about -- I assume, board members, are we done with that discussion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're done with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Everybody? David, do a little bit on fireworks, and then we promised these judges we would hear from them quickly. So I apologize for this amount of delay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's good they hear it. Otherwise they're going to be hearing it in court, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. This might be an ex parte communication. David? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just wanted to report to the board and make a public record comment that our ordinance 98-74, which -- the fire prevention code, Page 8 June 18, 1999 which we amended April 27th, pursuant to Governor Bush's executive orders of 99-88 and 99-96 declaring a drought emergency. By operation of 99-96, a 60-day duration of that order has expired effective 12:01 this morning and, therefore, my opinion is that our ordinance amendment which prescribed certain types of burning, pit burning, open fire burning within 600 yards of other forests and specific territories, as well as prescription on the sale and use of legal fireworks, is rescinded effectively by our own duration built into our emergency amendment. We've been working with the Department of Forestry, as well as the Governor's Office, to coordinate what this means. The Department of Forestry, working with local fire districts, is continuing at this point, based on information at the state level, to issue control burning permits, which may or may not have been in contravention of our own local ordinance but these are two different jurisdictions that are working. I will be communicating with them and with the Sheriff's Office, Code Enforcement, Mr. Pineau, by a general written opinion today so that all of them are aware of the opinion that the county attorney renders concerning our own ordinance. There's no inability for the legal sale and use of legal fireworks here in this county or public displays, which was at issue coming up for July 4th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we can have fireworks displays for the 4th, hallelujah. MR. WEIGEL: With caution. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. And we promised to start with courts today. So that's A-36. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Page A-2 and 3 is a macro overview of the entire general fund. Identifies the expanded services by division. But then there is, like on A-36, a divisional summary for each of the major divisions within the county. If you'd like, certainly the judges can come up front and we can address any questions there may be related to the courts' budgets on A-36. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't you just take us through the expanded -- unless there are no questions on it. Does anybody have questions on the court-related agency's expanded services? I mean, it's -- we're way behind in having done what we -- you know, we've put them off every year, sort of the way I feel about it. It's time to spend this money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time to spend the money? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Time to do it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good quote. Well, you meanlyou're going to make Judge Hayes come all the way over here and then you're just not even going to argue with him? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't need to argue with him. JUDGE HAYES: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody have questions on this budget? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any comments from staff on this budget? MR. FERNANDEZ: We recommend to you what was requested. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're recommending what you're recommending? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, I am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we're done with courts. Thanks, guys. Sorry for the delay. And the good news is is we kept Slash on the phone, so he didn't get to talk. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's funny how that worked out. Page 9 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we can go back to the beginning of general fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually, the balance of courts, the state attorney, the circuit and county judges is on A-38 and A-39. Mark Middlebrook shouldn't leave quite yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I actually assumed we were talking about all those. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, okay. If that's true, then you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did anybody have questions about any of those, court related? Mark heard you. He's back. But hang for just one second. A-38 and A-39, I intended to be talking about those at the same time. Questions anybody? Okay, looks like not. Thanks, Mark. Now, we can go back to the beginning of the general fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Pages 2 and 3 in your general fund tab. Page 2 and 3 provide the macro overview of the general fund. The left-hand side, Page 2, is the appropriations side of the ledger. On the right-hand side is the budget general fund revenues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go too far, can we get a summary? Yesterday it seemed like we added more than we subtracted. And we always like to keep our eye on the goal of cutting the tax rate. Are we over that rate now? And if so, what do we need to cut to make sure we stay under it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund millage rate is 15 cents reduction per 100,000 of taxable value. Nothing we did yesterday was general fund related whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because of MSTD's and those things. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. Special taxing districts yesterday. So anything you do, all the budgets you'll review today are either budgeted directly in the general fund or received funding via a transfer from the general fund. So changes made today would directly affect your general fund millage rate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what a wonderful way you guys have organized this now. This is just as good as it can be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll keep a running tab for us obviously on the pluses and minuses? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I have computer assistance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's ready. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Indeed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I guess we'll start right at the top with County Commission, County Attorney. You'll note an increase in the County Commission budget, which includes -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll go to the summary page on A-3. I think it will more easily be iljustrated at that point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It doesn't show expanded service there. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, there are no expandeds. The large increase in the other general administrative budget, the third line down, is a payment to the Naples Community Redevelopment Authority, that tax increment finance district on Fifth Avenue. There's no way around that. That's a function of whatever the value increases are within that district. Based on preliminary numbers provided by the property appraiser as of June 1, that payment would increase $164,000. A couple other points within the County Attorney's budget Page 10 June 18, 1999 reflects a decrease. We -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before we go past the County Commission budget, I had just a policy issue I've been kicking around that I wanted to ask the board about. There is -- you guys know that in our travel, T&E, whatever it is, expenses we have, it basically comes under out-of-county travel is the budget line. And for example, if somebody does Leadership Collier, we have to specifically authorize that expenditure out of that budget because it's an in-county travel. With the changes in the rules, frankly, about our accepting gifts and tickets to public functions, I'm wondering if we want to make a change -- actually, I will tell you that I think that the travel and entertainment budget for the County Commissioners should include the use of those funds for in-county functions if they are civic functions. And that -- I'll just tell you, the irony is to me that I can submit my bill for the Leadership Florida reunion, and I'm looking forward to it and I think it's an appropriate expenditure for the county to make because of the networking. And Steve Seibert is a great example. We'll hang out with him by the pool that afternoon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Steve's going to be in Minnesota that week. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Too bad. But that Leadership Florida is an example of something that the county does pay for because it's out-of-county travel. But for me to go to the Leadership Collier function, I have to pay for that myself. Or for me to go to the Chamber of Commerce banquet, I have to pay for that myself. You'll pay for the Leadership Florida out of county and won't pay for an identical function in the county. I think that's a silly distinction. I have asked the clerk and he tells me that we have the authority, just like we've already made the exception for Leadership Collier, and we need to make that on the record if somebody's going to do that this year, that we could make that distinction with regard to public functions that are related to our job. I think that we ought to be able to do that with that travel budget. Mr. Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only worry about that I -- believe me, I understand all the rationale of why, and there are a number of events I simply don't go to because of all that's gone on in the past year, which I think Commissioner Berry enunciated very well last year. You know, that's -- our job is to serve the public, and if we're somehow restricting ourselves from interacting with that public, that's probably a bad thing. So from that aspect, I understand the request. My worry is that taxpayer money paying for me to go to a black-tie affair, or fill in the blank, you know, whatever the Chamber of Commerce's annual banquet is, or -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it's already paying for me to go to a black-tie affair for Leadership Florida in Miami. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not necessarily. And I guess the distinction there is -- and I understand the comparison with Leadership Collier and Leadership Florida is a good one, because those are both professional training type things. You're not strictly going to a dinner at Leadership Florida. There are -- you know, our seminar is part of that and so on. And the interaction clearly, like the Secretary Seibert example, is a tremendous value to that. But there Page 11 June 18, 1999 are also seminars and training things that go on as part of that. My worry is that if for local events for a black-tie affair, for a banquet, for whatever, I understand the value of that but I fear what perception is, that taxpayer money is paying for us to go to some dinner dance somewhere. And I'm troubled by that. And I guess I'm not arguing with you, I'm just looking for some help on rationalizing that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My thought is that the individual -- the budget remains. We have the budget that we have. I'm not suggesting that we increase the budget. Then it becomes ~p to an individual commissioner if they want to request the $100 for that ticket to go to the Chamber banquet. And if you don't because you don't want that criticism, then you don't request it and you either don't go or you pay for it yourself. I would just like to have the ability to make the request. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think that's a reasonable request, Madam Chairman, because I just made a note to myself that if it's a community affair, it's sort of government purses, that becomes the discretion of the commissioner. He or she has to weigh that in terms of relating that back to the public. Any other organization anywhere has discretionary expense accounts for their boards and executives to make those decisions. And I don't want to spend public money on something that would seem unfair, but on the other hand, there are organizations that ask us to come and celebrate their success. We're a big part of this community. And I think that discretion should be there on the commissioner and the money should be there and let -- and perhaps maybe it gets down to the Chair represents us at more things than individual commissioners. But we ought to have some discretion there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll tell you, the Chair doesn't have enough time to do all the things that you're asked to do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I mean, to be -- and that's why, you know -- and I kind of look at it sometimes district-wise it's kind of a way to break things up a little bit -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- you know, in a particular district. But one of the things, I think this last month it came to light, and I didn't go to any of them, EDC, between the EDC and the Chamber, the number of luncheons. And some of them are connected with like seminars. And I would liked to have gone, but I just said, you know CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- I'm just not going to do this, because it's 25 bucks a shot. And it used to be where they would invite the commissioners to go for the most part and they didn't -- there wasn't a charge. But with the events that have taken place, it's a $25 shot every time you go. Well, thank you all very much but, you know, I've got plenty of things to do, and I'm just not -- I'm not going to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'm going to be blunt about it, my income's about a half to a third of what it was before I took this job. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And you can't just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I can't do that any more. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- you can't do that. And people have no idea the magnitude of the invitations that come to the County Page 12 June 18, 1999 Commission. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mortgage didn't go away. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because they want people -- they want us there. They -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's legitimate. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, what's happened, unfortunately, is that the respect for the office has gone down the tube. And it's been COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's sad that we even have to have this discussion, but we do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But unfortunately, it's what's happened. And that's an unfortunate situation, but it's what it is. But nevertheless, the fact is that we are considered leaders in this community and there are organizations that want us in attendance at events. So it just boils down to -- you know, and yet I'm sure we'll probably get some notification by either correspondence from someone listening to this that, you know, you ought to be paying for all this yourself anyway. Because they obviously assume we're all millionaires sitting up here anyway, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that would be Congressman Goss. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Our financial disclosure comes out annually and they're welcome to look at it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're welcome to look at mine, too. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, perhaps we'll get down to where we have portfolios like we do in other sectors here where some of us go to productivity, some of us do this, that an individual commissioner will have a portfolio for EDC and one for the Chamber and one for -- I mean, I don't know what the breakout would be, but I think we need to be represented at those functions, because there are community leaders there and they look to us and question, well, why don't you come and participate? Why aren't you there? And I have broken it down to periodically I go, I write my own checks and I do that. But it seems to me unfair is probably a term I'll be chastised for. But to me it is not fair and it is not right when we have been elected by this community to serve all these different organizations. So I hope that we can find some way to work through this and the public will be accepting the fact we're not out here spending thousands of dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine and then Mr. Fernandez. And it sounds like there's some general support for the idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your suggestion is just a general policy change, you're not looking to add to the budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not a nickel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're just saying give each commissioner the discretion to do that. And if we chose to, great. If we chose not to, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I will also tell you, if you get involved in any way with the state, if you go to any of the FAC events, every time you go out of here, it's not a low cost event. And you can go through a travel budget in very short order. You go to the meetings, the fall meeting in Tallahassee? You know, it's not cheap to stay in Tallahassee, unfortunately. You go up there during a legislative session, it's the same situation. By the time you get in from the airport -- first off, the ticket up there, coming in from the airport, staying at the hotel, eating meals up there, and you very Page 13 June 18, 1999 easily have gone through several hundred dollars, if not, $1,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't it $2,000 a commissioner is what our budget is? MS. FILSON: 2,500. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 2,500 a commissioner. And frankly, if you guys -- I appreciate your level of participation in FAC, because I don't do it and haven't ever done it. I appreciate your willingness to do it. If that becomes an issue, I hope it's not -- I hope you wouldn't be hesitant to bring forth a budget amendment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me tell you the justification. You go up there and you meet people from other parts of the state who may have had a similar problem or whatever. And it's a good place to talk to other commissioners from other areas, like areas, some are not. I mean, obviously you get into certain counties and they can't understand what's going on in the high-growth counties. They don't have that same problem. But there are others that certainly do. And it's a good opportunity to meet with these people and see how they're handling particular situations and just some of the general information that comes to you while you're there. Sometimes it's nice to hear that other people are having the same problems you're having, you know, so you feel like you're not out there all alone. So there's some benefit to it, but I can tell you that $2,500 can go very quickly, particularly with -- if you do any of the out-of-town COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you can go to London round trip cheaper than you can go to Tallahassee. But what you're asking for is a policy change to be able to allow our travel budget to be used for those local civic events that the community really expects us to be present at, at times. And of course, as you say, that will be left up to the individual commissioner whether they want to avail themselves of that or not. So I don't have any objection to that. I think it's perfectly reasonable. We need to find some way around, you know, the dichotomy between really needing to go to some of these events and the criticism that we get if we do go to the events. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And hopefully this is some -- at least an opening for an opportunity. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you know, is it necessary that you go to the heart ball? That's something that, you know, I would -- I would question whether that is a legitimate expense. But, you know, should you go to the EDC or the Chamber events or Civic Association luncheons or things like that, I think, you know, if that's a question, those are probably areas that you really need to consider, because you're out in the community and you're mixing with a lot of the other people. A lot of the other events are charity kinds of events. That's questionable. But that to me is a personal kind of -- that's just -- this is just my own opinion. You all can do exactly what you want. But in my own mind, that would be the way I would weigh it. If it's a charity event, then that's something that I certainly need to consider. That's a personal thing. But if it's a community kind of affair, then to me that would be legitimate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like a policy to me. Did you have something to say on that, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, these are the concerns that I had at the time that the board was discussing your ordinance. I Page 14 June 18, 1999 understand the decisions have already been made about the ordinance, and I wouldn't propose that we go back and open that up. But the fact remains that the event is the same event, whether the fee is waived by the organization or you're going to pay for it through county funds. And the appropriateness of your attendance is still the same. The decisions about whether it's appropriate are still the same, regardless. I do believe that -- well, the concern that I expressed at that time was I would hope that this would not have a chilling affect on our -- and I'll include myself in this -- participation in these important community events. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it has. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it has. It has. If in fact the board isn't willing to reopen that, and as I said, I would not request that you do that after what we've been through. The only other solution is to give yourself the budget flexibility to go to these events, the ones that you choose to be or determine to be appropriate for your participation. I think we've got a mechanism that allows you to do that in a millage neutral fashion, and that has to do with some additional information we have on some savings that we can realize elsewhere in your budget to give you more flexibility here with these expenses. And I'll turn to Mike Smykowski to detail that for you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Very briefly, midstream in the budget process the retirement rates changed. We received notification of those main changes for the regular staff employees. The rate decreased about six percent. However, we did not have notification regarding the elected official rate, so your budget was based on the old rates for elected official retirements, which has decreased approximately 10 percent. We have latitude to reduce the board's operating budget by $25,700 as a result of that retirement change. I'm assuming you would want us to make that adjustment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great news. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's subtract that amount. You're not suggesting any more in our accounts? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think the Chairwoman made a request to increase that budget, but just to be able to utilize what's there for these events. MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it the feeling of the board that the amount that's-there is going to be sufficient if you're going to now expend these funds at a higher rate for the local events? That's my question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, speaking from my perspective, I can tell you it's plenty for me, because I rarely use any of mine anyway, my travel budget. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then we'll borrow from John. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, we joke -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But then we're going to owe him, you know. Oh, gosh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We joke, but that has happened. I know one year Commissioner Matthews had done Leadership Florida and a couple other things, FAC, that were big dollar items. I hadn't traveled at all that year, so she did actually take some out of mine because I wasn't going to use them. And I think the total of twelve-five is plenty for us for the year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd rather stay with that and reduce that -- Page 15 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, let's try it. Let's try it this year and see how it goes, and if it becomes that it doesn't work, then we can certainly address it next year. But if we have the latitude that we can borrow from John if we need to. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would offer that we not look at it as an allocation per commissioner. That's the formula we used to come up with the amount. But there are differing levels of expenditure from commissioner to commissioner, based upon their own level of activity and their level of commitment to various community groups and that sort of thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it's more just a respect for each other that we've kind of allocated that. And I wouldn't spend over $2,500 without -- you know, I'd feel like I was getting into somebody else's budget if I did that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't want us to show up in August and go, whoops, there's no money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's no money. That would not be fair. So let's -- if that -- we've beaten this horse to death, I think. Anything else for Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: The FAC -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Get closer to the mike. You have to really get close to that thing. MS. FILSON: Do you know my name? Sue Filson from the board office. The FAC, when I called them to get my estimate for the dues several months ago -- it's on? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, it's on. You just need to speak right into it. MS. FILSON: When I called them for my estimate of the FAC dues, they quoted me $14,707, which was -- it's still the seven cents, which they calculate according to population. We've since received a letter indicating that they're going to vote at the conference on the 24th, next week, which Commissioner Carter will be attending. They're going to vote to increase that to nine cents, which would bring the dues up to 18,900. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I will have a few things to say about that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- when I'm there. And it's significant. It goes up two cents this year and then two cents again the next year. And I will be raising a lot of questions about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a 29 percent increase this year. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I guess anybody who's interested in not MS. FILSON: But we'll need to include that in the budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- participating, it's just not an option, is it? We have to be a member of Florida Association of Counties? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: FAC, I think so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know of any counties that are not members. Do you know? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, all 67 are members. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, then please make that Page 16 June 18, 1999 adjustment. There went that retirement money. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I really think that that number will probably be discussed a lot. MS. FILSON: It's currently budgeted at fourteen-seven. And if it's approved on the 24th, it will be eighteen-nine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, we need to probably flag that one for September, because we're not going to be able to know the answer to that before we finish this budget session. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we have any money budgeted in our account for necessities in the office of the Board of County Commissioners? MS. FILSON: Such as? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Paper plates. MS. FILSON: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Napkins? MS. FILSON: No. That has to serve a public purpose. If you -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the reason I'm bringing this up. Is this not ridiculous? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I paid for the last paper plates. I don't know what to tell you. MS. FILSON: We take turns. COMMISSIONER BERRY: See, I'm sorry, I feel like this is an office, you run an office, you have certain things in an office. I don't care if it's county government or if it's the private sector, there are certain things that are required -- or you should have certain items. This is -- I mean, it's nonsense. And I think that there ought to be something that ought to prove in office expense, and I don't care whether it's the Board of County Commissioners or anybody else's office in county government or wherever. It just doesn't make any sense to me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is the coffee issue, isn't it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it is. But to me it even goes further. You know, it's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, as tempting as that is, don't you think we probably better move on to more difficult issues? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I agree. But I just -- I think this is something that ought to -- in order to do this, do we have to pass a special resolution? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you will. And I wanted to mention that your discussions today are in regard to the next fiscal year budget. And so any implementations that you may desire concerning the use of commission office money for internal travel and events, civic events of governmental interest, things of that nature, they'll need to be brought back in a separate policy discussion in a resolution of the board. Because, again, this is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For this year? MR. WEIGEL: -- purely discussion for the next budget. And it's, I think, a little difficult to set long-range, far-reaching policies without a resolution. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But David, just prepare us a resolution for a consent agendao MR. WEIGEL: We will. And as you know, we've worked very closely with the clerk in regard to this and are prepared to bring something back quickly. With the board meetings that you have, we've either got the 22nd or August 3rd. I don't know if anything's going to happen during the recess anyway with people gone. But feel free to call our Page 17 June 18, 1999 office on an individual basis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like consent agenda for the August meeting ought to be just fine. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I also -- are we done with the board? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I also see our friendly tax collector is here. Perhaps in deference to his schedule, we could jump ahead to do his budget at this point like we did the judges a minute ago. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know he's got one specific item in mind he wanted to be here for. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. In regard to his specific budget, we don't receive until August 1st, so we do not have that right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I mean, the building capital fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, I'm sure it's the building related folks. MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Guy Carlton, your tax collector, and I'm not here to speak about my budget, I'm here to speak about your budget. I would hope that you could find the $600,000 to make the satellite in Golden Gate happen. The satellite we're in now is not providing the service we should provide to the citizens. Since we opened that satellite in 1991, the tax collector's office has returned to the board for its general fund 17.5 million dollars. We will give you back over two million dollars in October in unused fees. The tax collector's office is a fee-driven office and it should be self-funding, and yet we provide a very good symbiotic relationship between other constitutional officers and the board. I would hope that you could find $600,000. We need to improve the service that we provide the citizens. We've outgrown that satellite. If I can answer any -- oh, and yesterday, for the record COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stay on the one. MR. CARLTON: For the record, we bill and collect mandatory garbage for you. For every dollar we collect, we charge you less than one penny. If somebody can beat that, we'll yield. And if there's any other services you'd like us to bid on, we'd be happy to do so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You may be hearing something from our administrator on that. MR. CARLTON: I'm not saying we can do it more efficiently than anybody else, but we'd like to an opportunity to try. But back to the satellite, is there any -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Outsourcing to the tax collector. MR. CARLTON: Is there any questions I might answer about the satellite? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question is what kind of traffic do you have? I mean, I'm ignorant about how utilized the satellite currently is. MR. CARLTON: I don't know if you're aware of the new software system the DMV is installing. It's called Frayis 2000. It is slow. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Frayis? MR. CARLTON: Frayis. THE COURT REPORTER: F-R-I-V-U-S? MR. CARLTON: F-R-A-V-I-S, I believe. Fravis 2000. It's a new software to get Y2K ready. It's slow. It has made the lines longer and people not quite as happy. The satellite was Page 18 June 18, 1999 already beyond capacity and now it's really getting to be a bad situation. Rumors were we'd see ground broke last October for this satellite. October has come and gone. We've told the citizens that we're doing something. I would not want to enter another lease in a larger place if we could avoid it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make an analogy for you on how it is, because my little satellite office is in there. And if you go to a baseball game or a hockey game or something where the vendors are in any arena and you're walking and you know how you kind of have to dodge your way around people and things -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that the hot dog and the beer one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, anywhere where there's crowds going to the bathroom, going to get food. That's what it's like when you walk into Guy -- and Dwight shares the office. And Abe has actually said he's like to have space out there as well. But as you walk from the front door to try to get toward the back, you actually have to weave around a crowd of people any time of day every day. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we discussed this yesterday and I thought there was consensus to go ahead and do it, but I -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right, that's what I say. MR. CARLTON: I was unaware that you'd agreed to do it. I was here -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We didn't agree to do it. I just -- I thought that I heard consensus. MR. CARLTON: We'd appreciate your support, commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like you got it. MR. CARLTON: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Guy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll get back on to the County Attorney's budget, I guess. Is that where we are? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That reflects a net decrease. We've decreased the outside counsel budget $25,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you put me to the detail page on County Attorney and -- oh, I think I found it. A-3, A-4, somewhere in there. MR. WEIGEL: A-4, A-5. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-3 in your summary book. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm looking in the detail book. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-4 and A-5. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because on general fund, if we don't go to the detail book, we don't have a lot of information in the summary book. Not that -- I guess we have expanded service in the summary book, but nothing else. Is that pretty accurate? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, you have lists of expandeds and summaries of what the adopted budget compared to what current service are as well. Same detail levels that we -- analogous to what we reviewed yesterday. And again, the County Attorney had a net budget decrease of 1.1 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And as much as I appreciate that, my only question about the County Attorney's budget is we hear criticism about delay, both from staff and from the public, and I have no question that you guys are managing that as efficiently as you can possibly can with what you have because the lights are always on up there. But I wonder if we're serving the public effectively. I mean, I trust that -- were there any requested but not recommended expenditures here? This is what you think you need, David, and not more? Page 19 June 18, 1999 MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate your thought and question there. I think that personnel-wise we're set for the foreseeable future right now. We've tried to stay static. We have rearranged within, and I appreciate your recent budget amendment for us so that we could better and efficiently use the new staffing we have within, which is less secretaries, more certified legal assistants, which will be carrying the yolk a little bit more. We always look for internal procedural efficiencies anyway. We'll continue to look at that and try to be as responsive as we can that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David, at one time -- I don't remember if it was you or if it was Mr. Cuyler, but there was talk about having attorneys out in the satellites within the divisions. MR. WEIGEL: We do that, particularly with Development Services. Margie Student spends most of her regular scheduled time there, as well as obviously other meetings and things that she does. But one of our newer attorneys also is projected at 50 percent use, with Development Services there to better provide for the significant workload that comes from that office. We have continued to develop internally our eminent domain attorney and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: David, before you leave the Development Services, the other question that I had on that is whether or not any of your budget is funded by Development Services fees, because at least a lawyer and a half is there for serving Development Services. I wondered if maybe you ought to have a couple of lawyers there for that purpose and have them funded out of those fees. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, my assistant tells me that really the only funding we have is the kind that's generally applicable to many departments, and that's the indirect service charges, based upon our allocation of our staff, our attorney staff, that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So do they pay for Marjorie net-net? MR. WEIGEL: Well, in part they do. And again, we have Ms. Ashton out there a significant part of the time, and our new attorney, Marti Scuderi, is there. CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: It sounds like they ought to be paying the total cost of two lawyers, is my bottom line. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I don't think that -- obviously that doesn't change the gross and/or, call it, net total of our budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just the ad valorem repercussions. MR. WEIGEL: It would be a question of who -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you. There's two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's two. MR. WEIGEL: -- who's paying toward them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I understand what Mr. Weigel's telling us, he's saying that the billable hours are going to Development Services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I want to be sure -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that what you're saying? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- it's equal to two lawyers' worth of total cost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's equal to whatever they're using. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But maybe their hourly fees aren't high enough, if they're not covering two lawyers. Because they're paying for two -- I mean, they're using two lawyers. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it's an internal mechanism. He should be making sure he's billing at an appropriate rate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's all I'm asking. Page 20 June 18, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: The attorneys are being billed direct for Risk Management. In Mr. Weigel's budget, there's $160,000 of revenue is a direct payment for service from the Risk Management funds for service. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what about from Development Services? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are paid through the indirect cost allocations. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So how about if we just flag this and you tell us on Monday how much is paid -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: How much is recouped via -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- by Development Services. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that okay? MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's just fine. And Mike, in mentioning the relationship we have with Risk Management, Risk Management does pay a direct payment toward us that shows as revenue. The way that breaks out is it's two-thirds of one attorney, one legal assistant and one secretary. We do find the demands of the personal injury, Human Resources related lawsuits, those that particularly aren't captured through the Risk Management area, as actually having more demand than two-thirds of an attorney, two-thirds of a secretary and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we ought to have this question asked both on a Risk Management -- both from Risk Management and from Development Services, is that internal billing capturing a sufficient amount of cost. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we'll be able to tell you how much is reimbursed of the County Attorney's expenses through the indirect cost allocation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then what I'm also going to want to know is, and what is the cost -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of providing the service. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- completely of two attorneys at Development Services. And you may be telling me it's three or something at Risk Management. I just want to be sure that it's balanced. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay? MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. From a management standpoint, I'll mention that internally I then have to look at the caseload and where the caseload, meaning workload of all kinds, and where it comes from. And with Risk Management, I reserve to myself prerogative to say to Jeff Walker well, Jeff, there are too many cases from them. Historically, we didn't handle these lawsuits, but we've endeavored mightily to do so, so beyond a certain point, he may have to, during the course of a year, find outside counsel to assist him with those kinds of lawsuits and matters. Because obviously the board's interest and issues cover such a broad spectrum. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. Just give us a report on that for Monday. Anything else on the County Attorney's budget? Hopefully, we're going to move at a faster clip. Where do we go next? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Management offices. Overall that includes the county administrator's office, the agenda printing related expenses, and the office of management and budget. There are no proposed expandeds. The net budget decrease is two and a half percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions, Board Members? Sounds like we're Page 21 June 18, 1999 moving. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We're on to support services, Page A-8. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A-18 in the other book, if you're trying to look at both. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are expanded services proposed of $1,535,500, the bulk of which are GIS related, but I guess we'll go down the line. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even I had that page turned down. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Department by the -- go department by department, the first expanded service that comes up is in real property. It's for two real property acquisition specialists, total cost of $95,900, with $90,000 of those costs funded through interdepartmental billings, primarily enterprise funds for, you know, right-of-way acquisition, for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm just going to jump in and tell you guys that as a real estate lawyer, I've said this before but I'll say it again, I've never seen a more efficient office. I've never seen a better run office. They do outstanding work, way over the heads of many, many real estate lawyers in this town. And I don't have any question about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're fabulous people and I love them all. But could we get an explanation -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Of what they do from the time they get up to the time -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, they are acquiring more property. MS. TAYLOR: I was counting on you. What we basically do is what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: State your name for the record. MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Sandy Taylor, real property management director. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not what you basically do, just the request for two real property specialist positions. MS. TAYLOR: Our current workload and all the manpower analyses that I have done, I really need four people. But with what my request is, it's two Specialists II's. So I'm hoping and praying that the two individuals I find can step in and take over. I haven't asked for expanded in 10 years. The county has grown. This is my first expanded for staff, and we can't do it anymore without additional staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's pretty straightforward. And what I meant to be saying in how much I love them, because I don't actually know them personally, but I'm sure they're wonderful people, is that I'm flabbergasted with the amount of work that they've been able to produce with just the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: So this is the first request in 10 years you've asked for additional staff? MS. TAYLOR: Any expanded for real property management. As David -- and basically we've worked together in trying to take our departments, I've reorganized, I've reshuffled, I've basically demoted. You know, whatever I can do. I can't do anymore. Personally, I'm an acquisition agent at this point. I.have 45 files of my own. I'm working with Commissioner Constantine on the community center. I closed the North Naples Regional Park site. I cannot manage my own department at this point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Having managed a real estate closing kind of office, you can't get paralegals to take that kind of workload, and that's the bottom line. And, I mean, they've got some significant Page 22 June 18, 1999 training. I support it. Are there two others? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. Okay, facilities. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Facilities management, there are four -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go get back to work. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are four proposed expanded services that are outlined on Page A-9. An inventory clerk. A couple of requests are actually related just to as we add new buildings, obviously you're going to have additional custodial expenses for -- based on the additional square footage being added to the county's inventory. There's not much latitude to make changes there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get an explanation on two of those, just what they're going to do regularly? And that is the inventory clerk for maintaining and controlling the inventory of parts and tools. My very first job for the airline when I was 22 years old included materials and doing -- and regardless of whether we added aircraft and so on, an inventory was an inventory. And when it's computerized and you have your physical shelves and all, we still had the same number of clerks, even though we expanded the size of the fleets and the support inventory for it. So we may have a bigger inventory. And I'm just trying to figure out is, is it extra locations now for it? Or why do we need another body to handle that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To count the airplane parts? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or in our case lawn mower parts or whatever it is. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. I wanted to start by saying for the record Hugh Hayes, but I won't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because he got what he wanted, is that why? MR. CAMP: We have been pounded lately to work smarter, and this is a better way to utilize existing staff. What we plan to do, as you can appreciate, we have 22 craftsman, plumbers and electricians that go to the store and buy the part that they need for that particular facility and come back. We want to gain more control of our purchasing and the time it takes to send a craftsperson to the store and back. We think by that by doing two things, by having an inventory clerk that will be responsible for -- we have none now, by the way. By having a clerk that will-- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say you have none now? MR. CAMP: We have none. -- that will manage our parts, our tools, and to be able to go to the store instead of a craftsman, keep the craftsman on-site. I think these two things will help us a lot. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That makes a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can accept that. The second one, a request for expenses to provide new grounds maintenance services to the Marco Island. Isn't that done in the City of Marco? Marco Island Library, Everglades Museum, and Domestic Animal Services? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically new facilities, though, that need some grounds maintenance. Page 23 June 18, 1999 MR. CAMP: That's exactly right. And we contract that out to a private sector -- to the private sector. Marco Island, by the way, the reason that's on there is the first year of operation the contractor actually did the work for the first year, so he was responsible for the plant material. That one year is up. Now we have to take it over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about Domestic Animal Services? MR. CAMP: These are only related to -- based on the amount of months that they're there, this is based on the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Pro rata? MR. CAMP: -- the current footprint. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But don't they -- how does that change, I guess, when we move? I assume somebody maintains grounds? I'm not following you. MR. CAMP: No, we don't maintain the grounds there. We will be maintaining these grounds, and we'll take a credit -- not a credit, but we won't be starting anything over there because there won't be -- it will be vacant for a year before the building gets up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why do we not maintain the grounds up there? Do they do that themselves? MR. CAMP: There's not much grounds there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The horses eat up what grass grows? MR. CAMP: There's really no maintenance there, it's just -- there's nothing. I don't even think they have a single annual there or anything. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. That building has actually been there so long it's prelandscape code, and you don't have anything there. And we can go with a real mower, basically, and cut what's there. But once we move to the new facility, we've got to meet our new codes and it requires landscaping that has to be maintained. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we don't have a -- staff people who do that, we outsource it. MR. OLLIFF: We outsource that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The 63,3 -- 63,300, it says, provide new custodial services. Is that a private contractor? MR. CAMP: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like questions are answered on facilities management on those expanded. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Finally, the bottom one, the county security. What has changed? What do we not do now? MR. CAMP: Actually, it's what we don't do now. We have two separate levels of service between the two courthouses. We have 100 percent coverage when the courthouse is opened in Naples but we don't in Immokalee. We have one person in Immokalee, and when he goes on break, when he goes to lunch, we have no coverage at all. This is just to bring that up to the same level of service as Naples. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is this again a contracted position? MR. CAMP: This is in-house. Yes, we've tried contracting that out and we've brought it back in. This is a level of service that needs to be maintained by a quality control, quality staff. And quite honestly, they're not the highest paid employees. That position is $17,000 a year. We have better control if it's in-house. We did try to contract that out for a number of years. It just did not work. Page 24 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And frankly, without being tacky, Commissioner Berry, about Immokalee, the security needs might be higher there than they are here. And for us to have a less level, lower level of security there, it doesn't make sense. So are we done? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then we're going to go to the information technology stuff. But before that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I was going to speak to information technology. I know there are questions about it. I know it's now on our now-famous cut list. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me raise the specifics of the question. And it's not that there isn't a need for that. I had a very casual conversation with Abe Skinner the other day who said, you know, I'm putting in a GIS system, I'll make that completely available to you. In his opinion, and he apparently knows the details of this, the majority of what we're doing here is duplicative. He said you may have some specific add-on items that you need to do different, but there's a bunch of this that is just duplicative of what he's doing and saying is readily available to us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we've had the same conversations, and ours have been a little more than casual. We've spent some time with him on it. It appears as though, discussing concepts, there is some overlap. Substantial overlap. As much as $800,000 or so. However, we really can't confirm that until he has his product in hand. He still is in the process of negotiating a contract. He does intend for his product to do everything that we have asked and everything that we anticipate. What I have asked him is, is there any funding we can use to complement what he is doing to speed the process along as much as possible? I told him that I thought there was support from the Board of County Commissioners to give the funding commitment necessary to put this product in place at the absolute soonest date. And his response there is that no, he thinks he's got it all covered at this point. There's a possibility that in future years he may be needing some of that complimentary funding. However, before I would recommend that we reduce this dollar amount to zero, which is essentially what Mr. Skinner indicates would be appropriate, I would like to be doubly sure that that's appropriate after seeing the product when he finally arrives at his contract and we know everything that that includes. I will add a note that this is not general fund money. You have heard previously that through a combination of other funding sources and utilities and in community development this is being funded through non-general fund sources. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How come it says general 001 at the top of the page then? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It is budgeted in the general fund, but there is offsetting revenue. The information technology department is a general fund department. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How much would you like to see here to augment what Mr. Skinner's department is doing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And let me offer an alternative suggestion. When will we know the answer from Mr. Skinner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I was going to suggest is Monday for wrap-up, we may want to invite Abe up here to go through that discussion with us. Page 25 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly right. But what I'm thinking is we may want to flag this for September. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that's an appropriate time, September. That was going to be my approach. Let's flag it. Let's see exactly what's in place. By that time we will know. And then hopefully we'll be able to have an agreement between our staff and Mr. Skinner's staff of '- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just before we set the millage. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- what exactly is required, what exactly he's going to be able to do with his portion of it, and what we can do to speed it along. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I might suggest is -- I mean, frankly, if Abe tells us he's going to do something, he's never misled me personally, and I don't think he's ever misled the board. So if he were to come here Monday and say I'm going to buy A, B, and C and we can cut a portion of this, say the 800,000, and we aren't sure about the other parts, I don't have any objection to leaving that in. But if we can answer some of that question Monday, is there any objection to then cutting that portion and leaving the rest flagged? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a question, today, Mr. Fernandez, that -- couldn't we cut 800,000 today and flag the rest for September? MR. FERNANDEZ: As I said, I just don't know that that's really a certainty until we see the document and we know exactly that there's no misunderstanding. I know his intent is that it covers everything, but we just want to make sure that it does. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I suggest we have him up here for wrap-up Monday and then make that decision? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because I'd love to go ahead and know that we can cut this 800 or more if we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'd just feel better if when our trim notices go out, we know we're that much ahead of the game. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything else on support services? COMMISSIONER CARTER: On A-11. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. Oh, yeah, please let's cut that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We are budgeting $103,400. I don't quarrel with the program, but I do quarrel with adding staff to do this. I have seen one bid from one contractor. I would suggest that this bid out for an RFP, that we do it on a contractual basis so that we don't add staff. We're not on learning curves. We bring people in who know what they're doing, get us up and running immediately. We've got an opportunity to test the program before we make a huge expenditure into staff and those types of commitments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My comment is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just jokingly said to Commissioner Mac'Kie, I'll put in a bid and produce this for them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For heaven's sake, we don't need to be in the business of producing our own little TV show. We don't need to. And we can't afford it. It's $100,000 that we can put in a social health budget over there for Martha or, you know, put it somewhere more reasonable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or give back to the taxpayers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or give back to taxpayers instead of making us little TV stars. It's silly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's not about making us TV stars. I think there's a legitimate thing here. We talked about having a website and that that reaches people. Well, television Page 26 June 18, 1999 reaches a lot more people than a website. So it's a legitimate use. I think the question is the amount of money. Jean, there was just one -- I think just one bid or one contractor we looked at what it would cost to do outside? Who was that? What are the details there? And then I agree with you, there may be somebody out there who can and will do a professional job at a lower cost. We may also want to look -- we don't necessarily need to do this 52 weeks a year. August, there may not be as much going on and you run a rerun of the Simpsons instead during that half-hour. But, you know, we may be able to work up a schedule and have a professional group do it for considerably less, but I don't know what you've done on homework on that to date. MS. MERRITT: Commissioner -- for the record, Jean Merritt. When we first started talking about doing this kind of a show, we went to three or four different proriders and asked them to give us a very cursory estimate. We did not have strict specifications at that time and we would have to do that if we did. But we got a commitment -- not commitments, we got figures from all over the map. Generally the prices were between 80 and 95 to $100,000, but that was for 52 weeks a year as well. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, Commissioner Constantine's got a good point, that we probably don't need any programs during July and August. But to say that we have all of this nice television equipment and the ability to transmit to the homes, that we don't want to provide accurate and unbiased information to our citizens, I think that's a little short-sided. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think getting information out's important. And if we can reach them with -- I mean, I'm always amazed at how many people watch Channel 54 and say gosh, when you guys were talking about A, B, and C, I couldn't believe what happened. And I'm just shocked that people watch that as often as they do. But they do and they are interested in what's going on. And I think the improvements we've done contribute to that. It's a lot easier on the eyes to watch what Jean's created here than it was when we had one static shot from the back of the room. I think there may be some ways to do this for considerably less money, and I wondered if the board might just indulge me in working with our staff -- MS. MERRITT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- between now and Monday and beyond to try to come up with a viable alternative. So we can get our message out but not have to spend $100,000 doing it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we can do something with the staff that we have without big additional expenditures, then that's efficient use of the equipment that we have. And we should already be doing as much good programming, and you are already doing a great deal of really good programming on Channel 54. I don't object to using what we have, but I sure don't want to spend 100 grand. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Going back to the discussion we had about this. The issue here, I think, is really the intensity of staff commitment necessary for a weekly program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, maybe that's what we don't need. MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's what the direction from the board was. The board said they wanted us to do a weekly program. Jean's staff Page 27 June 18, 1999 has made I think a remarkable progress with the tools that we are using, with the monthly show that we're using, the improvements of the broadcast for Channel 54. But our discussion, if you'll remember, hinged on the fact that it's a very intensive commitment of time to do a weekly show. It really is. And that's what this reflects. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I don't disagree with that, Bob. But I do believe that you can get an outside contractor. I'm looking at one proposal here and that could be modified, and maybe you have to go to an RFP. But I want to just go to somebody who can augment and work with our staff, depending on the level that we want to deliver, find a number to work with, rather than us making a commitment to additional staff in bringing this in-house when we've got to really test it out of house, in my judgment, to find out what's the level we need to direct and do, what's the frequency, what is it going to take as commitment and everything. And let's use somebody else's learning curve versus our own. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this board committed we have to have a weekly show? Could we start with a monthly show, a biweekly show, something like that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think realistically if you're going to develop an audience and have a message out, it has to be some standard amount of time. If you say the first Tuesday of the month, people aren't going to necessarily tune in to see that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, how about if we develop a show monthly and we show the same show for a month -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: You mean like do reruns. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- four times. Well, you know, everybody can't watch it at the same time. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Boring. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Never mind. I want to cut this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, let's -- I'll say this -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's 4 to 1, I think, to go ahead with this, so why should we continue to argue about it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that we're going to need a senior secretary to add in here. I know this isn't the only purpose for that. But I think we may not need that, which cuts it back to 80. I think there may be more economical ways to do that, but I'd just like to have the chance to explore with staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I certainly appreciate your offer. And as far as I'm concerned, I agree with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll talk about this one again on Monday. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Put that one in wrap-up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd be happy to work with you on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And continuing with our pattern of respecting the calendars of other elected officials, I see that our clerk is here. And if we could hear from him at this time, then he could go back and get back to work. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand he was going to bring a consultant from Health and Human Services out of Miami with him today, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the reason that -~ must be an inside joke. I don't get it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for fun. MR. SKINNER: It was an inside joke. We just had a conference here in Collier County, and the key note speaker happened to be a Page 28 June 18, 1999 comedian. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only nobody in the audience knew ahead of time it was a comedian. They thought that he was a government bureaucrat out of somewhere. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, that's fun. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: +++Good reaction. It was Dwight's idea. It was great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's fun. MR. BROCK: I'm here, Commissioners. My name is Dwight Brock. I'm clerk of the circuit court, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have of my budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: From a macro overview perspective -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Give us a page. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm looking at Page 2 at the moment, just general fund summary. And then A-50 in the same as the list of expandeds. But inclusive of expandeds, the clerk's general fund transfers identified on Page 2, it goes up two percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As far as I can see, Dwight's been doing more with less for a long time. Two percent, gosh, what a shock. That was sarcasm. I heartily support your request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, you have to tell it's sarcasm, because you can't tell it when you read it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, definitely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please put in it parenthesis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just kidding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sarcasm added. Thank you, great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions from anybody? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no questions for you, Mr. Clerk. I think it's a great job. net's go forward. Let's do it. MR. BROCK: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dwight, I know -~ we also talked about the satellite building before you got here. Guy made a passionate plea and convinced the board that that was a good idea, so your satellite's on line, too. MR. BROCK: That's great. We need it. One of the objectives of the clerk's office is to try to keep the people off of this campus as much as possible, to try to take care of and deal with required responsibilities that are imposed by law on the taxpayer. And a satellite area has been an absolute coup for both the general public, I think, and for the government facilities here. And I hope you all take that position in the future, and I thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's fine. Well, I thought you were going to tell us to keep the people off the streets. MR. BROCK: That, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you need a break, Madam Court Reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll take 10 minutes and we'll be back at 10:40. (Recess taken.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order. And I think we're to emergency services. Do I have my pages right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. Page A-14 and 15. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I personally didn't have any -- oh, except for I can't miss this opportunity to point out that this department of Page 29 June 18, 1999 the county was awarded the best in the state. Is that awesome or what? And they're doing that with an amount of money that I think is phenomenally low compared to similar operations in this county. Are there questions on their particular budget? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you kidding me? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ma'am? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I said, are you kidding me? No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, me either. Questions on emergency services budget? COMMISSIONER CARTER: What page? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A-14 and 15. COMMISSIONER BERRY: If I need them, I want them there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I have no questions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's an item that's not recommended, and that's not to -- we're not considering that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's for the board's discretion. Is anybody interested in this Port-of-the-Islands ambulance? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, the people that live in Port-of-the-Islands. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's hard to argue with, isn't it? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, it's a silly question. Is anybody interested in it? Yeah, these people are interested in it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I meant anybody on this board. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the rationale for not recommending that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's the same argument as Golden Gate Estates not having one way out there, it's that you don't have the population to support it. MR. FERNANDEZ: We just don't think that the call load warrants us yet to address that. We're not at that point yet. And also, it brings into question the urban rural service delivery questions that we've talked about. Is this an effort to put an urban level of service in an area that hasn't quite reached that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Personally, as much as I respect, you know, that those people who live out there are entitled to, I'd like to start carving back on the expectation that you can live in the most remote part of the county and still have a six-minute response time for EMS, and otherwise, other urban services. So I agreed with administrator's recommendation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I probably ultimately have to -- I'll go along with it as well. Understanding, though, that you're dealing with a development that's right along a major highway. This is U.S. 41, as opposed to being out in some quote, remote area. It's not remote from the standpoint that you have a major highway running through it, as opposed to other out areas in the county that are remote. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That are what we think of as rural. COMMISSIONER BERRY: As very rural. That's the only difference that I would see between these two. And in regard to the response time and so forth. And knowing the types of traffic on 41, and with this highway being designated as a scenic highway in future traffic, I'm not sure. But future may be just that. This might be something we can't consider this year but something that we can maybe consider next year. MR. FERNANDEZ: Bring it back next year. Page 30 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Taking into account traffic on that particular roadway and so forth. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nearest unit's in Everglades City; is that right? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, looks like there's three for support for the budget as recommended. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Four. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four. Four out of four, not bad. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Public services division is on -- summary on A-20. Expanded service list begins on Page A-21. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This looked to me like expansions that you guys have been telling us about that as long as we keep creating new facilities we're going to have to have concomitant maintenance expenses associated. So here we are with regard to those, generally. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have two questions on Page 23. Perhaps, Tom, you can enlighten me. We're talking about putting in change machines and master parking meters and this type of stuff. Wasn't there some conversation at one time to contracting this out to Paul Harvey to have a -- I'm just using him as an example -- to collect for us, to get away from machines, and he would get a percentage of the fees and increase our efficiencies? MR. OLLIFF: There was some discussion about that. This particular location are two separate beach park locations. This is Barefoot Beach at the north end of the county up by Barefoot Preserve, and the other is in Marco South access, which is an unmanned -- both of these are unmanned type facilities. And we're talking about places where Mr. Harvey doesn't have a concession area. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So there's no way to contract this to somebody to pick it up so we're not depended upon ~- MR. OLLIFF: These are very small parking lots where we're simply doing it by machine. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I didn't have -- I guess I should be a little more organized about this. Domestic Animal Services, were there questions on that budget? I had none. Library, questions on that budget? And parks and rec, any additional questions on that budget? Extension service? And public health? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, there's a question on that, of course. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was hoping since Tim was out of the room, maybe we'd do away with it. (Whereupon, Commissioner Constantine enters the boardroom.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, darn it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: List in hand. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So close. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Slash is back. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question on that. Because the original commitment, as I remember it, was that this was going to be private funding, not at the fault of the county taxpayers. So where are we? Tell me where we are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Tom, do you want to, or Dr. Konisberg, one of you, want to update us on how we come to have this recommended in the budget this year? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me do a little more on the history Page 31 June 18, 1999 with that, too, because the commitment wasn't just that. But if you remember when then Representative Saunders came to the board and said boy, this is a great idea, when they were starting the program, we think county should get involved. We inquired. The first week I asked them, have you asked anyone in the private sector, particularly the hospital, who gets hit up with these bills? Otherwise, the question yesterday was, why should they be expected to pay? Well, if you don't have this and they take these kids to the emergency room instead, they end up absorbing the cost. So it saves them money. And we had that whole discussion three or four years ago. But at the time we asked, have you asked anyone, meaning the hospital or anyone else in the private sector, to help fund this? And they said well, no, we haven't. And we said well, why don't you go do that first and then come back to us and see. And two or three weeks later, they came back to us and said, well, we'd still like the funding. And we said well, have you talked to anyone in the private sector as you promised you would? And they said well, no, we haven't. And so they'd essentially just gone away and come back. And again the first stop for them was the tax dollar. And fortunately, I had gone to NCH in the meantime and they had agreed. And as I said yesterday, they did agree to fund it the first five years, and actually with Cleveland Clinic coming in, and assist them and alleviate some of the burden on them. But they'd agreed to do that. And at that point that, again, the first stop would be try to find other private sector monies. And that has not been done this year. When Cleveland came, they agreed to put in their fair share as well, but actually Naples Community is lowering their amount this year. So when they say oh, there's a shortfall now, it's because they have put in in previous years as high as 250, and this year it's going down to 150 is what they're saying they'll contribute. So not only is it a lower amount, but it's also -- no one has gone to any other source in the private sector. The first stop, again, is being the taxpayers should pick this up. And I just think that should be your absolute last resort and not the first place we go. And it's completely consistent with not only what we've said in the past but what NCH agreed to in writing in the past. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the only -- I'm sure there will be -- because there are a lot of points there where it was tempting to interrupt because my recollection was different and I mostly wish that the scenario were as simple as you describe it, that if we don't -- if children don't have health care then they can just go to the emergency room and be taken care of there. It's just not that simple. But -- and I didn't interrupt you. I know it's attempting. I hear you. But it's much more complicated than that, both from a health care perspective. But I also want to point out to you that I have been spending a great deal of time and effort with both Dr. Moon and Ed Morton, and Dr. Konisberg, and Tom Olliff. And we have had multiple meetings, and they have had many in which I haven't participated. So, I guess slow down. There's a lot of news to report to you about what has changed and what efforts have been made to get private sector dollars. And I think I'll just turn it to Dr. Konisberg or to Tom Olliff at this point to sort of update you from where we are. DR. KONISBERG: Well, good morning, Commissioner Mac'Kie and Page 32 June 18, 1999 other commissioners. This has been a fast moving target to the issue of primary care services in the Naples area, which I think most of you are aware of. The specific issue that Commissioner Mac'Kie is referencing is the emphasis that we're putting on currently in putting back together a maternity care system, which I think we're very close to. And I've talked to, I think, a number of you privately about that. So I think we're getting close to putting that back together. I think lost in that discussion, however, is the fact that what's being discontinued in Building H in this complex goes beyond maternity. And I think we will solve that one. Pediatric services are also being discontinued in there. And while some of that certainly will be absorbed by other pediatricians that CHSI employs, as well as pediatricians in the community, I think that there will be a crunch in access to care. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so no one misunderstands, when you say discontinued, that's as a result of NCH pulling back on things? That's not you or your staff saying we're going to discontinue this service; is that right? DR. KONISBERG: Well, that appeared to have been precipitating discussion, let's put it that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And there is a long discussion that you don't want to go into, or we can if you think we need to, about why NCH stopped their CHSI funding. And I think in my judgment they're very legitimate reasons. DR. KONISBERG: The -- I would like to point out, and not to defend any one entity but to simply state a fact, is that NCH is very much a part of coming forward with a solution for the maternity care, a very tangible solution, that certainly is resource intensive on their part. And I think that needs to be said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It may involve a higher dollar commitment than they previously were making in that effort. DR. KONISBERG: Just in a different way. The idea behind the Healthy Kids match here is to expand another five or 600 children. And the demand really is out there. And Commissioner Constantine is correct in that the two hospitals agreed in their big agreement that averted all the legal action to share that cost. So actually, the amount that they've been putting in is probably higher than it was before, but it's been split between Cleveland Clinic and NCH. One of the things that I think is nice about Healthy Kids is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Doctor, would you pause right there, because that is a critical component. Tell us what the amount is in the past -- I don't know the answer to this. It's not a loaded question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I think -- and the point is going to be the total amount is greater, but that it is split between two parties now, as opposed to -- DR. KONISBERG: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- by itself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's pursuant to a legal agreement, a legal settlement. DR. KONISBERG: But the point is, the amounts -- Roger, what was it? Is it a 100 -- It will be 308,000 based on the adjustments that the Healthy Kids Corporation at the state level has put forth with the actual amounts. So it's going to be about 308,000. What the $86,000 that we're requesting from the Board of County Commissioners would do is expand this by another five to 600 children. What's nice about this program is that it is a private sector Page 33 June 18, 1999 solution. It buys insurance rather than a traditional clinic setting and puts those kids in the hands of their medical home of their pediatrician, and is really, I think, a very cost-effective way to provide care, as long as the proriders are there. And it's been a very successful program really everywhere that it's been in Florida. It's really viewed as a national model in terms of the statewide perspective. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The bottom line is, the hospitals are -- have they broken their promise? DR. KONISBERG: Not in my opinion. Not with regard to Healthy Kids. And let me also point out that this buys us about -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good qualifier. DR. KONISBERG: This is about 1.2 million dollars of care that's being bought with far less money than that because it is an insurance. In terms of the hospitals participating in Healthy Kids, those commitments are being met. Now, I'm not broadening that conversation when I say that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me respond to your question a little bit, because it is a great program and it is cost effective. I don't think anybody is disputing that. My question is whether or not the first stop when we're looking for how we're going to fund it should be taxpayer dollars. I think there are other places we could search for that. I said that four years ago, and I found a place four years ago. When we first talked to Cleveland, that was literally the first question I asked them. And they agreed to participate. I didn't write nor participate in any way in the agreement between the two hospitals, but I do have documentation from NCH on what they agreed would be their long-term plan when they came to the county and asked the county to participate and then asked if they could run this through the Health Department. And that commitment isn't negated by the fact they have a separate agreement with Cleveland Clinic. And that agreement was not that the county would start paying in year four, nor that we would be the first place that excess funding would be. To the contrary, it was the exact opposite of those. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, but what the agreement does between Cleveland Clinic and NCH is divide NCH's promise Cleveland agreed to take a larger portion of. The promise remains the promise, and the amount is the amount. But how -- whether those -- how those two hospitals divide that obligation is their business, and they've settled that. But the commitment to the county that private hospital dollars would be there continues and is not reduced. This is an expansion of the program. And that's the important piece. This is five or 600 more kids, a lot of them in your district, and I'm not going to lose sight of that, because this is kids in your district. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is kids in all five districts. And the promise was -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Dang right it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The promise recognized that the program would expand and would need to expand and that over time expanded dollars for two reasons would be needed: One, the match gets higher; and two, the program was going to grow. Their promise recognized both those things. And their promise also recognized they would participate in seeking other private paid dollars, and not to then split what they're already paying, but to help pay for whatever those expanded costs were. Page 34 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's get down to the bottom line. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is contrary to that. This is saying nope, we're not going to go through that exercise. Let's just have the taxpayer pay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you think we -- I have asked, is this money that they are willing to pay? I have received a negative response to that. Have you asked or do you want to ask, do you want to make this -- do you want to approve this contingent on denial from private sources? I'll go there. If we can get some money to plug in here, I'll take it. Absolutely. But we can't not do this program. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure, we cannot do this program. This is CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's wrong. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- an expanded portion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it would be wrong. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's your opinion. You're welcome to it. I don't share it. And my original support for this program was predicated on the fact that we were going to do this with private dollars and not tax dollars. It's the same argument we made when we discontinued funding in any of the social agencies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Trees, kids. I don't know, it's not a hard question for me, John. Right and wrong. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's fine. You're a liberal socialist and I'm not. I mean, we have a difference of opinion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If that's what I am, I'm grateful to be it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would like to -- and I did it four years ago, I'll do it again. I'll go out and track down private dollars. I'll work with NCH and Cleveland Clinic to do that. But I don't think it should be publicly funded and I'm not going to support taxpayer paying of this now. You know, if we exhaust every opportunity and want to revisit this in September, I don't think that we'll have trouble finding somebody to fund this. It doesn't -- there are other suppliers in town who stand to benefit by this other than simply NCH and Cleveland Clinic. And I think we can tap some of those sources. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Staff problem with that if we keep this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not suggesting we keep it in. Don't misunderstand me. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I suggest we keep it in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would like to keep it in because I would rather do prevention than build jail cells. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And this to me is prevention. And I think we have an opportunity here. I would like to raise it privately. If we can find it privately, I would much rather do that. But when it comes down to bottom line and what this will do for five or 600 more young people in this community, they may be only 25 percent of our population, they're 100 percent of our future, and I will not sit here and deny that opportunity to take care of kids in this community that need that help. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of weeks ago we had a lawsuit come to this board and we said it would actually be cheaper to settle that for 2,500 bucks, or we could go to court and spend more than $2,500, but we'd stand on principle and we'd make sure other people didn't sue us because of that and we'd spend more money but somehow we thought that would make other people not sue us in the future. I Page 35 June 18, 1999 don't happen to share that. But the majority of the board said, you know, we need to draw the line here and make the example out of this. And I think this is the same thing. If we -- we made a commitment and NCH made a commitment to seek private funding to do this. And if we turn around now and say well, we're not even going to look for that, we're just going to pay for it, what you've done is create a situation -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, I didn't say I wouldn't look for it. I said I will help you look for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. But what we're saying by well, we're going to fund this, is you discourage any reason to go seek private funding. It's the same idea as that lawsuit settlement, either you settle it but theoretically you're encouraging people. And here we can settle this and say well, we'll fund it but we'll go look for other stuff. There's no incentive for NCH or Cleveland Clinic or anybody else to participate in that search if they know it's already funded. And either we're going to be consistent in the way we think and the way we approach these things or we're not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would anybody else want to report on -- have either of you made any contacts? Can you report on your contacts with private sector with regard to this payment? Anybody tried? MR. OLLIFF: I've gotten no indication from either party that's currently funding the local match that there's going to be any discontinuation of local match or reduction in the local match. Bottom line, this is what it is. It is a philosophical question for the board to decide whether or not this is a program that it feels government ought to be involved in. This is an expansion of the current Healthy Kids Program. There was some question raised about why it was being brought to the board again. Well, this is the one opportunity where the board makes its funding decisions, and it did make this decision not to participate in the program when the program was initially brought to it. But in fairness, you know, the board does occasionally change its position on some things, and this is the one opportunity it has to make that decision. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a no to her question? MR. OLLIFF: The answer is no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Dr. Konisberg -- and I appreciate the rest of your comments. Can somebody describe for us what the leveraging value is of this $86,000? DR. KONISBERG: Well, the leveraging value -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What do we get? DR. KONISBERG: The leveraging value of the current Healthy Kids match that's coming from the two hospitals is about $1,212,000 that covers what would otherwise be uncompensated care. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then the leverage with the state is my DR. KONISBERG: Well, that's part of it. This is the match, which is what the -- what, the 20 percent level; is that right? At the 20 percent level. So we're leveraging the other 80 percent for the -- to pay the premiums. This is an insurance program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we pay two, the state pays eight. DR. KONISBERG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And nobody's disputing it's a wonderful program. What I'm saying is we made a commitment and NCH Page 36 June 18, 1999 made a commitment that the taxpayer would be the last resort and the last place we looked, not the first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, Tim, if they -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what we are doing is making it the first stop. And that's just not right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, and it's not the first stop. It's you haven't had the conversation yet. I have, and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, you've talked with NCH. You haven't talked with any other potential provider. Our staff has just, in answer to your question, said they haven't talked to anyone else. And that's the point. I'm not saying NCH should be necessarily carrying all that load. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's not my question. My question is, is this county -- on the fundamental issue that Mr. Olliff just put to us, are we going to participate in this program in the absence of private dollars, or are we going to let five or 600 kids go without care if we are unable to raise the money? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think realistically they're going to go without care. And I think that was the whole debate a couple of years ago is whether they go to a doctor and don't pay the bill. I mean, there's -- I have a good friend who's a physician who works over in your building from time to time helping with delivering of babies and so on, and he's not compensated for that. He makes a wonderful living and does that because it's the right thing to do. But those babies are still going to get delivered, and he's still going to participate. And there are other physicians who do that. When we cover these type things then, you know, they may be compensated then because there's an insurance program. But it's not as though the care isn't going to happen at all otherwise. It is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But Tim, if it were only as simple as you describe it, that it has to do with whether or not somebody is there to catch the baby when the baby is delivered. It's not that simple. The question is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nor is that what I said. So please don't mischaracterize it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want you to focus on the fact that there is much more to it than is somebody going to be there to deliver the baby. The question that's much more important from a long-term county expense, from a government dollar perspective, is what kind of maternal care did the woman get while she was pregnant or did she have none and therefore just show up at the ER to have the baby delivered? In that case, the expenses are significant because the odds are that the child is going to be damaged in some way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. And Healthy Kids isn't going to -- unless it's a kid that is pregnant, Healthy Kids isn't going to cover a 30-year-old woman for her prenatal care, so that's not a good example. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But you can't use -- neither is the example that you used. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, it is. My point is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, perhaps you can't comprehend it, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we just have -- we've got two to two right now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Number one, this is a subsidized insurance program if we commit to this. Number two, so far I'm hearing about Page 37 June 18, 1999 hospitals. What's the consideration for the physician involved? You always hear hospitals. And understanding that Cleveland Clinic's side of it, their doctors are all salaried doctors. That's not the case with NCH. NCH are all private physicians who have hospital privileges at that hospital. So my concern is what guarantee if you go this direction? Are you going to guarantee? Sure, the hospital will realize coverage, but what consideration are you going to know that the physician's going to realize that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Answer that question, please. DR. KONISBERG: The physicians who sign up for Healthy Kids are paid. I mean, they have to enroll in this. And that would be true whether they're a private practice physician or in the case of -- if they work for an institution, then the money might well go to the institution, which it really is effectively the same thing. Actually, much of the money -- the emphasis on this care is really primary care in the physician's office, and that's the part that often goes by the board. There's no question that the hospital emergency room will take all comers. They have to. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They have to. DR. KONISBERG: And they will, and they do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The other side of this is, how much pressure is put on the physicians at Naples Community Hospital to commit to this? Because if they don't, they can certainly withhold their hospital privileges. In other words, sign up or you're out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that is one question, and it's a real valid one. And I'd like for us to put some pressure on NCH to put pressure on their physicians to participate because we need them. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Why? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because we need a higher level of participating physicians, because there are a few pediatricians. This doesn't pay as well. This insurance doesn't pay like private pay. So there are -- Dr. Rumberger's doing a lot of it because she's willing to do the lower value because her heart's in the right place. There are physicians who don't participate, because it ain't a big moneymaking deal. So I would love to ask NCH to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they all carry the same liability, too, Pam. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the point is, it may not be as big a moneymaking deal, but it is a moneymaking deal. They get paid for work under this. That may be one of the sources. You go to the local medical society and say, you know, some of your physicians, maybe they should participate more. But they are going to get paid under the scenario, and they are going to take a check home at the end of the week. So maybe that the medical society should be a participant as part of that. And that's reiterating the whole point. There are other people involved besides NCH and Cleveland Clinic who stand to benefit as well as serve the community, but they stand to gain some benefit because they're going to get some money. Maybe them or their representative organization should be a participant. There are other groups besides those two out there who are legitimate people to ask to participate in this, and we ought to ask them before we ask the taxpayer. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And they are participating in other processes. And I'd like Dr. Konisberg to comment on what the pediatricians have agreed to do in terms of working in this other Page 38 June 18, 1999 program, which I understand they're giving their time. And I think we need to bring that into it, because it's -- all we're doing is talking about one issue. And we're going to these groups and we're asking them for a lot of different things. And I would like some comment on that. DR. KONISBERG: I think we've got a couple of different issues here. I think one is sort of the, I guess for want of a better term, the marketing of the program. And that goes two directions. One, to get enrollees in the program. The second is -- or interest the enrollees, I guess. And the other is the get the interest the physicians. Because it tends not to -- this is not a big moneymaker for physicians, folks, I can tell you that right now. The medical society can be an avenue for helping market the program with their members, for those physicians that are their members. It's not a group that I would look to as a fund-raising. That would not be their -- I'm not aware of any medical societies that do that. I'd also like to point out that the physicians have stepped forward in this community to a degree that I absolutely am positively astounded at. And over 70 physicians have signed up to work at the neighborhood health clinic that Dr. and Mrs. LeSeid (phonetic) have started. Before anybody asks, by the way, they are not doing pediatrics there. I do think that will help with some of the adult help overload from the other issues. So physicians are really stepping up to the plate. 70 physicians in a community this size, that's amazing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I would -- go ahead, Tom. MR. OLLIFF: To get back to one of your original questions, though, if the board finds private funding, I don't know that anybody's going to stand and oppose that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely not. MR. OLLIFF: But I think if there are private funding sources that are willing to step up and contribute, I think that's a great thing for the community to have additional private partners to fund this program. So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And to go back to my previous point, though, if we say no, we're going to fund it, though, and if you happen to find somebody, then great, that's a tremendous disincentive for those groups to go out and meet their commitment they made to help find other private funding. I understand your point, but it is a disincentive if we say otherwise we're going to pay for it, then there's not a whole lot of effort necessary on their part. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much time is there, Mr. Fernandez, in the process of sending out the trim notices, setting the millage? What's the drop-dead for the county if we either fund this through government money or we get private donations? MR. FERNANDEZ: You set the tentative millage at your meeting on August 3rd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if we don't do it by then, we can't fund it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not correct. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. You could fund it if you have a balancing cut somewhere else. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: You still have that option. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Assuming we've cut everything we can stand Page 39 June 18, 1999 to cut, August 3rd is when we either have private dollars or we cut this program or we cut something else to be able to keep this program. August 3rd is that date? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, you can still -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or in September we could cut something else and put that back in. So we have until the fall. You could have your final hearing in September, you could find some offsetting thing that you see as a lower priority, if you wanted to add this back in, and cut out $86,000 worth of flowers or trees or cut out something else if you wanted to do that. So you have right up until the last minute of our budget process in September to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what's the will of the board? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Cut. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cut. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Keep. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keep. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No pressure here. I struggled with this issue a long time ago, and I'm still struggling with it. Because it's an insurance. It's subsidizing insurance and it's not something that's available to all of the children in Collier County. It's -- you have to -- it's a certain income, I believe. Is this not true? It's a certain income. So it's not available to all children. And I have a problem -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Free lunch. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know, I have a problem coming into this from a government standpoint if it's not available for everybody. And it's not. And I understand, and nobody -- don't mischaracterize me as being against kids, because that's not the case. One of the concerns I've had is that parents sometimes look to programs like these instead of taking on some responsibility. Not all cases. Not all. There are some very legitimate cases. But I'm afraid, and we don't know who those are, when people are using this kind of thing, when they're setting aside their own wants and wishes in some cases, and they're neglecting what they should be doing in terms of their own children. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But Barb, this one, just for information -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just poll the board? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I'm going to address that issue. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. This is an income qualified program. If you qualify for free school lunch, you could qualify for this program. It isn't people who could otherwise afford to buy insurance, but they're buying above the line instead. This is you qualify for free lunch. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, the free lunch situation, there's a lot of flaws, in my opinion, in that whole situation as well. It's not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But let me say this. It brings up a good point I've been trying to get in here. Over the summer, perhaps we could talk to the school board. They've got a bigger stake in this than the County Commission. Maybe they should be the ones that would step forward and help. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has that happened in any other counties? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, I would stress that should be a Page 40 June 18, 1999 last resort because it's still taxpayer money. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I personally don't think they'll do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara, since you're the swing vote, do you have any interest in flagging this item in the event private funds are not available? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, I've just had a problem with this ever since its inception. And I know what they're trying to do is to try to get health care. The program, in my opinion, even when it first came out, did not receive raging reviews. People -- you know, the program was here. Are we turning away any youngsters right now from this program? DR. KONISBERG: I do remember now. The enrollments were closed for awhile. And it's kind of an up and down thing, depending on how many slots there are, I mean, so, it's a variable thing. The need -- the demand is out there, if the funding is there to cover the slots. And that's a variable thing. But they're there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is there a question about whether or not there are kids who need this program and don't have it? DR. KONISBERG: We believe that there are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you get us a copy of the list of the names that have applied and have been turned down because we said there just wasn't enough? DR. KONISBERG: We will get you that, yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Flag it, if we can't get private money, we at least reconsider whether or not we use public money? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would hope we would remove it and, you know, if we find ourselves in some odd situation in September -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: If we can get the private money that's absolutely in my opinion the way to go. I think people end up paying twice for this thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if you flag it, I don't think you're going to get the private money. net's put it that way. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd say no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's going to lessen your chances. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. That's three. What's next? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quickly, can we go back to the previous page? There was just a couple of things as long as Mr. Olliff is still here, before we lose him. The parks and rec, park superintendent ~- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I respectfully just say we had three and more on all of those, so maybe you can ask about them privately and we can keep moving? Because we've already gotten three. Same thing on Healthy Kids. I'd love to talk about them but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. I would have liked to cut that conversation off 15 minutes ago. I don't think it will take long. There are two items in particular: The parks and rec., request for a park superintendent, a park ranger. The 56 and the 42-4, please tell me what those are so I have a clear understanding and why they're different now than -- MR. OLLIFF: The park maintenance position is one where we're trying to deal with some of the growth in your maintenance section and trying to do a better job of putting like functions together. The current situation you have is the parks and maintenance manager handles not only the parks maintenance, which is the traditional things, but also the rangers, the program as well, which has absolutely nothing to do with parks maintenance. Page 41 June 18, 1999 On the other hand, we've got recreation, which is handling all the aquatic facilities in the expanded aquatic swimming lifeguard facilities at Sugden. So we're trying to put all of our beach park-related ranger type items, all those things that are coming out of your now countywide 001 fund under a single manager. And what we've done is expanded controlwise. We've gone from two people who were managing 80 and 70 people apiece, to three people if you approve this, that would manage 54, 41, and 46, which is a lot more of a reasonable span for a manager to try to handle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the other one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the park ranger, what has changed at Lely Barefoot Beach to require that? MR. OLLIFF: We're currently going through a management plan update required by the state as per our lease. We are required under our lease to have a staff person, at least a single staff person, on-site during the times that that facility is open. We currently have a gap during the summer hours of about 40 to 44 hours a week when we have absolutely no staff in that entire preserve area. And so by the lease, we're supposed to have someone there. So as we're going through the amendment process, we're also requesting this position in order to cover the full amount of time that the park is open. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The ones -- and then -- thank you very much because that helps. The bottom of the page, the request for a marine science agent, it's a small dollar item, but I'm just wondering, this is -- I really have trouble with that, figuring out what 40 hours a week somebody's going to do at 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 and 8:30 to 9:00. And this seems like one of those that when we talk about health, safety, and welfare, this doesn't come to mind. MS. BLANTON: Good morning, Commissioners. Denise Blanton. There are more than 18,000 registered boats in Collier County. One per every 11 residents, as compared to the State of Florida, which is high, which is 1 to 20. This person is going to be working with the boat owners, as well as the homeowners along the coast in making use of our water resources and providing programs that will prevent the degradation of our water resources while we continue to use them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just doesn't -- again, let me -- that's like a vague overview. But that doesn't sound like a 40-hour a week job. MS. BLANTON: It's actually a 20-hour a week. I'd love to have them for 40 hours. We're going to split. Addressing the concern, we're going to split with Lee County. I'd love to have him 40 hours a week. But we're only going to have them part-time. And they're going to be working with all those people in Collier County who use our coastal area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How? When you say they're going to work with the 11,000 boat owners, how does that work? Does that mean they make up little pamphlets and send them out to them or they have a seminar that 20 of those 11,000 show up to? And it sounds great, but how are they realistically going to reach those 11,000 people and actually have an impact? MS. BLANTON: How we do it currently? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. How is this person, this expansion, going to happen? MS. BLANTON: This expansion will work with all available resources. You give the example of a pamphlet. You give the example of seminars. You give -- there's also the media, television, radio, Page 42 June 18, 1999 newspaper, media, working with people. There's also focusing on specialized areas, such as Naples Bay or Vanderbilt Lagoon, as an example, where there are problem areas that residents are addressing. And this person will be able to assist those people, if there's an educational component, of resolving the problem, so that everybody can still use the resource. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just for efficiencies of time, are there two commissioners or three commissioners who have questions about this particular position, or do we still have support? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me like newspapers and all those things, we have a public information office that can do that. Even at 20 hours a week, I can't imagine what, from 9:00 to 1:00 or 8:00 to 12:00 every day of the week, they're going to be doing. There may be some hot spots at some bay somewhere, but then you go meet with that group twice in two months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you mind if I poll the board on this question? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not at all. You don't mind if I make my point on it, though, do you? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. I think we've heard it. Commissioner Carter, have you changed your mind? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Commissioner Constantine raises some good questions. I would wonder if these other groups, Vanderbilt Bay, The Conservancy, I mean, all these water groups, don't they already do this? Isn't this a duplication of effort? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two. Is there somebody else who has a question on this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think Commissioner Carter asked a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, pardon me. MS. BLANTON: Commissioner Carter, it's not a duplication of effort, it's a partnership. The workload is more than any entity can do alone and collaboratively, and that's one of the things that your extension service is quite expert at is pulling all the pieces together and focusing all the partnerships so that you pick off the highest priorities and work together to serve the needs of the people. So there would be no duplication. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did that answer your question, Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there other questions for staff on this? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The examples he used, though, are private groups like The Conservancy. Is it our job to make sure that they're not duplicating some other group's effort? I'm just baffled at how this is going to -- if those groups are already doing that out there, why do we want to spend another 8,000 bucks? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Like the Coast Guard Auxiliary, for example? MR. OLLIFF: Let me give you one of the other components. When we met with the dean of the extension service from the university who was proposing this in the first place -- it's actually a split position between Lee County and Collier. County. In addition to the things that Denise was telling you about, one of the primary functions of the position is to work with the commercial fishing and marine industries here in the county. And I thing there are a lot of agencies that are currently doing regulatory work in those areas, telling local fisherman, local commercial Page 43 June 18, 1999 businesses, what they can and can't do. But there's not a lot of people who are trying to transfer the educational information from the University of Florida about how to do their business smarter and better and not damage your local marine resources as they do their commercial harvesting and fishing. To me, that was the important component of this position was somebody to work with commercial fishing industry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two thoughts to that. One, unfortunately, the commercial fishing industry has been devastated in the last few years and we actually have considerably fewer commercial fishermen than we used to. So I don't know why the need has gotten that much greater. I mean, it's a tiny percentage of what we used to have. And two, if that's the university trying to get that information out, then that's probably fiscally their responsibility. I realize they're looking to pay -- or the university system is looking to pay a big chunk of this. But frankly, if it's their information they want to get out, they probably ought to pay all of it. MS. BLANTON: It might be interesting to note that Collier and Lee are second only to Monroe County as fisheries area in the State of Florida. We are right up there. It is not an insignificant aspect of what happens in the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris brought up a great point a minute ago, and that was Coast Guard Auxiliary. I mean, there's probably no one who better gets out to educate fishermen, whether it's commercial, private, whatever. They actually have specific educational programs, and have -- you know, if you want to see pamphlets and all those things, there's nobody better to do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's don't spend all day on eight grand. I'll agree to cut it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll agree to cut it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's three. It's out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then just real briefly, the part-time secretary position. We've gone through this in previous years. What's the additional work that that requires? Is that 20 hours a week? MS. BLANTON: Yes, sir, it is 20 hours a week. And in 1992, this position was cut, and in the interim, the number of phone calls, the number of walk-in, customer service average, has increased dramatically by 30 percent. For example, on intense questions that aren't just, you know, good morning, you know, the program is at 8:00, we average 53 per day, and it takes an average of four minutes to deal with someone on this kind of a question. And that's about almost four hours a day that we work with people on intensive questions. We also have an eight percent increase in the number of calls that we receive regarding our master gardening program. We've added a significant program in our home buyer's program. And these are not very short, quick answers. These are something that require customer service that takes into account what the person needs and so that they can get the service they want. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Keep it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keep it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think keep it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the final question on this is -- I'm sorry, is there a rush to get through the budget process or -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. Page 44 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The request for a community information and outreach coordinator to provide the residents with Immokaleeo And maybe Commissioner Berry can help me with this. I just flagged this because I didn't understand it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you mind if I chime in on that one? Because those of us who were in -- Commissioner Berry, do you mind if I -- because the -- one of the things that I learned most on our trip to Immokalee is the remoteness and the unavailability of the county services in Immokalee. I thought this was a very creative, efficient response to a serious need. We can't address code enforcement issues. We can't address a lot of real serious problems. People out there said I'm anxious to improve my trailer park if only I could, you know, get to the right people and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will this person do? Where will they be? And again, when they go to work in the morning, what do they do at 8:157 MR. OLLIFF: At 8:00, they would be at the library in Immokalee. We've found space that we've been able to carve out of the library. And that's a pretty good place for people who are looking for information and referral type services. It's a natural fit. The one thing that we heard from a majority of the speakers in the Immokalee Town Hall meeting was that they were unaware of a great many of the services that were available and provided to them, either at the federal level, the state level, or at the county level. And a lot of those are right there in the community. But simply because the community is not aware of where to go, where is a central clearinghouse, or where can I access those services, a lot of the people simply weren't getting them. So this was the response that was provided -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. One, how will they know this person is there if they don't know everything else is there? And second, how will this person communicate that message? Again, I didn't just ask where they would go at 8:00 a.m., but what will they do day to day to day? How will they get that message out? MR. OLLIFF: Additionally, like an information referral clearinghouse, they are going to be responsible for coordinating with all of the other agencies, making sure they have current information. And then it's going to take some advertising. It's going to take advertising on both the local radio stations that those people listen to, going through the private farms to get the message to the farm workers, going to people like Fred Thomas to get that message out that for any type service that you are looking for, if you want to know where -- now, we're not going to provide the service, we're not going to fill out the applications, but to get them to the right place for the right type service that they're looking for, that's the person you go see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, I assume you like this? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's necessary. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Keep it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything else? I notice our helicopter guys are still here. Didn't we already do their budget? MR. SMYKOWSKI: They're here for the capital budget. There is a proposed helicopter replacement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you do the radio item? Is that the point you said you already did? That was 14,000. Page 45 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, we did do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had a question on that. Just what's the difference -- and there may very well be one -- but what was the difference between what you already had, you know, using the radios we already have? How is that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The tracking device, is that what you mean? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I mean, don't we have radios? Don't we have ways to figure out, you know, hey, Peter, where are you right now, as opposed to having a tracking device and looking it up? MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, chief of emergency services, for the record. That's actually a flight following program, different than a radio. Yes, we have radios for communication, but it's a flight following program so that at all times we will know where the helicopter is in the event that it does go down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Peter is over at the commission chambers right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How does it track? What's the mechanism that it tracks? MS. FLAGG: It's done -- there's a -- for a better term, a box that is put on the helicopter, and then the tracking mechanism is at Lee Control. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Through radar? It's a transponder? MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions? Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks a lot. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just looking at what we have left to do, it's 11:30, we have community development, environmental services, public works, Airport Authority. And then we've got capital and we're wrapping up for the day. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the sheriff's budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Airport Authority, are they still on the budget? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So community development, environmental services has -- we've squeezed that division to death last year. I think we did a really good job on being sure that they were not overly subsidized with general tax dollars. This year they have a $60,000 expanded service for a grant writer. Is that basically what this is? MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Greg Mihalic. No, commissioner, it is not a grant writer, it is not a position, it's money that we received from administering a grant to leverage other state and federal economic development grants. So there's no position here. This is to leverage other grants. We have to put a participating match or 20 percent, for instance, we've used it before for the enterprise Florida qualified target industry match, and that's what it's going to be for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Out of this 60 grand, you expect to leverage at what level? MR. MIHALIC: Normally you'd leverage 4 to 1. So we would expect a 4 to 1 leverage from that money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other Development Services questions? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The MPO, as I indicated, the transfer to MPO was Page 46 June 18, 1999 for Intellitran. That, as I indicated in my opening remarks, was kind of a worst case scenario. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But with Commissioner Constantine's ideas that he's indicated he's going to be bringing to us, it may be an unnecessary scenario. So I'm not interested in cutting that until we at least hear that presentation. Others? Public works? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Public works. Two components, two public works in the general fund, stormwater management. There's $30,000 requested for specialized maintenance equipment, a large brush chipper for -- to grind up Brazilian pepper. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've got a done a good job in improving by getting some equipment for this department in the past couple of years. Seems to me this is just keeping on that track. Any questions about this one? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: None for me. We're on A-33 now, and road and bridge. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two questions on that one. Sorry, Ed. One, just the lease space. I didn't recall our conversation where that was, and it may very well have been in there. I couldn't place what we talked about for short-term leasing needs there. MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners. Edward Kant, transportation services director. We're presently housed over on the other side of the campus, and we share the small former garage with the chillers and the USSI janitorial service. We are requesting the space to consolidate our operations and also to allow for some space for the new control center for the traffic signal system, and to be able to consolidate some of our archives. I believe that when the initial proposal for the public works building was presented to you some months ago, that was -- that would have taken care of the issue. But since we've now deferred that, I think at that time we were also told we would be coming back to you to request this space. We have 11 people in just under 2,000 square feet with no conference facilities. And as I said, we share the room with the chillers. We walked in one morning and found an inch of water on the floor and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item I had may be a little tougher, and that was -- although you may be able to do it. Request for two Traffic Technician I positions, portable radios, and all the appropriate expenses that go with it. MR. KANT: That's being done at commission direction, sir. If you'll remember back last year when we presented the feasibility study for the new signal system, part of that implementation plan -- part of that was the implementation plan that the board agreed to abide by. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the big brother traffic signal? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They can see you wherever you are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just had a big thing on that last week. MR. KANT: And part of that implementation plan indicated that we presently have a shortfall in our ability to maintain our existing Page 47 June 18, 1999 system. Since this report was presented to you, we've constructed a number of new signals. We have several that are in the process of being constructed, and we've presented a program already for you already for next year. That implementation plan also pointed out the need to budget approximately $175,000 a year. We've looked at our needs and we've looked at our ability to meet those needs, and we're requesting these two positions, both to implement this plan and also to prepare ourselves for that project when it comes on line. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ed, as we go forward, will this system eventually be one where people who run red lights, we'll take a little picture and send you the traffic ticket that says hi, this costs you 150 bucks for running through the red light. MR. KANT: That's a distinct possibility, Commissioner. Right now there is no red light camera legislation in Florida. It's come up in front of legislature every year for the past six years. And it's never made it out of committee. There's a body of thought that believes that it's a positive thing, and then there are some people that aren't crazy about it. Until the legislature permits that type of technology to be used, we can't even propose that. MR. FERNANDEZ: So the answer is no, this is not for that technology. MR. KANT: I thought the question was whether that would permit that type of thing, and I'm just pointing out that we don't have the wherewithal to do that right now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the flaw -- MR. KANT: But in the future it's possible, certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In think the flaw in the proposed legislation is, and maybe someday you'll be able to, but you can't necessarily show just because Ed owns the vehicle Ed was driving the vehicle. MR. KANT: That's one of the issues, that's one of the issues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions on road and bridge? No. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I must -- and I hate to do this, I must take you back to Page A-31. We neglected to list one of the requested but not recommendeds on there, and I thought the board needed to be aware of that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, within the stormwater management section, there was an assistant field supervisor position that would be responsible for the inspection of the county-wide drainage system. The total package was $105,300, included large pickup trucks and specialized spray apparatus. As I indicate in my opening remarks, to get the general fund millage to where it was, Mr. Fernandez was faced with many difficult decisions, and this was one of them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from Mr. Bolt about that one. Because just as an example with the Gateway Triangle business, is we had a stormwater meeting because there's going to be flooding. There always is. There's going to be flooding in the east part of town and probably elsewhere. Do you have something you have to say, Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: I just wanted to find out if those are still in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One of the things that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So he leaves the room. Page 48 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One of the things that comes up every time I'm in a room with Mr. Boldt is well, we'll try to get some inspectors down there to look at that. Because people who live there know that the drain -- the storm drain in front of their house has silted in, and therefore, not functioning. So what we have is infrastructure in place that's not functioning, but John can't get people out there to look at it to see if he needs to send that Jet-Vac out there to blow it out. Is that related to this? MR. BOLDT: Somewhat. That's one of the functions. But this position as a new assistant would just take us to a higher level of service standard for our whole operation involving following up on these kind of inspections. We have a better idea of where the work is needed, for scheduling, for providing better training for our employees in the use of these hazardous herbicides we do. And also, there was mention made of the specialized equipment. This pickup truck is going to be highly specialized. It's going to have a computerized one-man operation that can provide spraying of a lot of our systems, where right now we have a two-man pickup with a guy walking behind the truck with a spray hose. This would provide us an opportunity particularly on the roadside ditch areas, that we could do this with this operator on a part-time basis. He could also fill in on all of these other operations. Just make us much more efficient than we are right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to assume there was a reason why the county administrator didn't recommend this. And I'd be interested to hear what that was. MR. FERNANDEZ: It was just an effort to balance the budget. This is one of those that is an expanded service. It's a function that we're getting done currently. Maybe not as efficiently as we could with this additional equipment and staffing, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's the point, are we getting it done now or are we working at it and not accomplishing much? MR. FERNANDEZ: We're working at it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you characterize it as not accomplishing? MR. BOLDT: Yes, sir, I would have to. As I drive around, the systems I see right now as we're going in the rainy season, we're behind on a lot of our schedules. The work's not getting done. I need some more help and a more efficient operation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask, I think this may help put it in perspective. How much would this alter -- you remember our 1995 happening where we had 18 inches in one day and someplace -- you're going to have flooding when that happens, but normal places that were okay, two days later looked like normal. Those places where we had a lot of difficulty two weeks later still looked awful. If that were to happen today, are we in an improved situation? And if that were to happen after you implemented this, how much would it improve that type scenario? MR. BOLDT: It's difficult to answer. Most of that situation is caused by a lack of capital improvements as opposed to maintenance. Maintenance is going to greatly enhance what we have. You would mean that the water probably wouldn't get as high or stay as long, but I couldn't put numbers on it, other to say that we've got systems out there that are very inadequate, but if we maintain them the best we can, you know, it would reduce that problem. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I was trying to help you Page 49 June 18, 1999 there. If you could have given. me the answer, I was actually ready to go. I'm not sure I am now. If it's not going to enhance. I mean, those are -- we have our everyday needs and I don't dispute that. But I look at those extreme situations as kind of a snapshot of how bad it can get. And if you're not sure that it could actually enhance those worst case scenarios, I wonder how it's going to enhance the day-to-day. MR. BOLDT: It's just the general operations and our daily summer storms. It's just going to make it a whole lot better. When you get these catastrophic storms, this is very difficult. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John, do I understand the answer to the question is that not only would this help in the very catastrophic storms, but it would help in the day-to-day summer rains? MR. BOLDT: Absolutely. Our system's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you hear that, Tim? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I did not. I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want you to hear that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in deficit today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That what Mr. Boldt is telling us is that not only would this help in the intense storms, it would also help with the day-to-day summer rains. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did hear that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And since this -- as I understand, it was purely a balance the budget cut. Have we cut something that would allow us to continue to balance the budget if we put this back in? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Have we? MR. FERNANDEZ: You've gone the other direction, I think. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What was the amount of money? COMMISSIONER CARTER: 105,000; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: 105,300. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: $105,300. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to defer to our county administrator and his fine management here on this item and not include it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to include it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: John, I think you need to identify yourself. MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, stormwater director. Excuse me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there any other support for including this? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's a great idea, but not unless we can find some money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we flag it and see -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's flag it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's flag it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd say let's flag it and see if there's some way we can work it in at the end. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's just cut it, please. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keep it alive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, it's not in, though. Is it in now? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's not in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's flagged to come in if we can find a way. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If we can find a way. Page 50 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not in. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It hasn't totally been strangled yet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We did performed a little CPR. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Public works, we are finished with. Are we to airports now. Because we did courts and court related. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Airports may take awhile. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, on A-.42 and A-43 is the Airport Authority operating budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody have questions about anything other than the request of a non-recommended item? Because I support what's recommended by the county administrator. Are there questions on that, or shall we just focus: on the request of a not recommended airplane? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think there were a lot of questions with that. Other than with just the plane, I think there were a couple of other points, at least from what I read that the Airport Authority may want to make. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to see. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Oh, we're not on. Are we on? We on. Good morning, just. For the record, Michael Williams. I'm the chairman of the Collier County Airport Authority. And we presented you with a budget. It was sufficient but we hope not overwhelming detail. And we're here to answer any questions you have and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess my only question was, do you want to make a pitch for the item that was requested by not recommended? MR. DRURY: John Drury, executive director for the Collier County Airport Authority. The Authority presented a budget that was $42,000 below last year's need. It was 37,000 below what the business plan projected. Included in this budget was a 54 percent increase in indirect services costs paid to the county.' That went up from 66,000 to 100,000, which was not anticipated in the business plan. Also, the insurance premiums went up significantly, and that is included. And also the aircraft is included in that budget. So we believe that the budget, inclusive of the aircraft, inclusive of all these additional costs, is well below what the business plan called for and well below what we requested last year. On the aircraft, this is a single-engine four-passenger seating aircraft that will make the Airport Authority more efficient, and will be available as a county resource. It will be available for the Emergency Management Services, for fire and hurricane assessments, natural resources, for turtle monitoring, public works for traffic and road assessments, stormwater, for stormwater management assessment, and county staff and County Commission travel needs. If you travel to Tallahassee by airplane -- by airline, you will spend the night in order to get back. This -- we will be able to get people up and back in the same day. When we travel -- I travel a lot to Orlando and to West Palm for grant management as well, which takes hours to do for me and costs significant dollars. And just getting to the three airports myself takes almost a full day, and that will make it more efficient. Previously the Authority forwarded a cost benefit analysis to each commissioner and the county administrator on how much money would be saved with this aircraft over the way we currently conduct business in this county for these needs. I've asked Joann Liemer to just give a very brief synopsis of that cost savings. Page 51 June 18, 1999 MS. LIEMER: Joann Liemer, finance manager for the Airport Authority. Based on the paperwork that was provided to you earlier, we projected the annual savings to range from 34,000 to 65,000. We did make a number of assumptions, which we outlined in the paperwork. But in summary, the savings was generated from a number of items. The first being the amount of travel time that would be reduced. And we assigned a value, depending on the staff person doing that traveling. Based on traveling 24,000 miles a year, we could reduce 600 hours down to 200 hours. The savings would range from $3,300 to 14,000, depending on the staff person. We also looked at the savings that would result from Airport Authority staff using the plane to travel to Tallahassee approximately three times a year. Per trip, we estimated the savings to be from $500 to $2,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the bottom line, though, is that you've said this -- it will either save us ~- it would save us 35 to 65 bucks, so it would either pay for itself in three years or in a year and a half. MS. LIEMER: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's -- the only question would be, does somebody doubt the numbers that you used in that analysis? And I didn't see reason to, based on my recent travels to Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the county administrator did sort of put in his own analysis about that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have anything about that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on how much time would be used. I can't imagine that any of the commissioners are going to use that just because of the criticism we'd get flying around the country in our own private aircraft. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know, I would say, I mean, we've had Commissioner Mac'Kie going now make it twice -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Three. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- three times as of next week to Tallahassee and taking some staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Staff four times. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can do that and it's at a fraction of the cost and fraction of the time that it would take, I don't know that we'll generate criticism for that. I will point out Lee County Airport Authority has an aircraft. It's actually a little higher-end aircraft than this, but has an aircraft that they use. It has limited use. They don't abuse. But there are times where it clearly is -- I'd have a couple of specific questions and that is do we have a ballpark number on what the cost per flight hour looks like it will be on this? That may have even been on your report, but I don't recall. MS. LIEMER: Right. Let look that up. MR. DRURY: $50. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you net that out of the 35 to 65? I mean, when you said that this would pay for itself in three years, did you net that out? Because you have to for the -- for it to be valuable. MS. LIEMER: Right. The hourly cost that we estimate includes amortizing the actual initial investment, as well as the maintenance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What about flight time? MS. LIEMER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That includes everything? I mean, Page 52 June 18, 1999 reserves for overhauls for your engine, for your flights -- MR. LIEMER: Yes. MR. DRURY: Insurance. MR. LIEMER: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? MR. DRURY: One thing that I had -- excuse me, go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: I was just going to say, you've asked about my analysis. I believe at the time that I looked at this, this item was flagged the first time we went through the budget. We asked for the analysis to come back. By the time the analysis came back, we had already reached the point that we had to make a decision to cut this. We were at the time looking at about four million dollars that we had to cut out of the budget in order to get it to the point that we brought it to you. It was a question that this may pay back within a number of years. The question to us is, was it an essential expenditure for this fiscal year? And it really came down to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask Mr. Drury. What would be the relative price difference between this aircraft that you have and a 206, for example, which might be more functional for what you're proposing? MR. DRURY: It would be much more expensive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They are a lot more expensive? MR. DRURY: A lot more expensive. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Double? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about a King Air? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have no idea what y'all are talking about. MR. DRURY: One thing, I'll give you a brief analogy of what I'm faced with personally on a day-to-day basis. I've got people like Lee County rushing around going after grants. And with this aircraft -- they've got a much faster aircraft. They go from grant agency to grant agency. And I'm going after it well. And they're like the hare and I'm like the tortoise, if you will, in a small airplane like that. Right now I'm like the slug. I'm in this little car and I'm trying to get up there and it takes me three to four hours to get to Bartow. It takes me three hours to get over to West Palm Beach. It takes me a whole day to get to Tallahassee. So I'm way, way behind the curve. This just gets us -- the lost time on grant acquisition and lease selling for the Immokalee Airport will be made up. I will save 70 percent of my time. Instead of staying behind the wheel of a car, I'll be able to do other things that are more efficient. So that's my perspective on being more efficient. I also believe that the county can be -- consider this as a resource. This is the largest county east of the Mississippi. It's larger than the state of Rhode Island, and it does not own an aircraft. It's a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll just go out on a whim here and just say that I'm willing to flag this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Flag for an add. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Flag it as a potential add, but only for me, it's going to come clearly after Healthy Kids, if we don't get private money. And after even that, $100,000 stormwater item, because that provides such an on-the-ground realistic service to the taxpayers. But I could flag it in third place to those two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of thoughts. I think one, we can find the money for Healthy Kids privately. But, two, if this is a truly a dollar saving item, then it's not spending money ahead of a Page 53 June 18, 1999 different program. And we have to be convinced -- if we're going to add it, we have to be convinced it's going to save money. But I don't think that's comparing apples to apples. The operating, it says ten-five. Is that what you anticipate as an annual maintenance budget, annual operating budget for this, including reserve for future overhauls and so on? MR. DRURY: That is correct. And I would add that this is really being paid for by excess fuel sales. Had we not had a good year or two, actually, you would have seen a budget consistent with our business plan. Not only did we do much better because of our fuel sales, and we've got a budget that's 40,000 below last year and 30,000 below our break-even need, but this is basically being funded by all of these additional fuel sales. And that's the way we were looking at it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Drury, when you say it's $40,000 less than last year's budget, this year's budget that you're speaking of that's 40,000 less includes the price of this airplane? MR. DRURY: Includes the price of this airplane. If you remove this airplane, our budget reduction will be $130,000 less than last year. MS. LIEMER: And $129,000 less than the business plan called for. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to flag it and make it part of our discussion. I'm not willing to increase taxes so we can have it. But if we go through all we're saying and doing between -- I understand as of this minute, yeah, but -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It would be an increase in taxes if you put it back on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But by the time all is said and done and we've gone through everything, particularly as we get into some of the capital items that we may cut, there may be a number of cuts that make that current number lower than it is. One that we're already talked about is GIS system, and we may be saving some money there. We don't know that yet, and I'm not willing to make that commitment until we do know it. If we can cut that and cut a few more items, then this may be worth reconsidering. Flag and deal with Monday? MR. DRURY: I just reemphasize that it's really being paid by fuel sales. And the success of the authority -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question on that then, John, is why can't you borrow, why can't you bond fuel sales then and buy your airplane that way instead of us having to tax people for it? MR. DRURY: The Airport Authority cannot issue bonds or take out loans -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we do that, Mike? MR. DRURY: -- only the Board of County Commission can do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'd like to see them get the plane. How do we do it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'd like to see a lot of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cut more stuff by Monday. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I really see where you're going with this. And overall in the efficiency of what you do in your position and the money that we saved -- there's a lot of savings here. There's a cost benefit analysis here that we don't want to lose sight of. How do we finance the plane other than tax dollars? If there's a mechanism to do that, then maybe we're not looking in the right direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm interested in that. Is there a bonding Page 54 June 18, 1999 opportunity of gas tax dollars? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that I agree with bonding. I mean, all you're doing is adding more expense to the item then when you have some -- you're paying on it. I don't think that's the answer. But I think you're right, there's a cost benefit here. We can explore that. I'm not willing to add taxes to do it. But if we can throughout the process today and Monday cut a bunch of other stuff, this is one of those items that may be worth putting in. Because I do think long-term it's going to be of benefit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commercial paper repaid by gas taxes, can we do that? I'm sorry, repaid by gas revenues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, it's borrowing money, though. MR. FERNANDEZ: We could look at that. Also, we have asked that they pursue the option of leasing or lease/purchase as a way of spreading the cost -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I guess there's a consensus that we're going to flag this and talk about it on Monday. It's lower priority for me than some of the other things, so '- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure that we're going to after lunch find some money that's not going to make it when we go through the capital and other stuff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: This might be a little off the subject, but I think it's a good time for me to ask the question about the business plan and the board's feelings about that. If the business plan calls for the county to support the operations of the Airport Authority for a number of years and then at a point in the future the Airport Authority would start to pay back that amount, does the board view that as a guarantee from the standpoint that if expectations are exceeded and revenues come in at a faster rate such that they reach that break-even point earlier and start to pay back, should that be pursued? Or is it the board's philosophy that the Airport Authority has a flexibility within that business plan to continue to use that support from the Board of County Commissioners up to that point in time in the future that has been pre-determined. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The Airport Authority has to pay us back as soon as they can. That's my opinion. Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think realistically, and I know virtually all the members on the Airport Authority board, they would like nothing better than to pay us back as soon as they can. And if we can make that happen, great. And I may be speaking out of turn, but I bet they do want to make that -- MR. DRURY: Every year, like this year, we exceeded the business plan by $40,000, and we didn't spend it. And we are giving it back. We're looking at some programs, you'll see in the capital side, that will create this Airport Authority self-sufficient a heck of a lot faster than anyone anticipated. So the answer really is that the sooner we're self-sufficient, the faster they'll be paying back the county. And to add to that, the board I think really looks at these as loans. Every dollar that goes to this Airport Authority is not like every other dollar that goes to every other county part. We have to pay that back plus interest. So we need to look at that when you're investing in the Authority. You're not just investing in efficiency and infrastructure, you're investing your dollars on a return on that investment. Page 55 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In you graph this, the business plan show the numbers getting closer and closer every year of what it's supposed to do. And the graph of what it actually is do doing is even better. MR. DRURY: That is correct. And then at the end it's paid back, plus interest. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's why I look at you as an investment and I'm getting a return on it. And that's why I'm very supportive of what you're trying to do and want to find a way to make this happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Flag for Monday then. If we can find a way to do this on a budget neutral basis, we're interested. And then we can take a break and come back for capital. How's that? Take a lunch break? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick note. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hold on. I'm sorry. Let me get an answer to that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we have left to do is review of the general fund supported capital projects. Mary Morgan asked that we give her a call. We could probably do her first after lunch to I think probably get that done. And then the Sheriff's budget. Then that would complete our review today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see a puzzled look from Michael. I assume then we were flagging that item for Monday, depending on what we got and if we got stuff. And we'll have that discussion on Monday. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's out, but it might come back. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I was thinking about the capital side and not realizing you're going to go through everybody else's capital budget, not just us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had the conversation earlier on the marine agent that we ultimately cut. Guy Carlton, who apparently is monitoring this closely -- hi, Guy, and thank you -- just sent a note up that he said, "Dissemination of fisheries info. is supposed to be covered by saltwater fishing licenses. So in other words, we were right in what we did and it shouldn't be some duplicative of efforts. So I appreciate the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We'll let the university do that. Okay. We'll take an hour break for lunch and we'll be back at 1:00. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to call the meeting back to order for the budget workshop. Where are we, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We -- Ms. Morgan is here regarding the supervisor of elections budget, A-48 and 49. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody have questions -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- there? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I certainly don't. That's two for approval. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's three for approval. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks, Mary. Always good to see you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, that will move us to capital projects, beginning on Page A-58. Again, these are projects that are supported through the general fund. Page 56 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions. How do you want to start these, folks? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we've got a lot of parks stuff to deal with first, I guess. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got a lot of which to go through first? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Parks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anything on anybody's cut list? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where's Slash? COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's still out there sharpening his pen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He'll have to show up if he wants to get -- well, of course, we'll just go back and do it again if he wants us to, won't we? So we might as well wait. Well, that's what we did last time. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, you better wait. Mike, what page is that in the book? COMMISSIONER CARTER: 58 and 59, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The capital is all in your summary book on A-58, beginning on A-58. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There's nothing in the big book on this? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No detail. MR. SMYKOWSKI: They're just a list of projects. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you tell Commissioner Constantine we're trying to wait for him? Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question on the helicopter replacement. What are we doing with the old one? MR. FERNANDEZ: The old one, I understand, has reached the end of its economic life. It's no longer cost effective to continue to maintain it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We sell it, we give it away, we put it in the dump? MS. FLAGG: We -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Trade it. MS. FLAGG: -- appreciate about -- Diane Flagg, chief emergency services. We appreciate about $700,000 for trade-in value and/or sell. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The proposal before you basically change a single-engine helicopter for a dual-engine helicopter, which would provide an additional safety margin while also increasing the carrying capacity for the helicopter, and providing more room, frankly, for the paramedics to perform emergency related procedures while the helicopter is in flight. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, the -- I understand that. The question is you got 253,000 here. Is that net? MS. FLAGG: That's a lease payment -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, that's lease. MS. FLAGG: -- a 10-year lease payment, with a -- after 10 years, a balloon payment. There are other options to fund it, but that's one of the options. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So we'll see this figure each year then? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Same figure? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In the meantime, we're going to get 700,000, I think you said, for the old one -- MS. FLAGG: For a trade-in. Page 57 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and put that into -- MS. FLAGG: Right. So we would not -- the total purchase price we wouldn't have to fund because we're counting in that $700,000 for a trade-in. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody have objections to that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I support it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Shall we continue to wait for Commissioner Constantine, or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we have three on that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You got four on it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, good. MS. FLAGG: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's next? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within parks, 306, on Page -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Give me a page, would you? MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- A-61. There is no general fund transfer required to fund the projects. There's existing fund balance to fund the projects that are proposed for the upcoming year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good, I assume nobody has a problem with that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's impact fee funded? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, it is residual fund balance in your 306 general fund supported capital. But required no new money in fiscal year 2000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Decisions we've already made. Okay, anything else? Anybody have library or museum questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to need to find something to cut sooner or later. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Library is essentially replacement library books that would not be impact fee eligible, so there's a certain amount that have to be replaced on an annual basis that are not impact fee eligible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions? Not any cuts available there, as far as I can see. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Museum capital funds on Page A-63. There is $60,000 for digital imaging work station. It will allow them to catalog old historical photographs, et cetera, and preserve them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How are they doing it now? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe they have -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Manually. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- a manual collection of old photographs. MR. FERNANDEZ: Old photographs that are deteriorating. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tom? MR. OLLIFF: You move through your budgets faster than I can get to a microphone. For the record, public services administrator Tom Olliff. Currently we are doing it manually, and we're having to send those out to a local photo lab to try and make copies of those. And that photo lab is no longer going to do them. And because of the system of negatives that we currently have, the closest lab is going to be in Miami. So this is a system that allows us to actually dump everything into a computer, put it on thumbnails so the public can actually come in, look at a series of thumbnails on a screen and decide which Page 58 June 18, 1999 pictures it wants a copy of, and we can charge back for that service once we get the photos on line and in the computer system. CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: How much -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have any idea how much we gain from that a year, Tom? I mean, this -- it becomes a little revenue producer over time. Do we ever pay for this? MR. OLLIFF: It's probably going to take us the better part of two years to download all of the photos that we have in archive into the computer system. So I don't want to stand here and tell you that it's going to start making money next year, but I do believe that we ought to be able to start charging for that, at least one more fiscal year from now once we get the -- a portion of those on line. And yes, it will start to generate some revenue, but it's going to depend strictly on how many public requests for copies of photos that we get. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have any track record today on what we get? MR. OLLIFF: Right now we're probably doing, I would say -- and this is just off the top of my head, from talking to Ron about the number of clients that come in and ask for photos. It is a surprising number. We probably get somewhere between 15 and 30 requests for photocopies every month. So it's probably on average 300, 365 a year, you know, almost a one-a-day kind of request. Because there's a lot of people doing historic research type writing work here. And we'll try and generate enough monies to certainly pay for itself in the second year once it's on line. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hate to say it, but reluctantly, this is one that I would flag for cut. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not sure I'm ready to do that. If you get 365 requests a year, and I don't know what you charge for that service, I'm looking for how soon you can be paid back. I mean, I guess it could be deferred a year, but -- MR. OLLIFF: This is much more a customer service issue than it is anything else. If somebody comes in today and they're looking for historic photos of Everglades City, we have to honestly go to boxes and sit down with them. We have to go with them through photo negatives one by one until they find the photos that they want. And at this point, we're going to have to then send those negatives to Miami, have the reproductions made, have them sent back here, and it's probably going to end up being from a public standpoint a two to three-week turnaround time on those kinds of things. So it's a customer service issue for us, and it's an efficiency issue for us, because we can't even tell you exactly what's in the archives in the way of historic photos. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody want to weigh in? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't have any objection to it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Three. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, stayed in. Stormwater capital. We went as slowly as we could. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. I had to do something. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sure. Stormwater capital is where we are now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-64. Page 59 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got it. There's new funding in here of significant amounts of dollars. One is the Lely canal. But that's going to come back, right? That's going to be an MSTU, the three and a half million dollars? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. None of that is actually proposed with general fund money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So of this -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: There's 1.2, 1.3 million proposed in general fund money. That is all grants and that is projected -- funding for that is shown to be repaid through loans or loans to be repaid through the creation of an MSTU. For that project for it to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I need you to say that one more time. I apologize. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Lely canal, with spreader and structure, it's 3.46 million dollars. The second project, the far right-hand column it shows The YF 2000 requested funding. One million five of that is grant funds. 2.1 would be loan to be repaid through the creation of an MSTU. It is not proposed to be funded with county-wide ad valorem dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So as you take us through those, are there others that we've previously considered, or is that the only one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Previously considered. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, Sperling Court drain, it's a teeny little number on there, but I know we've talked about that already. Avalon School I think we talked about. Gateway I think we talked about. It gets confusing, because that's so much in the front of my brain. But like that Lely canal project, we've already approved that. Are there others on here that are not new? Or would you like to present these in a different way? Maybe that's not the right question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to ask you about Gateway, because we have talked about some of that. And I just want to make sure I have a clear understanding of what we're doing there. And I know there are other costs that are paying for that other than this. I need a better understanding of that. MR. BOLDT: For the record, John Boldt, stormwater director. Yeah, you're right, Commissioner, all these projects are basically all been approved in previous budget carryforward. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. MR. BOLDT: Particularly that Lely one, and it is -- the county - - a large portion of that has already been paid through all their mechanisms, studies and engineering we're doing, and that will be all credited back when we create the taxing district next year. The same applies to that Gateway Triangle. This is our so-called alternate two-way system, which includes that two and a half acre pond site that we just approved recently. And again, if we're successful in getting this -- all the easements and permits to do this work in the engineering, we would ask that we go out and borrow this money, pay for it this next year, then repay that with proceeds from the taxing district in the following year. Just because of the timing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this would be just how we've done it, for example, in Naples Park and Lely -- MR. BOLDT: Naples Park and Lely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the county spends money -- MR. BOLDT: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- so that we can get ready to go forward Page 60 June 18, 1999 with the MSTD. MR. BOLDT: The taxing district's kind of a drawn-out process, and just a matter of timing. Someone will have to borrow the money to pay it back the following year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there any on here that you would highlight for us as projects that we haven't previously talked about? MR. BOLDT: Not that I can spot right offhand right away. These are all projects that have been continuing on one phase or another. We've already instigated -- or instituted various portions of it, going from one phase of the study to another, or into construction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris has a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Boldt, do you expect to spend this whole 3°6 million dollars in the fiscal year, get it all spent? MR. BOLDT: That -- the total of this project is still estimated to be some 16 million dollars. And this would be like Phase I, which would be the lower portion. And if we're successful getting our permits and easements, and we're already ready to go into engineering, we would propose to spend every penny of that three million six in the next fiscal year, to be followed by other phases over the next few years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where are we, by the way, on the permitting? Are we ever going to get it? MR. BOLDT: Well, yes, we're going to get it. Hopefully within the -- by the end of the summer we hope to have it. It's been a long drawn-out process. We now have the Water Management District pretty much convinced. We're working on the Army Corps of Engineers. It's a very long and excruciating process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And by the way, board members, I think I've said this before, but if we don't end up getting those permits sometime soon, I think we ought to sue them. Because we're talking about a health, safety and welfare issue here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, you know, if we sue to have just a single point discharge and get this water off of those people down there, then maybe they'll wake up and give us a permit. But if we have to do that, then maybe we have to do that, just to get their attention. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What point, Commissioner, do you think we have to initiate that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we've been trying to get these permits for what, 10 years, John? MR. BOLDT: Nine years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nine years. And they told us how they wanted it done at one point. Here's the sick part -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right, it was their idea. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- they told us how to do this once, and when we went and did that and went back for the permits, they said well, can't do this. MR. BOLDT: Start all over again. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That time might be Monday. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Enough's enough. If we can't get the permits, let's go to court and get us a discharge down there to get that water out of there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that the -- who's the agency that gets in our way? MR. BOLDT: At this point it's the Army Corps of Engineers. And quite honestly, the difficulty is we're dealing with biologists who Page 61 June 18, 1999 don't understand engineering principles. It's just very difficult to work through this complex project. They're used to looking at 48-acre projects by itself. And when you put a regional project together like this, it is complex, and it's just very difficult for them -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One would think that the Corps being the agency in charge of those inter-jurisdictional kinds of issues would be the agency that's able to understand a broad project like this, but apparently it's been a problem for them. MR. BOLDT: It's being done on a local level. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this case it's the corps of biologists. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know. Are there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In any event, that's just a side comment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's an important one. Are there other questions, then, on the stormwater capital? Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- and you touched on it, but I wanted to give -- I figured you knew better than anybody, if you could just explain to me that breakdown on Gateway. I don't have a problem with it, I just want to understand it clearly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. I wish I could do something more clever and creative than I am able to do to get some extra benefit for those guys in the Gateway. What was really happening is that John is very carefully monitoring to be sure that what the county is spending is going to be credited toward the county's contribution to the overall project, just like we did in Naples Park and just like we've done in Lely and otherwise. I was kind of hoping he was going to miss that, but apparently he's not. But we expect to have an MSTU in place. Deborah Preston and others are sending out that -- you know, a year ago I tried to get us to do it. And they're sending out the polling information now. We expect to have that in the next few months. We have our last meeting. MR. BOLDT: September 9th. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, September 9th, on the redevelopment standards for the Gateway. We expect in the next few months to have the zoning overlay coming to us hopefully by the end of the year. We -- Bayshore, who went ahead and created their MSTU, we expect to see some serious landscaping in the ground there by the end of the year. So it's part of why I've been so pushy about that East Trail beautification, is because as slow as this process is, it's beginning to come together. And it's just been so slow in the making. But we're on the edge of seeing something actually on the ground. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the cusp. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On the cusp. Good word. If there's anything else on stormwater. If not, I got a note from Abe Skinner just now, saying that he wanted to be here for wrap-up on Monday and needs a time certain. MR. FERNANDEZ: We told him 9:00, we'd just take him first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then Commissioner Constantine asked me if we had talked about county-wide capital improvements. A-58 and A-59. I said no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: County-wide. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we want to go back and look at those? Page 62 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just I had a couple of items that I highlighted. And I do apologize for coming in tardy. I was actually talking to the school board chair that I've been trading calls with for a week and we finally got each other. Computer system network improvements for 107,500 needed a little explanation. Also, the 800 megahertz radio. I didn't know if that was what we had programmed. I know we had programmed some every year to plug in. I didn't know if that was the number we had expected anyway or if that was over and above. And I thought Mr. Ochs could probably tell me. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I can. For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. Actually, that's not for additional work station computers at all. That is for a -- what's called a data gateway switch to add to your 800 megahertz system to allow you to do mobile data communications for your field operations, primarily in public safety. We've had some interest expressed on the part of both the Sheriff's Office and your EMS department, to be able to have laptop computers in their vehicles, be able to have traffic background checks and those kinds of things, leveraging your 800 megahertz system. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically we bought the laptop computers for in the cars, and now this is the system to enable that to operate? MR. OCHS: Yes, but this is just one piece of hardware. And I should tell you that we've had meetings as recently as a week ago with the Sheriff's Office. They are looking at a couple other types of technologies that do this mobile data, and we're working jointly with them to try to develop the best joint recommendation to bring back to this board. So this is an initial plug figure for that project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that actually raised the question further for me, is projects not recommended included the mobile data infrastructure. And if we're not going to do that, maybe you can tell me why we need this particular key, Gateway, whatever it is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where is that not recommended? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next page. Two and a half million, which I agree with, but I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where is it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, Page A-60, right here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which I agree with. But I'm just -- if we're not going to do that, then what -- I was wondering what the necessity of the Gateway was. MR. OCHS: Well, actually, that was a request from the Sheriff's agency to fund one of the other technologies for mobile data that they were exploring. Quite frankly, in looking at three or four of the different technologies with the Sheriff, at this point it looks like we would probably need for a legitimate front end cost about a million dollars to do the infrastructure that's required for mobile data. And that's for all of the agencies that are currently served on your 800 megahertz system. So the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I just -- I don't recall, and maybe my recollection is faulty, but I don't recall the board making a firm commitment that yes, we were going to do that system-wide or for the sheriff or anything else. And I need a little more convincing before I'm ready to say yeah, we're going to do that system-wide. And if we're not sure we're going to do that, then I don't want to plug in a number for infrastructure, whether that's a -- Page 63 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Haven't we bought part of that stuff already? MR. OCHS: Yes, I can tell you that the Sheriff and EMS certainly want to do that as quickly as a system can be put in place. But, you know, we're trying to plug a figure in that will serve us over the next 15 to 18 months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we have physically bought these computers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, no. I mean we haven't bought into the concept system-wide yet. I don't think we've had a full presentation -- MR. OCHS: That's correct. Although Commissioner Mac'Kie is correct as well, that -- my understanding is the Sheriff's agency has already purchased through grant dollars a number of laptop computers that they intend to use in their squad cars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As I understand it, they're just waiting to install those, or the process may have already begun for installation of those. MR. OCHS: No, they're waiting for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This? MR. OCHS: -- ultimately a funding source for the infrastructure that would'allow them to plug those actually into a modem in the vehicle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe this needs to be flagged. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, which means like it's the cart before the horse. You went and bought these units in hopes that they'll buy off on the entire system. And I realize that was grant money, but it's still money somewhere that they're spending. And I understand they have some limited use now, they don't have their maximum use, because -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The cyber dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. OCHS: Again, I think the sheriff's representatives would be better able to answer that than we would. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need a clear -- I still can't tell you what that -- MR. OCHS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Gateway is going to do for 107,500 if we don't already -- if we haven't already committed to doing this system-wide on our side, forgetting the Sheriff for a minute. What is this going to do that we need today, that this board has already approved? MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask John to go ahead and give a little background on that. MR. DALY: Your question was -- John Daly, radio communications manager. Your question was what would the data gateway do for us? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This $107,500 item, what would it do for us that the board has already committed to do? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's actually 325. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong item. 325,000. I had both of them highlighted, actually. MR. DALY: 325, that item is a -- the 800 megahertz system has a switch which runs audio data or audio signals county-wide. If a unit keeps up its radio, the car and switch we have routes the audio to whatever tower site that unit's on. The data gateway is a switch for mobile data. It would allow Page 64 June 18, 1999 mobile radios using the 800 megahertz system to be connected to a laptop to transmit data, and would allow the 800 megahertz system to correctly steer that data to the appropriate unit in the field that made the request for information. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And at what point has this commission committed to a system-wide data system like that, and for how much? Because I don't remember us doing that. MR. DALY: I don't believe in -- it was viewed as an option in the original proposal from Erickson, but there was never a commitment from the board nor a request from the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point exactly. And if we don't have the commitment to do that, then why are we spending a $325,000 item for something you haven't even asked us to do yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess this is them asking us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then, we don't have a presentation on what departments are going to use it, what -- I mean, to put the first step in process without knowing what the rest of those are just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe I can kind of maybe ask a question that's more direct to the point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You say, Mr. Ochs, that the Sheriff has bought some laptops to use, but he can't use them right now, right? MR. OCHS: That's what I'm told, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would the installation of this switch then allow him to use those? MR. OCHS: My understanding is yes, it would. But again, I must again tell the board that the Sheriff is looking at some different types of mobile data technology, not necessarily this one. That's what led him to request in his capital request two and a half million dollars, because he was originally looking at -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because he's more interested in Motorola than he is in using the system we have right now? MR. OCHS: Yes, but again, he's looked at a third system, so, you know, that's why I use that number of about a million dollars, because CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if this isn't a Sheriff's number -- MR. OCHS: -- he's looking at a cell phone technology. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whose request is this? MR. OCHS: This is the number that your staff is telling you if you want to do 800 -- or mobile data through your existing 800 megahertz system, you need this piece of equipment to allow us to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the proper user is the Sheriff, and he's not interested in this, so it looks like a cut to me. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what my whole point is, what you're saying. If you want to do a mobile data system, we've never had a presentation on that. So unless I'm convinced why I want to do that, I don't want to do something I don't know anything about. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that that is the point. We're getting into a new dimension, essentially, of the 800 megahertz system. It seems as though that process already started with the Sheriff's acquisition of his laptops. But we haven't had that discussion about moving into the mobile data area. Page 65 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So how do you -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I guess my question would be how does this serve the county agencies, the Board of County Commissioner agencies? MR. OCHS: In the same manner that it would allow field operations, primarily EMS and your building officials, inspectors in the field, to receive data through their radio systems. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sounds to me like nobody's dying for this, and so it's a nice $325,000 cut. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if in the coming year sometime you can explain to us all the efficiencies of where those various departments will use it and so on, then I'll be happy to look at it next year. But never having had that, I don't think -- I agree with you, nobody's done that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't hear anybody saying we've got to have this, so click. Is there another vote for cut? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which then takes me to the item just above that, which is 107,500. What are those improvements? MR. OCHS: Those are improvements to your computer network county-wide to build some additional redundancy and reliability into your network. It's essentially purchasing some spare computer network components so that if we have a lightning hit or one of the server work stations that provides the software for word processing, spreadsheets and all those things happens to malfunction or go down, we have a component we can bring back on line so we're not off line for a couple of days. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have an additional redundancy. Do we not have any of that now? MR. OCHS: We have some of it, but we're trying to improve the reliability of our network. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think I need to take a lot of the blame for this one. I've been all over Bill Coakley about the fact that I think the computer system and the information systems have reached the point of our dependence on them just like the light switch and the water and the faucet. And we need to be in a position to provide that service as reliably as those other two utilities that I've talked about. And many cases when the system does go down, I ask questions, what takes us so long to get it back up? Excuse me, is there a question? It must be funny, I'd like to hear it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I hear what the administrator is saying, is that we need to upgrade this system and make sure that we could stay on line and provide the services. And currently we are very vulnerable not to do that and could be shut down for two or three days -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that accurate? Are we very vulnerable? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, we're not in a position to get through these periods of breakdown with almost a seamless provision of service, as the electric company is and as the water providers are. This is the kind of backup equipment that I'm told we need to put us in a posture of being able to replace systems that typically fail, or components of the system that typically fail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And will this pretty well guarantee Page 66 June 18, 1999 that seamlessness? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that's a bad word to use at budget time. Guarantees, I've learned, that is something that the commission -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question is what percentage of -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think we can guarantee that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like a no. What percentage of the total budget for capital -- computer capital costs is $107,0007 Is this 10 percent of our total equipment needs? I mean, are we going to have 10 percent of our total equipment sitting in a closet somewhere, or are we going to have one percent? If this is extra stuff lying around to replace stuff that gets shot out by lightning or otherwise, how much -- what percentage of stuff is it? MR. BERRIOS: Mike Berrios, communications manager for the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you like that technical lingo? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Technical lingo, stuff. MR. BERRIOS: What we're proposing is not stuff that's going to sit -- although some of it will sit in a closet. The costs include something called server cjustering, which basically means we have two computer systems that talk to the same data source. MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, Mike, what is the percentage? How does this number compare to the total amount we've got invested in the computer system? Rough guess. MR. BERRIOS: Less than 10 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Less than what? MR. BERRIOS: Less -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Is it one percent? MR. COAKLEY: Bill Coakley, information technology director. I'm sorry? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We still haven't heard. MR. COAKLEY: About one percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So you have a million and a half. That makes about six percent -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You have one percent -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 6.66 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hope we don't have 10 million dollars invested in computers. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it's 10 percent. If we got a million and we're asking for 100,000, I believe that's 10 percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought he said a million and a half. COMMISSIONER CARTER: A million and a half? Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess it's not just a matter of what percentage, but I -- you know I go back to my aircraft days. Different parts you could say yeah, it's only seven percent of the aircraft, but if you don't have an engine, you know, you're out of luck. And so in relative importance, where do these parts come into the picture? MR. COAKLEY: Well, you're looking at if we had failure of the major servers for the county, we would have upwards of 500 people who wouldn't be able to access data that's stored on the computer networks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Be almost as bad as E-bay. MR. COAKLEY: So the idea is to minimize the amount of downtime. The current configuration that the county has, if we lose one of our primary servers, we're out of business until we get a replacement part or parts into the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, realistically, what's the time Page 67 June 18, 1999 frame? And, you know, I know if I needed it, we'd have an aircraft without a propeller. You're not going anywhere without a propeller. But I bet I could find one in six hours' time and get that plane off the ground again. So rather than stock extra propellers for every aircraft, all of which costs 150,000 per, I would, you know, just know where they were. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the possibility of us doing that here? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, Delta has an 800 number, they'll deliver in 24 hours. Is that the same for you guys? MR. COAKLEY: It -- we could probably get the equipment within 24 hours, but that's not the only component that's involved in bringing this system back on line. If we have -- depending on what fails, we could be upwards of 24 hours, just for some of the recovery process and rebuilding from the tapes we make of backups. This isn't redundancy for everything in the computer network. We're asked to take a look at the entire computer data infrastructure -- or the county state infrastructure and identify the areas that we felt were the most vulnerable. This is providing backups for two main filing print servers and the system that's going to run the county's payroll. And we felt that that's a component of this, as well as the equipment that that plugs into. So if we lost the propeller -- or if we lost a shaft, but we had a spare propeller, it wouldn't help. So we just identified those areas that would cause the greatest negative impact to the county employees if we had a failure. So it's not redundancy for the entire structure, it's just those key components that we felt if those fail, we can't work. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we can't solve it in 24 hours? MR. COAKLEY: We could probably get the hardware here within 24 hours. It would depend on what failed and what the availability of that equipment is. In some cases we can get the stuff very quickly, but without having maintenance contracts that covered that type of replacement, we may not have it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But this includes those kinds of maintenance contracts? MR. COAKLEY: The maintenance contracts are included in our operating budgets. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So here's what I'm trying to get at. If I'm asking -- if the question is you spend $100,000 to avoid a 24-hour delay so that we have equipment handy so that our maintenance contract that we already have could come in and plug it in. Is that the question? If it's a 24-hour lag, then I might rather spend $100,000 on that stormwater equipment instead of on this computer equipment. Because it's never on the stormwater, or it's 24 hours on the computer. So is that the question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's something wrong here. There's definitely something wrong. Because I'm starting to agree with you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, my God. I'm scared. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, wait a minute -- you're looking at the tip of the iceberg here. If you're shut down for 24 hours, what is your cost? What is your operational cost? If you've got several hundred people sitting around and can't do what they need to do, that happens a couple of times, what does that cost you? So I think it's very difficult to look at one piece of this. I Page 68 June 18, 1999 vote to keep it there, because it's necessary to maintain a system to keep us running. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It only buys us 24 hours, though, that's what I'm looking at. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. COAKLEY: Well, potentially 24 hours. I mean, without having a track record, we can't say. We haven't had any major failures. We've been very lucky. It's a business decision, though, to what the cost to the county -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hey, you're arguing a case against yourself. You're saying we've never had a major failure, so let's spend some money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah0 And what would be interesting is -- we've never had that. Can you cite examples that Lee County did or Pinellas County did. Are there places that have a similar system in place to us that this has been a problem, or has there -- there's no recordable history or we know of that never happening? And it's important that we compare apples to apples to somebody with a similar system. But if nobody has ever experienced that type difficulty, then maybe we're overreaching. If it's a realistic thing in looking at production, IBM has a great ad on television that looks that way, where everybody is sitting in their desk, you know, hundreds of people doing nothing. And we don't want to create that situation. But is there a history anywhere on this? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I'll defer to Bill about the history in other communities. I'm basing this on our history, the things that I've experienced, the things that I have discussed with them about the dependability of our system. I've asked what is it going to take to improve that dependability, to improve the productivity of our staff so that we don't have the intermittent interruptions in our service. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, I just thought of another argument against this, and that is that's what reserves are for. This is like reserves for computers on top of reserves. I mean, if we have some emergency crash, then that's -- why not go to all that dang money we're collecting and not spending? MR. FERNANDEZ: But it came from my questioning, why does it take so long for us to get back up when we go down. And the answer was because we're not in a position to expeditiously move in there, replace the component that's failed and get you back up in business quickly, because we don't have it readily available. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wonder if they answered your question or if they answered a different question. Because what they're telling us today is that this is equipment redundancy for systems that have not yet failed. MR. FERNANDEZ: But are the most critical. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But are the most critical. So we'll have the engine but we won't have the small part that you're looking for, because these two don't match. You asked one question, the answer doesn't match. Do you understand? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think when we're talking about an emergency -- and this is a good example, when you're talking about what's the cost efficiency here, it's not just a matter of okay, we can have that shipped overnight FedEx. I mean, Delta Dash or any one of the airlines can ship you something and you have it in literally Page 69 June 18, 1999 hours, four hours. If it's from Atlanta you can have it in two hours. I mean, wherever the vendor is depends on your amount of time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Drury can go get it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Drury in his airplane can go pick it up. There are ways to respond immediately in that, in this wonderful age we're in. So I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's just poll the board. No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Especially if we're going to use -- anybody want to put that money over in the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, just checking. I didn't say Healthy Kids. I was going to say stormwater. But moving on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple items on the next page as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody got anything else on A-587 Good, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Communications equipment. Replacements, which may be fine. I just don't know what that is. And I assume this is out of the Sheriff's Office. And also the photo lab. I thought we actually funded a photo lab like two years ago. And at the time had a long debate. But with all the amount that you guys do over there, and particularly the nature of work you're doing, I think you made your case at the time. But I'm wondering, are we recreating a photo lab, are we expanding a photo lab? What is the extra $85,000 there? MS. MYERS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jean Myers, budget analyst for the Sheriff's Office. Yes, you are correct, Commissioner Constantine. We do have our own photo lab, and I believe it was about four or five years ago when we did buy that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time flies. MS. MYERS: I know, the years fly by. We are looking at -- that is -- first I better read this, get this out. Apologize that Lieutenant Scott Barnett, he was here yesterday in anticipation that maybe we would get to some of the other capital, but he -- I apologize he is not here. He is the expert on this. He is at the hospital with a kidney stone. So I will try and answer your questions as best I can today, and with his request if it could still be flagged for Monday if I do not answer them sufficiently. But he currently has a system that is very outdated, needs a replacement. They're having a hard time getting replacement parts. It's breaking down. They are looking -- this is a digital system. I do have some examples of the -- from the vendor of the quality of the pictures. Like right now, we are able to do this. I believe this is called like a -- you can get it now even with -- like at Wal-Mart. But the one that our system currently does with the -- shows the whole roll of film, it's like this big. This is a much better quality and is much larger. And then what our investigators do, when -- if this is their roll of film and they say I want pictures two, five and six, they can go to something like this, instead of again, reprinting the whole roll of film or having them blown up to three-by-five or eight-by-ten or whatever. Page 70 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask if we could flag this? We could leave it in, if you want. But I would like to just hear Scott's explanation. Particularly, I don't know what the breakdown history on the other is. I mean, if you've got something that's not working and you have a need there, that's fine. I just don't want it to be boy, digital is available now, wouldn't it be great if we had that. And maybe he can -- because I know -- I mean, he's using it on a daily basis, so he may be able -- MS. MYERS: Yes, he is. Even with the digital cameras, the -- with court presentations, we are still using this. The majority is 35 millimeter pictures, because of the capability with the digital cameras, that they can be altered. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's not great for evidence for you guys. MS. MYERS: Well, yes, we do use them. Then they have to also have the investigator or what other law enforcement -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Testify. MS. MYERS: -- in court that it has not been altered, it's the original image. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just if we have a lab that works reasonably well now, and digital is the only step up for 85,000, that's probably not worth it. If the other one is failing, then it's something they clearly need, so maybe he can just clear that up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would you mind asking him if he's well enough to be here on Monday to talk to us about that? MS. MYERS: His plans are that he would love to be here on Monday. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the other item, the communications equipment replacement, is that -- what are those? Is that just radios, is that -- MS. MYERS: Those are -- yes, it's about two percent of our radio inventory for replacement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Already, huh? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. There aren't many other issues on the page, but are there other questions on A-597 COMMISSIONER CARTER: One more question, Chairman, before we leave this area of technology, which is troublesome for me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Technology? COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's troublesome because I don't want to see us end up paying a big price downstream for us being penny wise and pound foolish. And I think the informations technology department needs to get back to us and give us some comparisons that was asked by this board, what are other counties doing, what are the backup systems, are we making ourselves vulnerable? I'm going to suggest that you do your homework between now and Monday, and maybe you get a chance to bring this back and talk to us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So instead of a cut it would be a flag for Monday? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did not have it as a wrap-up item. I had it as a cut. I thought I heard at least three commissioners that said that. I appreciate your concern, but I just -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just going to go on the record -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is the computer redundancy -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The department of redundancy department. Page 71 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's definitely three cuts. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I wouldn't mind letting them make their case on Monday. Sorry, Barbara, pressure again. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Make the case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Make the case on Monday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about if they can make their case Monday, we'll consider putting it back in. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. That's how I would count it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Out for now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Out for now, let them make a case on Monday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And good luck. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. On the projects requested but not recommended on A-60, was there anything there that anybody wanted to talk about? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One more Sheriff's question before we leave. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. MYERS: Can I make a comment on that, Commissioner Mac'Kie? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's let Commissioner Norris ask his question first. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Last year we spent some money on Y2K software. Are we ready? MS. MYERS: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MS. MYERS: We've been up since April 1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good answer. Yes, and you had a comment. MS. MYERS: Yes. On the requested but not recommended regarding our imaging project, this is a continuation of year two. We had requested a million dollars that went to the county administrator, and that was cut in half. We did send a letter to him dated January 2nd -- or excuse me, June 2nd requesting -- he asked our -- you know, to just cut it in half. We actually need $105,000 back to make it $605,000, to make us so that we can get through the next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you arbitrarily cut it in half, as requested. MS. MYERS: The county administrator did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the reason -- but -- MS. MYERS: And he asked us to reply back on what would it take to get us through the next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you understand what she's talking about, Bob? Can you support that or disagree with that? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the number they've given us to continue the progress that's been made on the project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we would have to -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We didn't know that at the time we made the cut. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's that number? MR. FERNANDEZ: 605, instead of the 500. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: An extra 105. MR. FERNANDEZ: So they're asking for 100. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 105 instead of the 500? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you spent that 107 on that 105 -- I'm sorry. I think they've spent about 14 times the same $100,000. Just like home. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where will we get that 105 from? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, is your 500 not useful without the 1057 I mean, we might as well either cut the 500 or -- Page 72 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five's not recommended, is it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, the 500 is recommended. MR. FERNANDEZ: The other five was. They asked for a million, we gave them 500,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, great. So without the other 105, we'll be able to save another half million. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's essentially it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is fantastic. You are so sharp. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we've got to give them the other 105. That's one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or we could not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or we could cut the program altogether. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which one's this, Pam? MR. FERNANDEZ: Imaging Phase II. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Records imaging, Phase II, they're asking actually for 605 instead -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Instead of five. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of five that appears in our book. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Jean, do you want to talk about what records imaging is, that this is Phase II? MS. MYERS: I'll try my best. I'm not the expert. I'm not the imaging -- not even the specialist. But we are in the -- we have purchased the equipment. We were imaging. Our HR department is -- it was one of the first. They're up and running. We're -- right now they are starting to do all the offense incident reports, all the -- in records, if you've ever been in records, of course all the miles and miles of files. Those are scheduled for fiscal '99. It will be a continuation of projects like that. And in the meantime, as your storage capacity on disk arrays, next year is the purchase of a disk array for more storage and scanners. We're trying to get our time cards and requisitions imaged to save on paperwork and the time that it takes from a requisition department to get all the paperwork through to the correct signatures and to purchasing and to get those items purchased. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this equipment -- I mean, is this $605,000 that if you don't have you won't be able to use the equipment you bought last year? MS. MYERS: It will get to a point we won't be able to use it, because it won't be able to hold any more information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How close are you to that point? MS. MYERS: We will be there next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you -- okay, what is that? Does that mean at the end of next year -- MS. MYERS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- middle of next year? October 17 MS. MYERS: If the 500,000 stays, we'll get to a point where you start doing more of the traffic citations and the conversion of the historical data. We'll get to a point where we won't be able to do any more, because we won't have any of the storage capacity, so -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that in the year 2000? Is that where you're telling us? MS. MYERS: Like April, 2000. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that a reserve item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think so. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It might be a reserve item. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could be. Why don't we do that? Let's -- I mean, I -- Page 73 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the whole six goes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no, no. Because then they got nothing to do. I was wrong about that they can't use it at all, as brilliant as that point sounded. The fact is that they can -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I withdraw my brilliance compliment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So noted. The 500, though, you use until they run out. Is there support for leaving the 500 in? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm in support of cutting 605, or cutting the five. We're not adding the other. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm supportive of keeping the five. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Without the five, what happens again? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They do nothing with the equipment this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just concerned about April. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no, no, April is when the extra 100 starts counting. There has been -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wait a minute. There's two questions here. I thought by April is when you had to tap the 500. MS. MYERS: No. That will be when the 500 runs out and we would need the extra 100. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What precisely are we buying with this 500? Precisely. MS. MYERS: We've already purchased the first phase of the -- the actual -- my understanding, that actually scans and images the documents. Now we need to progress on that and do things like time cards, requisitions. We're doing applications. So that scanner then, if we can't buy the disk storage arrays, we won't be able to do that. We'll just be back to the manual paper. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, but my question is, for 500,000 we're buying disk storage? MS. MYERS: No, no, no, no. We're buying -- there's also -- there's scanners and softwares, and we also -- the backlog of those documents, we have to get those in and scan them. And then other pieces of equipment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I would support the 500. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would not. Reserve item. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if it's a reserve -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: If it's six -- you said it was 605, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 605 for 12 months -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- 505 for nine months. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then, give them the 500 and keep the 100,000 for the reserve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's exactly what we ought to do. That's two. Is there a third? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What reserve? COMMISSIONER BERRY: If there's a reserve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Doesn't sound like it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a third? COMMISSIONER CARTER: He can keep it. But we want to reserve the 108 whatever it is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right, so you kept the 500. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, where's that 108 show up? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't. I think the point is just if they get in a bind next year, that's something they're going to Page 74 June 18, 1999 have to figure out on the reserves. And if they can figure out a way to get through the year -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We haven't established -- MR. FERNANDEZ: On the Sheriff's reserve? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- a reserve account yet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- no. That's at this moment since that -- that's our current policy. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not earmarking a reserve. That's up to them to do whatever they want with the amount we put in the reserve. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you find you need more, you'd have to come back and ask for a budget amendment. MS. MYERS: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MS. MYERS: We may also -- we may have the potential that we have some grant funds also. We're always looking for grant funds that will help us out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, in that case, I'm a cut. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. But it's already in. The 500's in. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The way you're talking you can find grants for it, I'm going to cut it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great, there's three. Moving along. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that what you said, that you can find grants for that 500,000? MS. MYERS: No, no, no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what they heard. MS. MYERS: For the 100,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, they just cut your 500. Talk to Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, where are you going to find grants? I'm confused. Where are you going to find grants? For how much? MS. MYERS: Anywhere. I'd have to talk to our grant coordinator. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She's saying that she could try to help make up for the 100,000, but if -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you working for the Sheriff's Department? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'm trying not to let miscommunications result in damages to operations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to stay with cutting it. They can -- they have a pretty good size budget. If they need to put $500,000 from something else into it, that will -- let that be their choice. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's three. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Three to cut $500,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep. We went back to that. On Page A-60, what I was bringing up is does anybody have anything on the requested but not recommended list that they want to consider adding? Didn't think so. Okay, we did parks, we did library museum, we did stormwater. We are finally to airport capital. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page is that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is A-65. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we adjourn till Monday? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, let's go on home. Page 75 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski, since lunch how much have we cut? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We haven't done too well on the cutting list. MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't have since lunch, we have total for the day. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Total for the day, general fund decrease of $372,200 inclusive of those changes you just made in 301. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sounds to me, though, like you have a legitimate budget brought to you if that's the only amount of money that you can find to cut. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's certainly looking that way. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And that does include the satellite building for the tax collector. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's 600 grand that bumps us back up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, airport authority capital fund. I just want to know what the $17 for scrub jays -- never mind, just kidding. MR. WILLIAMS: Could I say a couple of words? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You certainly may. MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Michael Williams, the chairman of the airport authority. By ESP and osmosis, I thought I heard an airplane flying in the air in the last half hour or so. I've been listening very attentively. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they were just revving the engines, but we won't know that until Monday. MR. WILLIAMS: Before we get to it, I think I'd just like to say a couple of words about -- particularly about Immokalee, which is a large geographic part of what we're trying to put together. We feel very strongly that we are creating a jump start to that community, and a lot of the things we're doing in the whole of the airport authority are geared towards that, to the Immokalee area. And we also feel that the money that you're loaning us is going to come back to you at some time. None of you may be sitting at the podium at that time, but we do believe that you should look at this kind of like a piggy bank. You're giving us a lot of money and we're going to pay it back to you, and we're going to pay it back with five percent interest, which is probably more than -- maybe more than you're getting at the bank now. So I'm not trying to be facetious, I do believe that we are that you're making an investment, a strong investment in that community, and already seeing a number of things: The drag strip, the incubator center, et cetera. And so I'll let John talk to the details, but I do believe that we are making a strong case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where are we on that, on the Phase I of the incubator? Give me a progress report how well that's going, or not. MR. DRURY: It should be completed by July 1st, and it's full. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's full? MR. DRURY: Yeah, the tenants will be moving in July 1st. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And like any good attorney, I might have keyed that up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Congratulations. Page 76 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's good. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is fantastic. Excellent news. MR. DRURY: For the record, John Drury, executive director for the airport authority. Just to echo the Chairman's comments, as you consider things like the aircraft investment in the buildings out there, there will come a day when this airport authority is self-sufficient and making a lot of money, like Naples did. Unfortunately, with the Naples Airport, when the county and the city gave the airport to the authority years ago, they didn't have an arrangement that the profits from the airport would go back to pay the investment. You have that here. So as you think about the dollars you're investing, it is kind of like a piggy bank for a rainy day. There will come a day when you're balancing your budget, the airport is self-sufficient and you're going to look at Mr. Smykowski and you're going to say how are we going to balance the budget this year. Oh, by the way, how much is the airport authority making? Well, they've got that big regional raceway out there; they pulled in two million dollars this year. They're going to bring in a million dollars to the Board of County Commission. That's our goal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You guys have sent him to some kind of sales training, haven't you? MR. FERNANDEZ: He's already been there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A very good one at that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is way better than -- MR. DRURY: The point being is that it's more than just investing in the buildings and the job creation and the economic development. You're actually putting it into a bank account with five percent interest. That's a lot different than the expenditures that you're doing for some of the other things, where you're spending it for just that day or just that year. With that, I guess I'll explain to you what we presented, and the difference between what is being presented by the county administrator. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before you do that, what we've been doing so far today is asking if there are any questions on the items that are recommended by the county administrator. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm looking at the list of stuff, and this is really things that we have talked about in the past. And it's just a continuation of the project itself, of having an airport authority. But if you go to 66 and look at the revenue sources, there's only $200,000 from the general fund. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the rest of it is -o you know, I don't see any reason to have an extended conversation here. I'm in favor of continuing what we've been doing all along, and I don't -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're asking for -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- want to make any changes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- $200,000 of capital money. MR. DRURY: That's not accurate. We asked for $686,000 to leverage three million dollars in grants. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the county administrator recommended approval of 200,000 of the 600,000. MR. DRURY: Which is 60 percent less than the business plan called for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So we're going to pause right here. It sounds like based on John's comment -- Page 77 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's silly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that nobody is objecting to the 200,000, which is just kind of how we've been going through this process. So now let's talk about the 400 that you're looking for that's not recommended. Is that all right with everybody? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's great. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. MR. DRURY: The manufacturing incubator building, Phase II, is a bonded warehouse, a U.S. customs office and a manufacturing assembly area and a wet processing area. The investment from the county's perspective is $139,000, again, a loan. For the $139,000, the return on that investment is 1.25 million dollars in grants. That's a 90 percent grant to build this facility. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have those in hand? MR. DRURY: We have one of the -- we have 750,000 of it in hand and 500,000 of it very close to in hand. And it will be in hand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might also point out, this is completely consistent with what we've laid out. And the best example is the Customs facility there. You recall we had to fight tooth and nail and with the assistance of Porter Goss got Collier County, particularly this facility, included in -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The FTZ. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not only in the FTZ, but in Customs clearance, so that we don't have to go through a bunch of the nonsense prior to getting that approval. You had extra charges every time we brought a Customs agent down here and so on. So we've actually -- that's -- for an economic development incentive, that is huge. And we went through a long process to make that happen so we could do this very thing. MR. DRURY: And we have several businesses that are looking at relocating out there because of the bonded warehouse being out there and the U.S. Customs office. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you take them? Because I think you're going to have three quickly in support for that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And do you want to hear the -- tell us the other side of that one, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Let me just say, that project is not in the business plan as we're reading it. We don't see that project in the business plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. How do you address that? MR. DRURY: There are two projects that aren't in the business plan. One is the drag racing facility, and the other is incubator. One of the things this business plan said up front was that it is -- it's going to respond to changing market conditions. And one of the things that changed in Immokalee was a huge need for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: NAFTA, basically, among other things? MR. DRURY: -- a bonded warehouse, a U.S. Customs office. It happened last year. And the need for these businesses to use that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me pause you. Mr. Fernandez one more time, and then let's --MR. FERNANDEZ: Another important point before we go further with this is that I found there were merits for these -- there was merit to these projects because of the matching ratio. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, big time. MR. FERNANDEZ: However, I felt that rather than take our precious capital improvement fund allocation for this, there was the Page 78 June 18, 1999 possibility to continue these projects by having them secure conventional financing for the local match portion, rather than have us be the bank, find the local commercial market for the bank. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a possibility? MR. DRURY: We are not in a legal position to take any loans from private banks. Only the Board of County Commission can do that. As the County Attorney's Office said, the only thing we can pledge is furniture. The Board of County Commission is the one than owns all the facilities out there. So the board could go out and take a loan out at a higher interest rate to fund authority projects. However, that is not the rules by which that business plan was set up. So we're changing the ground rules as far as funding the authority. Now, when -- if the Board of County Commission decides to take out loans to fund the authority, somebody's got to pay back the loans and the profit that those banks are going to want. Well, that's going to be the airport authority. That means that the payback to the Board of County Commission will be further out. We would rather have you loan -- put your money in our bank, if you will, with your five percent interest coming back to you rather than going out and spending additional dollars on private funding for these things. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You got my support for the 139. Anybody else on the incubator? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. But yesterday didn't we talk about a fund that we can tap? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commercial paper. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commercial paper is what, four or five percent? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Three. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Three? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Three percent. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, if they're paying us five and we can borrow it at three. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Lot to be said for that, isn't there? MR. DRURY: You do have -- you have some significant arbitration costs. When you go through the arbitration calculation costs when you start borrowing from commercial paper, you have to include that in there, and it can get pretty high. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we -- arbitration? That's close to the word. MR. FERNANDEZ: Arbitrage. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Arbitrage. MR. DRURY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's still three percent more than we need to be spending, even though it's -- MR. DRURY: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- not a great number, but it's three percent more than we '- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I support putting it back in. How we do it, I can go either direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. And that's the county administrator's job is -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It goes on your list. If you want to put it back in, it goes on the list. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing that we need to look at is the drag strip. That's going to be -- as long as we keep that and make those people happy, that's going to be a big cash cow. Page 79 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much does it cost us to keep that going? Because I'd like to do that, too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't cost us anything. We're making a fortune off that. MR. DRURY: The drag strip is our biggest revenue producer up there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's $125,000 of property money, though. MR. DRURY: We're looking at -- we're getting -- looking at a $125,000 grant from the Economic Development Administration, and a $125,000 match really to bring utility service out there to support the drag strip and meet the requirements of the International Hot Rod Association to hold a national or regional event. They anticipate bringing in 100,000 people into Immokalee. That's what we have to accommodate. The authority would receive $20 a head, which is two million dollars. The authority would be self-sufficient overnight, and coming back down here, presenting that to the Board of County Commissioners as our first payback. In addition to the potential of having a national event out there, they are paying us 50,000 -- they will pay us $50,000 a year annually for the fees that they charge for operating it as well. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: May I interrupt you? MR. FERNANDEZ: I was going to interrupt him myself. I think it's only fair to tell you what I told him, and that is my experience from the drag strip enterprise in Gainesville. The estimates that we had there that we were working with is that that was such a raving success that it -- it outdistanced the entire football season for the University of Florida in terms of economic development benefit to the community. This has the potential to be I think the biggest positive influence. And as I said, I recommended that we continue it, but by borrowing the money for the match. I was astounded when I first heard COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just. think what it will do not only there. We've got Roberts Ranch we're going to break out there. I mean, this is a gold mine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It almost ought to come out of EDC money, you know, community development for economic development, you know. But you guys have got to pay it back anyway, so sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we all want to see it, plus get creative on how we fund it? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And on both of those, as far as I'm concerned, I'd love to hear a recommendation on Monday about whether or not it's a three percent commercial paper loan, or it's straight out of tax money. I mean, just to do the math for us, what the net cost is. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's the bulk storage payment? MR. DRURY: We used to have 50/50 grants on those. That's a maintenance hangar facility. We talked the grant agency up to an 80/20 grant. The investment is $75,000. The grant will be $300,000. The annual income from that hangar, we'll be leasing it out to maintenance operation for aircraft maintenance, will be $35,000 a year. That will be 1.75 million dollars' income over the life of the project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it pays our money back in a year and a half. Page 80 June 18, 1999 MR. DRURY: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, our 35. You get 50 back in a year and a half. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? MR. DRURY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Fernandez -- MR. FERNANDEZ: This is in the business plan for next year, for the year 2001. Again, it's one that I had asterisked and indicated that we should proceed but finance the local portion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to see this -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Although it's not in the business plan this year. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll say -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Stay in. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- let's put it back in and let's just do CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you tell us how we should pay for it, whether it's out of straight taxes or again that commercial paper program. MR. DRURY: The last project is the emergency generator. We looked very hard to -- after the last hurricane that came through here, we found all the aircraft coming to our airport asking us if we could do fueling hot turnarounds. And this was everybody from the South Florida Water Management, Lee County Electric, all the people that are going to have to come in after a hurricane. The Sheriff's Department -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's hot turnaround? MR. DRURY: That means the engines are still running and you're fueling the aircraft, primarily' for helicopters. We recognize that the only' airport in Collier County that will not be under water is Immokalee. That's the only airport that we'll be able to rely on. However, the power will be out and, therefore, we can't fuel airplanes. And we can't have a terminal building that's operating. So all the aircraft after a hurricane are going to have to go to Lee County. Now, Lee County is going to take care of Lee County first and Collier second. And this was -.- we went and obtained an $80,000 grant for a $20,000 match to put in a generator system that will keep the fuel flowing, the runway lights on and the terminal building operating after a hurricane when the power's out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's hard again -- that's a good question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tourist tax emergency fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Tourist tax. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He said tourist tax emergency fund. MR. FERNANDEZ: Tourist tax? This is also not in the business plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but it's so hard to say no, though, when that's going to be a community-wide benefit -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get a legal interpretation between now and Monday on that'? MR. FERNANDEZ: You said something about that tourist -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For our emergency and response business? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. If we can do it for telephone systems or everything else that they use, why not? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ask the question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can go there. Page 81 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, well, let's check it out anyway. MR. FERNANDEZ: So we're going to flag that one, essentially? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Put it back in and figure out -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That might just be a nice source. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- a lot of paperwork. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's in, it's just how do we pay for it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you're on a roll, John. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That ~Dale Carnegie School is really working. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the Michael Williams Show. MR. WILLIAMS: Call him Grant Drury. MR. DRURY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what's our bottom line now, is it red or black? MR. SMYKOWSKI: $13,200. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We cut 13,000. All right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I bet we can shift some of those. You mentioned community development, we mentioned the tourist tax emergency. I bet some of those can be shifted around. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did that finish up our capital? MR. SMYKOWSKI: There were just two items that were not discussed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mitigation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mitigation, yes, vegetation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's going to happen to your project if you don't have that mitigation money? MR. DRURY: Well, we won't. be able to satisfy the Conservancy's concerns. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What about the permitting agencies? MR. DRURY: And the permitting agencies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because the Conservancy doesn't have authority. Can they turn down your permit if you don't have this money? MR. DRURY: No. They're a commenter. It's the permitting -- it's the Department of Environmental Protection who is requiring mitigation for the taxiway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And so if you -- MR. DRURY: And we received a -- what was our grant on that one? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Which are you talking about, which -~ COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Marco. COMMISSIONER BERRY: For the Marco? MR. DRURY: For the Marco parallel taxiway. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Gotcha. MR. DRURY: We obtained a $200,000 grant. And we needed a $50,000 match to do the mitigation. And we obtained a $200,000 grant, and we needed a $50,000 match to do the mangrove alteration. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question, though, was do you have your permit in hand? MR. DRURY: No, we do not. We're in the middle of the permitting process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then here's my suggestion on those two. Flag them for September. Because if we don't have any -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If we don't have a permit in hand, I don't want to -- we'll take them out at that time. I'd say we'd have to leave them for now, flag them for September, see if we get the permit. If not, what's the point of ~- Page 82 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are they already in? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, they're out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So are we flagging for a possible adding in September to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess we'll have to. MR. DRURY: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-hu~h. MR. FERNANDEZ: Since John was able to talk you into a redundancy system for the generator, I was wondering if I could ask him to ask you about the computers. Because he seems to be very -- MR. DRURY: Get a grant. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- eloquent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Get a grant. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You better have him go out and talk to your guys and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Just before they leave, I'd like to just give you a status report on the amount to date that the county has invested. It's $5,206,020. That's the amount to date of the loan he keeps talking about. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So go make money off that drag strip and pay us back, would you? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think if you'd look at a snapshot, particularly of the Immokalee Airport, it's most obvious. But if you look at a snapshot of the facilities, and it's money well spent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Evergilades City. Wonderful. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is. If we're through with capital, this might be a good time to talk about reserves for constitutional officers, and perhaps the alteration of county policy concerning those reserves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we done with capital? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe we can do that and then we'll take our break before we come back. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We don't have a legal representative here, do we? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll get one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question is, can we have one set of -- or one level of reserves set for the county manager's agency and another level of reserves set for constitutional officers? Any prohibition there with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or can we have a -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Flexible. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- lower level? Let's say -- I'm just picking this number at random. It doesn't have to be this. But could we have a county-wide policy of three, but just in some places you happen to exceed that. You know, three percent rather than our current policy of five, in some of those areas is -- where they're more prone to emergency, you might have a little higher number. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I'm really the wrong one to ask, because I have some strong opinions about that. And it's a legal question, really. My feeling is the statutes that we read to you the other day refer to the provisions for the limitations of reserves that are in the statutes, which means the 10 percent per fund. And within that, you have -- 10 percent per fund is in the statute. You have a local Page 83 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It could be something over and above that. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- you have a local policy, budget policy, you use every year that's five percent. And I was interpreting that section of the statute to say that that's really the only limitation you're under statutorily. There's some language in here -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 10 is an upper level? Is that what you're saying, 10 percent's an upper level? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No lower limit. There's language in there that says if -- and here again, my interpretation is if you choose to set up a reserve for the Sheriff or any other constitutional officer, for that matter, it should be along the same lines of the way you do it for the rest of your budget. We were arguing that we had those reserve needs covered by the amount that we had in the general fund. And of course, I've already lost that argument, but -- so I think -- and again, we need to check this interpretation with Mr. Weigel. But I think you have the flexibility to set your own reserve policies within those state guidelines. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I was going with my question was, you know, we may set a policy that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two-tenths of a percent? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, two and a half percent -- we may set it whatever we want it to be, unless a particular department makes some compelling argument that they need more. And, you know, there may be. I mean, community development, who knows, may need, or Ed Ilschner may need, gee, in the event of a hurricane, we've got.to get out and clear the streets and do these various things, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what Bob just said was that his reading of the statute. And David, this is why we called you down here, so come on, get on a microphone. Is -- we're talking about reserves for constitutional officers, and budget reserves generally. We understand that there's a zero to 10 percent range. The question is, can we -- does the percentage of reserves have to be identical among the different budgets under the county? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the question specifically, or the suggestion specifically I had made was what if you set a particular level of a county-wide policy of two and a half percent, whatever the number is, but two and a half percent. And then if during the course of your budget hearings one particular department makes a very compelling argument why'they may need three or four, or some number higher. Then you grant that, but your county-wide policy is still at two and a half percent. Is there any prohibition against that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: As you know, I'm a home rule advocate. And it seems to me that there are significant parameters for local government to make the decisions that are appropriate to make local government work. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was a yes, we could do that, I'm pretty sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: To give further evidence, I think to that is the fact that remember our report, we checked those six counties that the Sheriff had indicated did in fact have reserves for the Sheriff. The average -- of the six counties, the average amount they had was six-tenths of one percent. Less than one percent. Page 84 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But do we know how -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's an example -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- that compares with the other -- MR. FERNANDEZ: And that means -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- departments in those counties? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the rest of their budget I'm sure they have more than six-tenths of one percent for the reserve for the rest of their budget. That's the point I'm making there. So if they have that small reserve dedicated to the Sheriff, it didn't prevent them from setting a reasonable reserve for the rest of their county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we should -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't have that number. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- maybe we should set ours based on the very examples the Sheriff's Department brought to us. MR. FERNANDEZ: That was the reason I brought it up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we can be flexible, then we don't have to have this overall policy that we grant exceptions to. The best would be if we can set the appropriate level for each fund. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's my question. If it doesn't have to be uniform for each area, if you can -- if I could use the term be flexible or discriminate, depending on the situation, maybe it is six-tenths of one percent for the Sheriff. Maybe it's three percent for this group over here. But if we have that flexibility, I would like to see us do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. And, you know, this is -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For those of us who're been here for a while, Janet Vasey and some of those others who would come every year and ask us -- tell us we were over-reserving, over-reserving, this is what they've been telling us every year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to point out -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I missed Janet this year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I miss Janet, too, but we did get a letter from her from productivity committee. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I comment? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, and then we'll hear from Mr. Fernandez. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The history of the constitutional officers is that they generally turn money back to us, which means they don't really need much of a reserve account. I would recommend that we amend our county reserve policy to show two-tenths of a percent of reserve for the constitutional officers. That's what I would recommend. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd ]Like to look at them on a case-by-case, because I don't know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm talking a floor. If you want to raise some, you can raise some, but I'm talking a floor. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But generally that's what you're looking at, two-tenths of a percent. And if they come back before us and make a case, then we have to do a budget amendment; is that correct? If it's anything that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you always have a general fund reserve. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- t]hat's beyond that? Well, then what's wrong with that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know what's wrong with it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: NotShing's wrong with that. But see, Guy Carlton sat up here this morning and said I'm going to give you two Page 85 June 18, 1999 million dollars back. Why should we establish a big reserve account for Guy Carlton? What would be the point? MR. FERNANDEZ: And we have 2,253,000 budgeted. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It comes out -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, Guy's probably the best example for an efficiency where they actually do turn that around, and it's all fee paid and you get it back. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's his fee, sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But for some of these others where there -- it's money being expended or not year to year, then it's just kind of silly to have that money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski, if we cut all the constitutional reserves from whatever they presently are to two-tenths of one percent, what's the ad valorem millage repercussion of that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Huge. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to like it. That's why I want to know the answer, MR. FERNANDEZ: While he's looking, if I could just say something Mike and I have talked about. We discussed during this budget process we are at the point that the rate of expenditures exceeds the rate of revenues for continuing revenues. So we are in a position where we are spending more and more of fund balance. That's a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's that mean? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- situation that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't understand that. MR. FERNANDEZ: What we need to do, our recurring expenses -- our recurring expenses exceed our recurring revenues. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right.. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does that mean the money's there so you're spending it, or does that mean we're budgeting really tight? MR. FERNANDEZ: That means: that we are reliant upon a reserve amount to cover that gap, is the important point here. And I'm saying that that needs to be given consideration as we set these reserve amounts so that we ensure ourselves that we're going to be okay. The long-term solution is we've got to get our expenditure levels back in line so that we're not eating away at that reserve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wel]., I think what you're telling us is that -- and you're referring to the county manager agency? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm talking about the total budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Total general fund. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, well, the general fund then. I think what you're saying is we better put five percent reserves in general fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well., what I'm hearing is we better put the screws on so they get themselves back in line with only spending what their -- MR. BROCK: Are you all still speaking about reserves? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We are, Mr. Clerk. Please. MR. BROCK: I'd like to speak before you make a decision. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come right on up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That will cut down on the cigarettes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Two-tenths of one percent, ain't it? MR. BROCK: I don't smoke anymore, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where's the defibrillator? MR. BROCK: Before you make a -- my name's Dwight Brock. I'm the Clerk of Courts. And I happened to be sitting in my office watching this after I received a telephone call from Joe Mitchell. Page 86 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I would like to point out, if Guy is watching, it will take him a lot longer to run up here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Not after a comment like that, it won't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. BROCK: You receive money back from me every year, so I mean, the reserve issue, I don't have a dog in that fight. I have a concern with you reducing the reserve that exists now. And I don't know whether this is a real reserve or a real concern or whether it is just a concern that I have that may go away after we look at it. But I certainly do not want to do anything that would increase the cost of borrowing money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. BROCK: It has the potential of adversely impacting our ability to do that. I don't know that it will, but it's something that I would certainly want to do some research in before we do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. BROCK: There is also a provision in the Sheriff's budget. And the Sheriff came over and spoke to -- or in the Sheriff's statute, which says that you have to -- and I think it uses the word shall -- budget the reserves for the Sheriff. Not for all constitutionals but for the Sheriff, at the same rate that you budget them for all other county offices. Simply for information purposes. And, you know, I don't need a reserve, reserve, I don't have a reserve and I didn't even know there was a reserve in the county's books for the clerk of the circuit court. But I don't need them, so I'm not concerned about it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was -- I think you're right, it reads something similar to that. And that was my point earlier, saying we need to set a consistLent policy at probably lower than what we have right now. And then if there are a couple of departments that go higher than that -- and the example that I used was Ed Ilschner. Because we recognized, if there's a hurricane they've got to get out there and clean the roads, they've got to do those things. But the vast majority of our departments don't realistically need five percent. So if you set county--wide policy at whatever the number is, and you have one or two exceptions somewhere, then your policy is still clear and you can apply that to the Sheriff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've got one question, because I know Mike Smykowski is dying to tell us that this is bad fiscal policy. I mean, he tells us this every year when we start thinking about it. But this is a five percent reserve within each fund, and in addition to that we have what, for general reserves? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: State statute. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't have anything else? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if we cut the -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: In certain instances we do. In the general fund we have a cash flow reserve. But what you need to take into consideration is a reduction in reserves is a one-time salvation. You reduce the millage one year. The next year -- the other issue is the fund balance issue. Obviously you have a certain amount of fund balance which is available to fund operations before tax money rolls in late in ~- beginning in late November. You have to fund cash to the constitutional officers early on in the year without that money rolling in the door. The county's strong financial position is based in part, as told Page 87 June 18, 1999 to you as well by the auditors as part of their presentation of the CAFR, is based on having adequate fund balance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Get lots of money -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Cheating on fund balance is an easy solution. It's a short-term solution, though. And no, I am cautious and conservative, but -- and you also have to look in these smaller operating funds as well, these small MSTU's. A five percent contingency does not end up being a lot of money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Smykowski, I appreciate that. But just simply reducing the tax rate for one year may not be all that we're trying to accomplish here.. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think it will reduce by and large for that one year. But if we alter the policy and alter what expenditures, the year -- like this year where the Sheriff is going to have to dip into his reserve, well, when that reserve is altered next year, then it isn't just a one-time savings. I think if you're consistent from year to year and you never dip in and that money always carries over, then you would never have a savings other than the one year. Because there has actually been some use of that money, you're not necessarily going to have to replenish the whole amount when you change your policy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And t]hat's what Mr. Fernandez is telling us, too, that in his budgets in his agency, our staffs have gotten comfortable with the fact that there's this five percent cushion, so we're spending right up to the edge and sometimes going over into the reserve. And that's, you know, undisciplined. MR. FERNANDEZ: And based on what I said earlier, the way to address this problem is to budget a healthy reserve with the resolution that you're not going to spend it all in your year. And that builds that fund balance back up to the point where it needs to be, instead of having it erode away every year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that healthy reserve might be something less than five percent. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Let me iljustrate numerically the point Mr. Fernandez is trying to make. In the adopted '99 budget, general fund carryforward was 16.2 million d. ollars. Reserves budget were just shy of just seven million. That means essentially the general fund is upside down nine million dollars. If you spent every last dime and revenue came in at the 95 percent level, what would happen is you are spending nine million dollars more than you are taking in in a given year. That is the long-term issue that Mr. Fernandez is talking about as trying to get that more to an even keel so that you're not bleeding down fund balance. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm planning on working in that direction. It's not going to happen in one fiscal year. But we need to work on -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But also that's the analysis that Mr. Brock is pointing out, that those people who rate us for bonds are going to see if we start looking more upside down, if we start having more of those kinds of problems, then our bond rating could change, and the cost of borrowing money becomes much more expensive than anything we're saving here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Potentially. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Potentially. MR. BROCK: I mean, we are in an area, let's face it, where the potential for catastrophic impact on this community is great. The potential. And everybody likes that security blanket that we are dealing with who purchase our local bonds to give them that warm and Page 88 June 18, 1999 fuzzy feeling that they're going to get their money back. And that reserve level has a tendency to do that. And we should -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? MR. BROCK: -- do this after we observe great caution. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Probably the strongest thing I can say to you about this is that the clerk and I agree on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sort of like me and John agree on this. That's a scary thing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what you're saying is that we probably shouldn't reduce our reserves. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's what we're saying. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that's just -- you know, the total dollar amount maybe shouldn't be reduced, but the reallocation of where those reserves lie might be in order. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's where, Mr. Weigel, the question comes back in what Mr. Brock said to us, does the statute say thou shalt make the Sheriff's reserves match the reserves for all the other? MR. WEIGEL: Well, there's no "T" in there. But it does say you should follow the policy generally. And my follow-up on that is I think there is flexibility at the local government level to potentially have a policy that varies. Probably the fallback that potentially could occur under the Sheriff's statute is that the Sheriff could have no more than the highest level that you set. That level conceivably could be less than what you have in your current policy right now. And yet you may have different levels for different departments or divisions, responsibilities of county government. Remember, that's a Sheriff's ordinance, it's not a county government ordinance in general. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The effect of that is what? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the effect of it is is that I'm not saying that the Sheriff's -- Sheriff's law, I shouldn't say statute, the Sheriff's law is not your budget law. I'm just saying in regard to the sheriff's budget -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well,, that's instruction to him, not to us. MR. WEIGEL: Well, it provides some guideline for everyone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would word it differently than you did. And maybe I have to be more obvious than I was before. If we say county policy is a minimum of three percent, two and a half percent, and we choose to deviate from that in some departments, then -- but the policy mentions a specific figure and then we plug that figure in for the constitutional officers and for several departments, there may be a department that it goes even above the five percent. So that, you know, your total may be somewhere near where we are now in overall reserves. But 'that we actually peg Ed Ilschner's department, because we know that he would have to respond to a hurricane at seven percent or at something else. But a majority of them are at a lower than the current five. Total number may end up being the same, but that way you have a county-wide policy that has a lower number and you can choose to use that for any department or any constitutional officer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Dollar amount would be the same. Page 89 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could very well be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because Mr. Brock has already told us, and I appreciate your forthrightness about it, is that the reserve that's budgeted in his account, he knows he's not going to need. So we could take that and put it in public works and take something out of public works and put it here -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you end up with as close to anyway the same amount of money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we do that, David? You're telling us yes, we can. MR. WEIGEL: That you could take something out of the clerk's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we vary the amounts? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That we set a policy that says it will be a minimum. And we may have the clerk, for example, be at that minimum, because he operates efficiently. But that we may put another department above that minimum. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, let's let Mr. Weigel research that and tell us on Monday in wrap up if we can do that. I think we can, because the sheriff himself gave us some figures that indicate other counties are doing it. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. I was going to suggest we do the same thing, and maybe get the advice from our financial advisor and have something that's a little more completely baked for you on Monday. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So when we come back at 3:00 after our break, what will we be doing? MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheriff's budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sheriff's budget. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheriff's operating budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 3:00.. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bring the shears. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay,. Slash. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to call the meeting back to order and we'll move on at this point to the sheriff's agency budget. Good afternoon. MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Harvey Lewis. I'm a budget analyst with the Sheriff's Office. I've given you some brief overview materials. To begin with, the summary that's listed in your handouts on A-54 actually doesn't reflect the entire request of the Sheriff's Office. The summary information included several items that the county administrator reduced or cut out. And the one thing I wanted to be sure is that everybody understood what the total request of the Sheriff's Office was. As you can see on that first page, the total percent increase for the Sheriff's Office budget is 10.5 percent. The sheet you have in your book on A-54 says 8.4. But I just wanted to be sure everybody understands our total request was for 10.5 percent increase. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Lewis, the way we've done this -- Mr. Lewis, right? MR. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The 'way we've done this so far is we've asked if there are questions for board members on the portion of the budget that is recommended for approval, and then we can talk about the items that were not recommended for -- MR. LEWIS: Sure. Page 90 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- approval. So shall we start with that? Unless you have a general presentation you need to make to us. MR. LEWIS: Well, I just wanted to try and put some things in context, based upon questions. The second page that you have shows that the overall increase in revenues is 13.5 percent, compared to the Sheriff's Office budget of 10.5 percent increase. So that. in fact we -- you know, we are not coming in with a request that is above what the increase has been in revenues. The next page shows you the staffing request, and indicates the number of positions being requested by the county administrator versus the number provided by the Sheriff's Office. The next page shows the growth of the Sheriff's Office and the county administrator over the past 10 years. There have been perceptions that the Sheriff's Office has grown at dramatically larger rates than county government. And those are the numbers, and they indicate that in fact the Sheriff's Office has grown at a slightly lower rate than the county government. County government over the last 10 years has increased by 35 percent. The Sheriff's Office has increased by 32 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why did we have that false impression then for so long? I mean, do you agree with that assessment, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know. First time we've seen it. MR. LEWIS: The numbers, by the way, are straight out of the adopted budget books. So those numbers are from the employment summaries that are in the adopted budget books for the county. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would say on the county administrator's side, if I back the numbers out of the community services group where it's a fees paid jobs, if I eliminated those jobs from your total, I would wonder how that stacked against what the sheriff asked for. Because a fair number of the increases in the county administrator -- or in that department which are paid for by fees on a fee basis. MR. FERNANDEZ: Also the water and wastewater areas. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other thing this would not reflect is things that had been absorbed by the county over the last few years, such as the creation of an airport authority, Pelican Services division being absorbed by the county, which obviously would inflate the county administrator's numbers the. MR. LEWIS: Sure, I wanted to give you sort of a perspective, though. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask and you question from that perspective then. Because when we talk about the county administrator's side growing faster, I go back through this document as it's provided year after year after year. And I go through the county administrator's document as its provided to us year after year after year. And what you requested was 10.6 or whatever the number was. MR. LEWIS: 10.5. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And one year it was 7.3 and one year it was 6.9. Out of the last year, it was only one year that it was down to the 2 or 3 percent ratio. Every other year it is either 14 percent or 7 percent. Some years that's granted, some years it's not. But that number is consistently the dollar number. And that's what we're talking about here is the budget. The dollar number is consistently higher. And in most years, twice as much as the increase Page 91 June 18, 1999 in our general fund or in the Board of County Commissioners or the county administrator's budget. So if we're trying to put it in perspective, the sheriff is actually increasing at twice the rate that the county administrator is. So I just take some concern and resent a little bit the suggestion that somehow you're growing slower. Because there may be personnel costs that are lower and slower. But if we're looking at the overall picture and looking at a budget, a dollar, which is what we're doing, it is dramatically above what the county administrator has done. MR. LEWIS: You're right, sir. The dollars are a little higher. The staffing, though, has not gone up as dramatically. And yes, there are, you know, changes on both sides, but a lot of our services are driven by customer demand also. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a very good way to put it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Customer demand. MR. LEWIS: So the final page that you've got just shows some of -- two of the measures that often are used to look at increases in demand for service. One of them is population, which is projected to have gone up between 98 and 99 by 6.7 percent. And to go up from '99 to 2000, 5.1 percent. Something we think is more directly related to our agency's services or calls for service. And the calls for service, as you can see from '98 to '99, we're projecting it will go up by 6.9 percent. And from 1999 to 2000 by 6.2 percent. So I just wanted to give you that information as a little bit of background and context for the Sheriff's request. And with that, I'll be happy to try and answer any of your questions. COMMISSIONER CARTER: An issue I raised, I sent a memo to the Sheriff. I will raise it here. And that's under bailiffs. And exploring the possibility of privatizing that function. It's a 55.7 percent budget change. I know because of expanded services, you need bailiffs. I also understand the county administrator tells me that we do provide some security service. Somewhere, I would like to know what is the -- what does it lock like if we privatize this versus adding people to the payroll? Because every time we add one person, that's a 30 percent benefit increase. And I certainly think that might be an area where we're spending 1,869,000, we have an opportunity to save some money. MR. LEWIS: Commissioner Carter, if I may. The Florida Statutes require that the Sheriff be present at court sessions, or a deputy representing the Sheriff. So there's Florida statute that mandates that we be present. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a new statute? MR. LEWIS: Excuse me, sir? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a new statute? MR. LEWIS: No, sir. That's a statute that's been in effect for quite a while. We did receive your request, and we are putting together an analysis and a response to it based upon the legal -- the legal interpretations of the statute that requires us to be there. The other thing that I mention is the county, one of the increases you approved this morning, was an increase for security in Immokalee by the county. And as the county indicated, they've tried in the past to outsource security and found that it wasn't effective. And that becomes a bigger problem in our case. One of the things, too, if you outsource the bailiff function, a Page 92 June 18, 1999 security company has no powers to either arrest or detain. So typically if an incident occurs, what has to happen is they have to in fact call upon the Sheriff's Office to come and respond to that situation. So we are -- we will get you a response back to that. And, you know, we have looked at that issue and it's been an issue that's been a concern. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, how does that work where communities privatize the jails? If I follow that same line of thought. They -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Good question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How -- MR. LEWIS: And I honestly can't answer that one for you, Commissioner. And in the response that we get back to you, I'll be sure that we -- or I'll try to get some information for you by Monday on that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Somehow that all doesn't track for me. But at any rate, what is the most cost-effective and secure way to do this process? MR. LEWIS: Right. One other thing I probably ought to point out is that four of those bailiff positions were positions that were cut by the county administrator. And so the increase is -- that's actually in -- you know, the material that you have is substantially less. It's only three positions, and that related to the new courtrooms that are opening up on the fourth floor. And it's actually for bailiffs in the courtrooms to protect the judges and et cetera. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question that's -- goes away from this and I'll come back to this in a minute. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much -- in the urban area, or maybe even outside the urban area, but typically how much ground does a deputy cover? When he's on duty, is he responsible for "X" number of square miles? When I drive from here to my home in Golden Gate, I may see four squad cars just by chance on patrol. Is there a particular number or within each district are there particular numbers that are on patrol at any one time? MR. LEWIS: We actually don't assign or determine the staffing based upon the number of square miles. There are -- of course, we can look at the number of sworn officers and calculate a number. But the primary item that drives the road patrol staffing are calls for service from the public. And so the number of square miles per deputy varies greatly from location to location. If you look at the Everglades substation, the number of square miles that they have to cover is immense. I mean, I think the area that they cover is larger than the area -- the whole county -- all of Lee County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. What would be a typical then, I guess, number of people would have some impact on your calls of service, say a more densely populated area probably is going to call you more for assistance -- MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is there some way to quantify that, just to get an idea? I know t~hat there's a question about where you are at and should you be at a 2higher level because of the number of calls of service. But is there -- can you use some sort of ratio there for me to just grasp? MR. LEWIS: If you would, sir, I think in the impact fee analysis state, they looked at that. Let me get the number for you. But I believe that it was -- the current number was somewhere around 1,300 Page 93 June 18, 1999 calls per service per deputy. I believe their recommendation was more in the line of 1,000 per deputy. But I can get those numbers, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At your leisure. That's just to help me understand it. I guess where I go, and if I can transfer that back to the conversation about whether or not plug in those deputies, how many we should plug in at the courthouse, is using those same type numbers. The idea that you need to have -- is it four over and above of what we had looked at? MR. FERNANDEZ: They asked for three -- yes, four over and above to generally cover the courthouse. Total of seven. Three for the new courtrooms and then four more for -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Subject to be roving security on the fourth floors in the courthouse building where court sessions are held. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because I understand the difference obviously between what the law enforcement deputies can do and what the security can do. I think the screening security people coming in and so on fits a nice thing. And we've had that debate in other years. But I think we're closer to agreement anyway than we have been in past years. But I'm not sure I fully comprehend if typically on the street for every 1,300 calls or a thousand calls it should be, you're saying, that you have a deputy. That for every floor in the courthouse, essentially, you need to have a deputy. It seems like that is way out of whack with the ratio of we're doing. And I realize that if -- I know it's a concentrated thing, and it's a public building, and you have a criminal element and you have a higher possibility for stressful situation, but it seems like it's way out of. whack with what we typically do. And I'm wondering if having an off-deputy wander those various courtrooms as opposed to -- and still use security the way we have, versus one essentially for every floor there. MR. LEWIS: Sir, if I may. The request for one deputy per floor was in response to a request by Judge Hayes. I have a letter, if you'd like a copy of it, from Judge Hayes which requested again an additional four deputies for one deputy per floor. There was -- as I understand it, I have not seen this, but as I understand it, there was also a survey done by the U.S. Marshal's Service, and the Marshal Service raised some serious security issues there. And I think Judge Hayes was responding to that and responding to some new situations with people that are housed in the court, et cetera. So that was the basis of the one for each floor. It was simply in response to Judge Hayes' request. Now, based upon the Marshal Service study, we were inclined to agree with it. And the Marsha].'s Service, I think, is a very professional organization that has a lot of experience in protecting federal judges, et cetera. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they're a tremendous organization. We have had that debate in this forum in the past on using that exact study, it's two or three years old, and have not always agreed with them. But I might agree that we should add a deputy in there and have that ]presence wandering through, I'm just not sure I'm comfortable adding four there and essentially having one on every floor. I mean, that might be overkill considering we already have security there and other ]people wandering. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I was wondering if it was possible for us to request a copy of the U.S. Marshal's study. Page 94 June 18, 1999 MR. LEWIS: As I understand it, it was not even something that I could get my hands on quickly. It's not a study that was done for us, it was done for the court. And I ~- and so I think you could probably talk to the chief judge and the judge could probably request it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we have seen either -- I don't recall whether it was in its entirely or whether it excerpts of that, but two years ago, three years ago, whenever it was done, we had actually seen that. So we may have it. It's worth trying to dig around for. MR. LEWIS: I think they have some concerns about putting it out and it shows their vulnerablilites. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see, from a law enforcement perspective. MR. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other general questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Lewis, you made a point of comparing the sheriff's agency with the county manager's agency. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I notice that general fund appropriations are up 7.8 percent. Your request is for 8.4. So that's more than -- MR. LEWIS: One of the things, I think, there, sir, if you look at the individual pieces that you discuss this morning, there are a number of organizations that increase 20 percent, 22 percent, et cetera. I think one of the issues there is, it may be, and I'm honestly just trying to understand the county's budget myself. But one of the situations that may exist there is that we did have the shift of funding for the Sheriff's Office all out of the general fund. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, no, no. This -- MR. LEWIS: I'm not saying for our percentage, but I'm saying for some of the other organizations, the overall county administrator, I think, shifted some of their cost out of the general fund into the MS -- the unincorporated fund. And I think that may relate -- may have arisen. Because again, if you just look simply at the fact that the revenues went up 13 and a half percent, and our request was only for -- as it indicated in the summaries you have is only 8.4 percent. Then somebody had to go up substantially more than 13 percent in order for the -- you know, to use the revenues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just -- I wish we had more consistency from year to year. Because in those years in which the overall only goes up 4 percent and the Sheriff's budget goes up more than that, than we -- if anybody on this side of the dais says that, we hear, wait a minute, you know, that's not always going to be a constant number. So it just doesn't strike fair to me to use that as an argument now because your numbers happen to fall the other way this year. The past years they haven't and you haven't liked that argument. You can't use something you've disputed every year now. MR. LEWIS: Right. The only thing that I wanted to say is that, trying to indicate, is that the budget we've requested, we put a lot of time into the budget trying to make it a reasonable request. Trying to be sure that it was fully justified. And that was the only point I was trying to make, sir, is that I think it is a request that, you know, we spend a lot of time on. We've given it a lot of thought, and we've tried to make it a reasonable and prudent request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you don't feel singled out, as you may have noticed with my little cut list, I didn't like the 13 percent Page 95 June 18, 1999 increase that was shown on that side either. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. And that's one of the reasons I honestly mentioned it was because yesterday you did make a comment about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing that you have, an employment history comparison in here that I assume is to bolster your -- is intended to bolster your case that shows over the last 10 years how the two compare. I wondered if for Monday either from you or from our budget office if we could just look at budgets annually for the last 10 years so we could use the same document, actual dollars. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. As I indicated to you, I'm just learning the county budget. And I have a problem pulling it together from all of the different funding sources. I did take a look at the -- there's a publication that's put out every year called the Florida Abstract that gives all kinds of statistical information statistics on Florida, the state. It also gives county information. In there, they've got county government costs. I did. look at that data going back to the same period, and in -- as far as the cost, our costs have escalated more. The county's cost from -- I think it was 1989, I believe was the first year I looked at, and the most recent data, and that only went to 1987. Over that period of time, the county's budget had increased about 91 percent, and the Sheriff's budget had increased about 97 percent. So you're right, the Sheriff's budget has increased faster than the county over that period by about 6 or 7 percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well., I think the point that both of us were trying to make is that you came in today comparing the two agencies, and as long as it's positive for your argument, you like it. But when it's negative for your argument, you don't like it. MR. LEWIS: No, sir. I don't have any problem talking about the 97 percent, 91 percent. I just. want to be sure we're talking about facts, and I want to be sure you've got the information and the facts you need to make good decisionel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Do people have specific questions on the portions of the Sheriff's budget that are recommended by for approval by the county administrator? Shall we move -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wel]., in here, we say this every year, but it's really not the Board of Commissioners purview to set the operating parameters for the Sheriff's agency. That's his job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Set appropriate funding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's our job to look at the capital pretty closely, but operating, no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So any questions on the operating budget? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None for now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: None for now. Any questions on the not recommended portion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the administrator is doing an amazingly good job. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you give me a page number, Mr. Smykowski? I kind of lost mine. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sure the court reporter got that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You might want to say that again. MR. LEWIS: I'd like to at least talk about the cuts that are made by the county. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A-56. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A-567. And once we have it in front of us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's in the summary book? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In t]he summary book. Page 96 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I made the mistake of trying to work them both simultaneously. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's too -- and there's -- well, never mind. Okay. So we are to requested but not recommended items in the Sheriff's budget. If you'll take them one at a time. MR. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am. The first item, I believe, is -- relates to Marco Island and service to Marco Island. We had hoped with the switch to the general fund of our appropriation that this wouldn't be an issue this year, and we were! surprised to see that it was. We have real concerns about the timing. The reduction that the county administrator proposes is based upon the city's intention to have a public safety organization in place by January 1st. We honestly have real concerns about whether that time frame can be accomplished. There are a lot of things that have to be done to make that heLppen. And you all may remember that initially the city said they'd have public safety up by I think April of this year. And now they've already moved it back to January 1. We think January 1 is problematic. They've got to hire, they've got to train deputies, they've got to purchase police vehicles, they've got to do something about dispatch. We've had some discussions with them about dispatch, but to date there is no agreement on how dispatch will be handled. In order for -- I mean, if we're going to handle dispatch, we have to order a new console for them. The new console will take at least three months to get here. As I say, we haven't even entered into any kind of agreement with them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That would be an item that they would pay for. So that's not relevant to this budget. MR. LEWIS: It's relative to the discussion of whether January 1 is a realistic time frame for them to institute. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess our only way that we can deal with that, though, is what they have provided us in writing. And the City of Marco Island's written documented plan is to be up and running January of 2000. And I don't know that it's our place, nor appropriate for us to second-guess that and say well, we think it might be September of next year. MR. LEWIS: Well, the one thing, sir, is if we don't deal with it now, we put ourselves into the same position we were last year. If it doesn't come to pass that they're able to provide their own public safety, then the Sheriff -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then they'll have to pay you to do it. MR. LEWIS: But I don't believe, given the fact that we shifted them, shifted all the Sheriff's costs into the general fund, I suspect there's going to be even less inclination on their part to pay us on a contractual basis than there was this year. And of course we all know how difficult and problematic it was this year. So that's a concern. If you don't send the millage right now to tax them for the service, and we get to a position in January where we have to continue to provide the service, we're back in a position where we can't -- where we've got to provide -- continue to provide the service. We can't force them to make a contractual payment. And they end up not being taxed for the service. And we end up having to reduce service across the county. So that's what our concern is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think -- and we wouldn't be the ones to litigate this, so ]please don't misunderstand me. But if the City of Marco has documented their intent to provide the service Page 97 June 18, 1999 by January of 2000 and they did not, I would think either a citizen or anyone else withstanding would have a pretty strong case if the city then said no, we can't do that but we're not going to contract for that service for the Sheriff's Department either. And they've said they're going to start providing that service. They've documented that. They made that part of their plan. I think it would be extremely difficult to defend from a legal standpoint that they just blow that off. MR. LEWIS: I think what they would say, though, sir, is they are already paying for it as part of the general fund payment, which funds the entire sheriff's office. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's hear from Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chai~rwoman, I just would just like to say again to you that I spoke directly to the city manager on this point at the time we were deliberating over this. We decided let's call them, let's not make any assumptions about this. Are you on track. What is the time you anticipate being ready. As I reported to the board, the date he gave me was January 1st. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We had our meeting? MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's at the latest. He indicated they had hoped really to be ready before that time, but that's the absolute worst case scenario. They will be ready by January 1st. We felt safe in doing -- making the budget adjustments accordingly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And also -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We had a joint meeting just recently -- I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to get this in here, that we had a meeting with the mayors, the school board officials and our county administrator, and they were very clear, both the city administrator and the chairman of their council, that this is absolutely going to happen. And, you know, I just feel like it would be irresponsible for me to vote to collect money that this man looked me in the eye and said, "I'm the chairman, you're! the chairman, and I'm telling you, we're going to be ready." COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that was the point I was going to bring up. You're asking us to tax the entire county to pay for Marco Island,' simply on speculation that they're not going to be ready. But they've said they were going to be ready. It's not fair to the rest of the county to have to be taxed to pay for Marco Island, even if Marco Island doesn't get paid, or we don't have to pay that, we still have to tax the people, and that's simply not fair, because Marco Island has assured us that they will be ready. I understand your position as well, but that's where we are. MR. LEWIS: The one thing, too, I'll just mention this, because I think you should be aware of it. As far as the staffing impact, not that this is again, anything that you don't understand, but the -- if in fact that cut has a reduction in staffing related to it. So that while the county's figures that they put up yesterday showed us with an increase of 52, I believe, if in fact you take that reduction, there won't be -- there are not funds there for 21 positions. They took four out. They took the .-- and they showed 50 -- the reduction from 56 to 52. The fact of the matter is that the budget that they've presented to you does not fund 52 additional positions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, let me ask this. MR. LEWIS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we cut this Marco money, if -- you're telling us that we're cutting 2how many additional positions? MR. LEWIS: You're cutting 21, ma'am. Page 98 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That should be the good news then, because we're not going to need them. MR. LEWIS: It could be. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, he's talking about newly requested positions that we did. not recommend, not existing positions that we have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But of the 56 that he requested, you've recommended 52, but in fact you. haven't recommended 52, you've recommended 52 minus 21. Okay? You've recommended 31. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Our request was exclusively focused on expanded positions. This is a reduction to current service. MR. LEWIS: That would offset the expansion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got to do it one at a time. So I'm going to poll the board on the Marco request to a not recommend item. I'm going to say no. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So that one is over. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry that we have -- I misled you when I said that we were finished with your budget with regard to the recommended items. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't speak up on a couple of these at the time and I should have. The 11 additional investigator positions and one secretary to support, how do we arrive -- I have no doubt that we need more. I've been over there with those folks and they clearly have more than their share. How did we arrive at 117 I jotted down some other numbers here and other scenarios. MR. LEWIS: Sir, the way we arrived at it, the impact fee study analysis, which -- you know, which I think you all are familiar with, looked at the number of investigators that we needed. And while we may -- and looked at it in a more what we thought was a reasonable objective way. They looked at the number of cases, the number of incidents we had, and they looked at the amount of time that they took and determined how many investigators we would need. That -- their analysis said that we would need 86 additional investigators this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Appreciate you not asking for that. MR. LEWIS: Right, we haven't asked for 86. If -- the other thing they did, in addition to doing the analysis and looked at the number of cases and looked at the amount of time it would take to do each case, they also did a survey of similar counties. In the survey of similar counties, they determined that the average caseload for an investigator was 150. And we were up at around 180. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many do we currently have? MR. LEWIS: It's still around -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, how many investigators do we currently have? MR. LEWIS: We have -- let me get that number for you, sir. We have 78, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: And as I said, they said we needed 86 more, so they came up with 160, that was what we needed. And that was based on going down to 95 cases per investigator. Page 99 June 18, 1999 The survey again showed an average of 150. We based this request on the average of the similar kj. nds of counties, as opposed to coming in for a request for 86. We looked at that average caseload and said that we think we need to try and get down to that average caseload of 150. That's how we arrived at the 11. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would there be any rationale in doing that incrementally and maybe picking up -- I'm picking this number, but six instead of the 11. Say six this year and adding -- it would probably be more. I don't think you would have just the five next year, you might have an additional one or two, but just splitting that into a couple of years. Only because it's a big dollar item. If you did that, it saves maybe a half a million this year and eases that in next year. MR. LEWIS: I guess there are a couple of thoughts. One, well, we could do that. Again, the numbers that were determined by the consultant indicated that it was 86. So we already think we've -- we've taken that kind of a reduction when we get down to 11. Beyond that, if in fact Marco is out, we have 21 certified law enforcement people that we need to try and place. We would certainly like to be able to shift them and reassign them. I don't know, but I would hope that nobody on the counsel would anticipate that we would, you know, let deputies go as a result of the Marco Island situation. And if you look at the positions that are remaining, the majority of the remaining positions, there are seven in road patrol, there are these 11, and then there are the bailiff positions that are still in of three. So that I think gets us to 21, which is about the number of positions that we have in Marco Island. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you referred to the report, impact fee report, that said 86 would be the number. When you add the 11, I assume that where you came up with the 11 is that does get you to the 150, which you were telling me is typical. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I want to try to stay focused on that, because it's not a wild request at all. If you're trying to get down to what the average is around the state and what is typical and what is safe and appropriate, I don't have any objection to that. I'm just wondering, what happens if we phase that in over two years? What's the real-life result of saying okay, it's got to be 162 this year, because we're only adding six. Next year we add another six or seven. I'm assuming you'll need[ another one or two over these next year or two. So you add another six or seven next year and you get to 150. What's the real-life impact of that? MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm hopeful that the impact of the additional investigators will result in an increase in the number of cases that we in fact solve. Right now our clearance rate on cases is lower than many of the other counties. So I think what the impact is, is that if we phase them in there will be cases that could have been solved and that probably should have been solved that won't be solved. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we'll have a -- and with the six, we're down to about 162 per instead of 180, which is a -- an improvement. MR. LEWIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is better than 163. Which is an improvement. You're just saying you'd like to see the improvement that much further, all the way down to 150. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. And I guess I hesitate to raise this, but I guess the one thing that we ]probably could look at would be picking Page 100 June 18, 1999 those positions up as of January 1 when the Marco Island closing happens, which would save us a few months worth of salary. It wouldn't be a huge amount, but it might save, you know, $100,000 or something of that nature. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Be a quarter of the request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, almost -- MR. LEWIS: A quarter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Almost 225, roughly, so. MR. LEWIS: Well, you'd only save, though, the salary cost, sir, which I think is the total cost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask a question or two while you're gathering your thoughts there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What does the amount, the dollar amount, annually that it costs to have a road patrol deputy on? MR. LEWIS: For a new deputy or for an -- the average? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: An average, I guess. MR. LEWIS: I'm not -- without checking the numbers and am absolutely sure, I believe it's around 75,000. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay'. So here's what I'm going to get at here. I think I heard you say that if we reduce your Marco Island money by 845, that you would lose 21 positions. MR. LEWIS: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's only 40,000 per, and these are supposedly road patrol deputies. MR. LEWIS: It's only for nine months of the year, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well., even that is not quite right then, is it? MR. LEWIS: Again, I'd have to look at the specific numbers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me ask you a related question. How many vacancies do you have in certified law enforcement today? MR. LEWIS: I believe in the road patrol side of the house, there are about 18 vacancies, all of which have -- we have commitments for people to come on board within about the next several years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So I think maybe I was confused with one of your earlier comments, but it sounded like you indicated that you would have to lay off or fire some road patrol deputies or law enforcement officers, but if you have that many vacancies -- MR. LEWIS: We've already made commitments, though, on those vacancies, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who do you hold a higher commitment to, those who are already working for you or those who may be coming in from elsewhere? MR. LEWIS: Obviously don't understand. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What we're saying is that you've got to have 21 positions available to sort back into your system. MR. LEWIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I guess I was saying, if you defer some of this other and do the absorption, we don't have to add so many people. I mean, that's kind of where my mind is going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're already funding those 21 and you're going to have to absorb them, you don't need to fund extra positions if you're bringing those bodies over. MR. LEWIS: Right. I mean, you took away the funding for them. The funding is gone. It's the $800,000. So we have to fund those with the money that's in the expanded. That's the only way we can Page 101 June 18, 1999 keep them on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The expanded was for 52 positions. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now become 31. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now becomes 31. MR. LEWIS: Well, there are a couple of things. Okay. The expanded was for -- our request was for 56. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but the -- MR. LEWIS: Four are the bailiffs. Then in addition to that, nine are grant positions that are already on board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me, that was going to be one of my questions, what are t2hose? I don't have any problem with that. MR. LEWIS: They are road patrol deputies. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They are all road patrol? MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. So those are nine grant positions that, you know, this year the instructions were to show those as expanded. Yes, they are expanded as far as what is coming out of the general fund, but they are not going to provide expanded services because they are in fact on the road right now. So nine were for that. And then a number -- the majority of the remaining positions, or at least 50 percent of the remaining positions, I think, or so were for non-certified. So we only -- as I counted a minute ago, if we have the 11 investigator positions, plus the seven road patrol deputies at 18 and the three bailiffs for the new courtrooms on the fourth floor, that would provide us 21 certified slots. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have -- maybe we need to run a poll on some of these and see where we're at, because -- I would like to see -- I agree completely that you need to lighten the load on the investigators. I'd just like to see that kind of phased in over two years. And if we do that, and then provide for six of those this coming year that still is -- saves about $450,000 roughly, a little bit less, but still lowers that. load down to 163 per, so it lightens the load considerably. I guess on that one item, that's my preference. I would poll the board and see if there's some agreement on that. Go ahead and give them the six but plan on phasing the other half of that in next year. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's two. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that more important than the road patrol? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that they're -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: See, I have a problem here. I -- in telling him what positions, because I ]really don't think that that's our job to determine -- I think our job is to determine the amount of money and not tell them where to spend that money. I think that's Don's job to determine where he wants to put that money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree, I think -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: So I'm really reluctant to sit up here and say you ought to get so many investigators this year. That's up to you. If you want to put them all into investigators, that's your job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a catch-22 for us, because if we don't do that, the Sheriff says, you know, please help me out here. You're saying cut so much money, why? And if we don't do that -- if we do, do that, they say, well, that is our responsibility, not yours. I understand and share your concern, Commissioner Berry. I'm just trying to -- as we go through these, there are between that item and the extra one -~ Page 102 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd rather you just tell him, Tim, what you want to cut, dollar amount, and then let him come back to us on Monday and tell us what of these he's taking out of here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be willing to do that. Because there's -- for me, the investigators, there's the -- I don't know that we need a deputy on every floor of the courthouse and so on. I can do the math on those and see what it is. And then if he decides that's a higher priority, I don't care, but I'd be more than happy to do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: If he thinks, Tim, that it's more important to put those people on each floor of the courthouse, that's his decision to make. And I'm not sure that we should make that decision. I think he ought to make it. We'll tell him whether we're going to give him enough money to do whatever. And then let him -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the Sheriff and I will do my math in the meantime. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: Is this on? Don Hunter, Sheriff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How was the East Coast? Didn't you just come back from he -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Just use your imagination. I'm glad to be back. But it's nice to get away. And I appreciate the board's assistance on the other matter, though we may apparently need to discuss some -- the reserve issue still. I do appreciate some of the movement, progress we're making on that matter. The second thing, I think that Harvey is doing a masterful job of wading through some of the complexity of this, especially when it pertains to the addition of new positions and how we might be impacted by the reduction of funding relative to Marco Island and what would happen to those 21 positions, for instance, whether we would attempt to absorb those positions and whether we would therefore need any additional positions within the agency budget to try to maintain pace with the growth of Collier County as that is reflected by the calls for service that the agency responds to. I think it's very important to, for the record, make a couple of statements. One is that we may very well absorb those 21 positions. It depends. I have not been contacted by Director Boone or Mr. Moss pertaining to when exactly they will implement their new public safety department. Nor have I seen any projections indicating that they have suddenly found a new way to recruit people that will ensure and satisfy the need that Marco Is~and has for people. But let's just say that it's January. If 21 peop2[e have to be teassigned for Marco -~ and first of all, I don't believe Mr. Boone is trying for 21. I think he may be going for 10 or so. So there's still some discussion back and forth. No solid plan. I haven't received a plan. I know that the last debate that the council had on Marco Island pertaining to the public safety plan left them dissatisfied with the plan as it existed. They told Mr. Boone to go back and revisit the entire plan, that it was insufficient to move forward on. And of course, I've been away for a week, so a lot can happen. But I believe that's still where we stand. Counsel will again meet on Monday night and we'll hopefully have some direction at that point. But let's say 21 being the worst scenario for reassignment. We reassigned those 21. What I'd like the commission to keep in mind is that -- two things. One, the pace of growth in Collier County remains unabated. Although we may have some slight fluctuation in terms of percentage of growth in the number of Page 103 June 18, 1999 buildings out of the ground, number of targets moving here, potential victims moving into Collier County, number of vehicles on the roadways for policing for purposes of traffic citations and running red lights and all of those things. Although that remains progress unabated, if we begin chipping away at the numbers that the impact fee study indicated for addition of additional, not only investigators but road patrol. We are once again doing exactly what the impact fee consultant indicated has resulted in this problem that we're currently facing, which is we have not been keeping pace with growth, not due to this board but due to previous boards, what the consultant -- what I heard the consultant say. And that these are going to be catch-up years. And I believe your point is well taken, Mr. Constantine, which is we're trying to phase things in as best we can. But we can't ignore the continuing growth. To let it get away from us while we remain static in our position is to continue the same problem for years to come. If we go to six investigators -- the point I'm trying to make, if we go to six investigators instead of the 11, we'll remain exactly even. Six will keep us even with what we're currently doing. It will not improve our situation and we have put off yet for another year what we need to do in terms of implementing some progress towards erasing the need. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question on that? SHERIFF HUNTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because with the 11 -- and I asked this before. The 11, I assume, that brings it down to 151. I did the math real quick here, but 151 cases per. And you'd said 150 was typical throughout the State of Florida. So if we make that six, it appears it would be an improvement. It's not the full improvement, but that would be 180 that you are currently experiencing that would be down to roughly 163. So while it doesn't take you all the way, to say that it makes no difference or only keeps us steady, I don't think that's true. I think it certainly improves the number of cases, gets rid of almost 10 percent of the cases. SHERIFF HUNTER: There are a couple of anomalies. MR. LEWIS: One of the things, if I may, sir, I think the Sheriff's point is that we're ~[oing to have growth in the number of cases this next -- you know, this next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. LEWIS: We're going to be getting -- we only need six next year, but we'll need six plus "IX" number for the growth. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I acknowledge that. Because I didn't say that we'd do six now and five next year. I said, you know, six now and if it needs to be instead of another five, six, seven next year, recognizing there will be more growth to get you to that 150, I don't have any objection. I was just trying to phase it a little in at a time. And I realize that growth continues, we don't stay static. But I was just trying to make that a little easier to absorb cost-wise and still get you to where you need to be, recognizing 150 is where you need to be. MR. LEWIS: So six would be a movement towards that. SHERIFF HUNTER: If the current trend maintains that we are reducing part one crime slightly each year, than theoretically we're making some progress towards the 26 position that are indicated by the consultant as needed today to erase the deficit that we have in order to collect impact fees. Page 104 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because you are addressing that deficit two ways. One is by reducing crime, so that the workload is not increasing along with the growt2h in other areas, because the crime is going down, the investigators have less work to do. SHERIFF HUNTER: For investigators, we are talking about the number of Part I crimes being investigated by investigators. Although, remember that part one crime is not the only type of crime investigated by investigators. They also investigate part two crimes. Part II crimes are things such things as shoplifting, petty theft, certain type of thefts, arson investigations, manslaughter, traffic homicides, a number of different things fall under part twos, and those are not declining. So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't question the burden that falls on those investigators. It's just if -- on one hand, we hear what is typical throughout the State of Florida. And I think that's probably a more real measure than the consultant's study, which would take you all the way down to, what? I'm doing a math real quickly in my head, but that would take it down to 95 per instead of 150, which makes us like -- that scenario would put us at 67 percent or better of the load that your typical investigator in the State of Florida is carrying. It would be wonderful if we could do that, but I don't think that's a realistic number, so when we keep referring to that study, that doesn't in any way compare to what's going on in the real-world in the State of Florida. And if we want to be a little better than the next guy, than the next town, I'd love that. And if we can get there cost effectively, that's fine. But I don't think 26 new positions there in getting us to a load per person of 95 instead of 150 or 180 is a realistic number. I think that's -- you know, if we start talking about making roads at Level of Service B, it's not going to happen. It would be great if nobody was on the roads, we did. But that's not going to happen. So we need to use one of those or the other, but we can't use both. If we are going to use what is typical and what is acceptable in the State of Florida, let's not talk about a study that was done that shows something completely different than that. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, if I may clear the record up, because I'm looking at the summary of the survey and the study that the consultant put together for you and presented to you some months back. And it indicates 86 positions would be the number of investigators needed if we were to go to a 95 case per investigator scenario. But that we would need 26 investigators if we went to 150, which was the average of the survey. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what the math says. SHERIFF HUNTER: The high-end of the survey was 285, which even maxed us. I don't know who that was, but that was obviously an aberration. I don't know what agency has 285 cases per investigator. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But they're not completing it even if they do. SHERIFF HUNTER: I certainly don't want to go in that direction. But anything we can do to get towards the 26, remembering that if we continue to see the crime rates declining, that's good. Including the total number of part one and two crimes. But what we're really talking about is doing a better job of solving the crimes that have occurred, because we are below the state on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to fall. Maybe I'm doing my math wrong here and that will ~help if I have. Because I multiplied 180 times the 78 that you currently have, that's the number you told Page 105 June 18, 1999 me that you have right now, and that comes out to 14,000 plus. And then I divided that by 89, if you added the 11 positions, and that comes out to roughly 151. So that's adding 11 positions. It gets you to the 150. I don't understand when you said you need to add 26 to get to the 150, mathematically 'that doesn't work. 26 would take you dramatically below the 150. It would take you way, way below the 150. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that something we want to flag to get actual numbers on because we've got conflicting math here? SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's do. I understand that the consultant is going to be in town Tuesday to 'make presentations to the board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, we can do the math with or without the consultant. SHERIFF HUNTER: We can talk to the consultant, how they arrived at the number. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need to have a wrap-up on Monday. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Again, I think we're talking about interfering in the Sheriff's job. I say this every year, but I think it's our job to decide on Qhat dollar amount he gets and it's his job to decide how to spend those dollars. That's what he's elected to do. If he thinks the investigators are the more important thing or the road patrol deputies are more important or whatever, it's up to the Sheriff to use his dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to make sure I'm basing my thoughts on accurate numbers. It doesn't appear that you need 26 investigators to get to the 150 caseload. It appears you need 11. SHERIFF HUNTER: I understand your point. I don't see that that's represented in the consultant's study exactly that way. So we have to consult with your consultant. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question on just two other items on your list here? And then I do have a math number that I've come up with. The request. for three community service deputies, what do we have right now for that? How are they distributed around the county? And what will these additional ones do or how will it augment what we currently have? 202,800. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It says two of them go to North Naples and one goes to Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what they already have in those communities and how will this augment what they already have, how will that change the service being delivered to the public. I think that we've all been supportive of community services deputies. ]2'm just wondering what the level are and -- MR. LEWIS: The number is 23 currently. The three will get us up to 26. And community service deputies typically handle para-law enforcement type activities. And they take a strain off of the certified and they do it for a reduced cost. And they would typically respond to traffic issues and things of that nature. So if we had a traffic accident, they may go and try to help clear that up during rush hour. That kind of thing. They do security surveys for homeowners, et cetera. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- can you quantify how the demand has increased 14 percent, 12 percent? MR. LEWIS: The two -- there are two being requested for North Naples, which probably has the highest population growth area. And one for Golden Gate. Frankly 'these were arrived at by -- these were recommendations of the district lieutenants based upon their -- the demand for service that was coming in, in their areas. Page 106 June 18, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That answered my question. Commissioner Berry had asked, well, isn't there just a number we can -- and I've gone through the different areas that I'm concerned with. And done the math here. And I would say roughly 750,000 out of all of that is on here, and that's out of 3.7 million. Takes it down to a little over -- or a little under 3 million for expanded services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I know you want to be careful about not doing the Sheriff's work. But .could you tell us where you got that number? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will. Sure. And the items. If the whole board doesn't want to agree, that's probably the safest way. You can all decide whether to or not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three additional bailiff and that whole thing with the courthouse that we discussed earlier on with the process, I think that we do need perhaps an additional presence there, but I don't know that we need a deputy on every floor. And I'm glad the parts down below that aren't recommended. And then back on the first one. I would like to see us -- and maybe by Monday we have the numbers. And I have no problem backing off this if my math was done wrong here. But it appears that the 11 would get us all the way down to 150. So if we can phase that in over two years. And recognize the need is there, but just phase that in as a way to try to ease some of the financial burden. Put six in now and put five, plus whatever the growth requires next year. So if that's six again next year or seven next year -- MR. LEWIS: One additional -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you don't mind, before you go, because you've caught on faster than I have. I just want to understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Top item. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: About. half of the 11 investigator positions or some amount of that, and all. of the three bailiffs, with the understanding that you might halve one instead of three who would -- one security officer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Possibly, yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: You are just adding one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you cutting two or are you cutting three? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm cutting three. I'm cutting that whole piece, by my math. The request for Human Resources tech, and maybe you can talk to me on that, you said you hadn't gotten down that far yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then part of the 11 investigator positions, subject to the math. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Because again, I can't stress enough, I agree with you, there's a need there. You need to increase that. They need to get that load down in order to be fully effective. I just think that if we can get that down to 163 next year, down to 150 the following year. MR. LEWIS: Sir, did I understand you cut three additional bailiffs? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what he's recommending at this moment. MR. LEWIS: You understand those bailiffs are required for the Page 107 June 18, 1999 new courtrooms that are coming along on the fourth floor. They're new courtrooms. We won't have bailiffs in the courtrooms. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think this goes back to Commissioner Norris' point, we can pick and choose here. What ultimately happens is whatever the dollar number figure we give the Sheriff, he still fixes on priorities and theoretically can scratch everything on this sheet and spend it all on something else, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We owe it to him to give him some idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand. Those are just my picks and chooses. I don't know what the feeling of the rest of the board MR. LEWIS: One thing I just wanted to mention to you regarding the impact fee study and the whole issue of impact fees, one of the things that I think has been a problem with looking at having law enforcement impact fees was the shortfall that existed between the number of -- the staffing we currently have and the staffing that was recommended. If in fact the request for road patrol and investigators were approved as was requested, we would in fact be at a level where we could consider impact fees with no immediate -- no requirement for additional staffing. So I just wanted to mention that also, because those would then bring us up to a level where we could indicate that we were, you know, fully staffed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's not what the administrator's recommended. MR. LEWIS: It was just something I wanted to mention for your knowledge. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, if I could speak to that for just a moment. That threshold funding level was probably one of the reasons why the Board of County Commissioners did not adopt the impact fee for law enforcement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was a big factor for me, because we couldn't afford the catch up. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think using that study as the basis for a standard is not appropriate because that's exactly the situation the board had hoped to avoid by not adopting that impact fee. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In other words, we didn't accept the report. I mean, we received it but we didn't accept it as factual. MR. LEWIS: I understand that. What we would be doing is accepting lower standards. That's what I'm saying. We have in the investigator -- one of the things that the impact fee consultant indicated is they gave you some possible service standards you could have picked, and 150 was one on the investigators. And had you been at 150 -- I mean, if you picked that one, and we got 11 investigators, we would be there at that standard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As to investigators. MR. LEWIS: As a result. And the road patrol, we will be -- this request is based upon getting us to the level of road patrol that was in the impact fee studies. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I heard you say is 11 will get you there, not 26. MR. LEWIS: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As to investigators. MR. LEWIS: Right. And what was in here for road patrol gets us to the road patrol level. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But not what's recommended for road patrol. MR. LEWIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because we've cut 21 plus three. Page 108 June 18, 1999 SHERIFF HUNTER: Bailiffs? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've cut 21 law enforcement officers. Deputies. The Marco issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, let me just throw this out and then you can poll the board if you want. But I think we need to acknowledge there's a need for expanded service here and that may be in the three million range, but I think it's 3 million rather than 3.7. I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And your request -- the recommended amount was 3.7. Your requested amount. was how much? MR. LEWIS: I believe that. the county administrator had already cut about 1.2, I believe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So your requested amount was 4.9. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 1. 4.1. MR. LEWIS: It was actually 4.1. I'm not sure what the reason for the difference is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I need to know that. I need to know what your requested amount was. 4.17 MR. LEWIS: 4.1. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We haven't entertained anything that's on the requested but not recommended list. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the important number really is the 3.7. And I think we need to acknowledge three million of that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's your number, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 4,133,500. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right on the sheet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's his request and I support cutting one-million-one-twenty-six, which is the Marco number. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's already -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, four-million-one-hundred-thirty-three is his request. True? SHERIFF HUNTER: Say that .again. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four-million-one-thirty-three is the requested total budget amount from the sheriff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you're dumping 1.126. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I need to be sure that's true. MR. LEWIS: Four million is the expanded. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just give me yes or no. SHERIFF HUNTER: Additional request. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four-million-one-thirty-three is the new money that you are asking for this year. MR. LEWIS: The Marco's cull was out of the base. MR. FERNANDEZ: See, that's the difference. Marco is not out of the expanded number. Marco cut was not out of that four-million-one-thirty-three. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're saying 1.1 from that, then you are down in the same range i['m suggesting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think I am, which is -- but I'm not sure the math works but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we have three? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four-million-one-thirty-three is what you've asked for, if all I'm agreeing to support to cut is the Marco money, that gets you to three million dollars. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In expanded service. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In expanded service. Page 109 June 18, 1999 MR. LEWIS: The county administrator on -- it depends on which form you're going off of. If you're going off A-54, the county administrator reduced the current services level by a million dollars. So if you give us three million dollars plus the current services level that the county administrator proposed, it will be a two million dollar cut. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I thought. MR. LEWIS: It would be a million out of current services and a million out of the expanded. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I'm trying to get to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, for current services, we're talking about Marco. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was 845,100 was the Marco reduction. That came out of current. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm saying I know that I want to cut that one million. So then we're at four million. And you're saying you want to cut another million and we're at three million. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'm working off the page that was provided in our budget that says $3,717~200. I think a more realistic number and an appropriate number is three million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm just taking us back to the beginning and that is, that the Sheriff -- I want to know how that compares to the Sheriff's request because this is the first year we had recommended cuts from the administrator. And I appreciate that. MR. LEWIS: I believe it's a reduction of about a million and a half. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to be sure that everybody knows. Does everybody know what the request was? MR. LEWIS: It's a reduction of about a million and a half, I believe. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, 1,562,300. You're talking -- Commissioner Constantine's number reduces the 3,717,200 to three million. That's a reduction of 7,172. In addition to current, we reduced 845,100 for Marco, sum total is 1,562,300. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I wanted to know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to confuse the issue and say well, we are reducing Marco so we shouldn't reduce other things. I think almost everybody -- I think all five of us agreed, look, if Marco is going to provide their own, great, we don't need to be funding it. So the rest of this becomes a separate issue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. And all I wanted to know is what -- if we went with the recommendation, what's the total cut from the Sheriff's original request? And the answer to that question is a million and a half. Total cut would be a million and a half. MR. LEWIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know if that's the right number. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I donl't think that's -- a million and a half does not include -- MR. LEWIS: The bailiffs. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- the requested but not recommended. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The bailiffs. MR. FERNANDEZ: Bailiffs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's up to him. If he still wants to put that in, he can do that. MR. FERNANDEZ: But she's saying the total number of cuts. MR. LEWIS: You're right, sir. It's one-million-one. Our requested expanded was 4.1. And you had already taken some cuts, so Page 110 June 18, 1999 $400,000 worth of cuts out of that, plus the 700,000 that he just took. So you're right, it is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A cut of 1.1. MR. LEWIS: -- 1.9 or almost two million from our request. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then that's including the requested and not recommended. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I want to know. MR. LEWIS: That's right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's a two million dollar cut from the original Sheriff's request. That's all I want to know. MR. LEWIS: That's true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think it's important to break down exactly where that comes from, rather than just say, gee, we're arbitrarily cutting two million dollars. We're not. We all five agreed on the Marco Island issue, which is roughly a million. So it's less than that. But the biggest chunk of that is the Marco Island issue. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And based on the fact that they have given a written -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No argument. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than the City of Marco, we're looking at a cut. I think that's more important to bifurcate those issues, because the rest is, we're looking at 3.7 million that were requested and approved by our staff. And then there's a small chunk there that was requested and not approved. And we're suggesting you should take 700,000 of that out. And so I don't want to lump that in and say well, this is a total lost. Because Marco is -- I've heard no dispute from anybody up here. So the one issue we're talking about that we haven't polled the board on is $717,200. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm with you. MR. LEWIS: Or 1.1 million. from our request. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody need to make their last chance plea for the $700,000 that's about to be cut? Because it sounds like there have been good articulated reasons for cutting it. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, this is a workshop, so I assume we're open for discussion, at least until the vote is taken. The 717 -- I like the idea. of at least discussing where some of the commission's concerns might be. Mr. Fernandez had suggested that, for instance, the bailiffs should come off the floors. And maybe there's a need for two, maybe not four. Maybe there's one, maybe not four. I was responding to a judicial request. What has happened in the courts -- and did Judge Hayes have an opportunity to make a presentation on this at all? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, we just approved his budget without discussion. SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm always the one. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, just lucky. SHERIFF HUNTER: What has happened over at the courts is that the judges are experimenting with ways to reduce their caseloads, which I applaud. They've done so through traffic court. They have done so through mediators and by tryine[ to conduct some of the previous court sessions by using other people. What they have done, unfortunately, in a limited space, though, is create some traffic jams of already unhappy people who are spilling over from the courts -- from the courtroom out into the hallways, and there are literally lines of people standing in the hallways fighting Page 111 June 18, 1999 with one another. And the courts have petitioned me, and we've been trying to do this as best we can, to cover that security issue of people literally fighting, many of them just verbally abusing one another in hallways because they're not happy to be there. The courts have asked us to try to provide a bailiff per floor on each of those floors where they're doing that, that extra ordinary court type administrative function, if you will. And that's what we are doing with the four bailiffs, the additional bailiffs. Those bailiffs are trained in courtroom security, but we're really trying to control the hallways and some of the extra court sessions that are being scheduled. So that was the purpose of that. I would really need to do some work with staff to see what the impact -- I might ask the board to do this through its chair, request that City Council provide an actual plan for implementation. Just for insurance, because they did that last year. In fact, we will have a public be safety department by October, is what I heard last year. And it's now almost July. Could we actually get a plan, not only of what they intend to do, that means the total number of people they will provide, how they'll staff it, but also when, and get them to commit to that. With that, we could definitely do some work. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a very reasonable request. I think you need to know that. We need to know that. They have made that commitment to you. They made that to Bob. We to have that in writing and laid out how they are going to accomplish that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez? SHERIFF HUNTER: With that, we would have something to work with in terms of what is the impact on the agency. And we could come back and report to the board pertaining to any significant impacts on road patrol services. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the one other item that we had talked about here, I've spent a lot of time talking about it, I have no problem at all committing to make up -~ if we make the partial dent this year and get halfway there! on investigators. I have no problem at all committing to us funding that other half, plus whatever the growth requires in the coming year next year. I'm just trying to phase that in instead of the whole hit in one year. SHERIFF HUNTER: I '11 go back and work with staff on what the implications are for the reduction in numbers. Remember, our numbers were just officially adopted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and at the very end of March. So, say, mid April, we got the final numbers just before we submitted our budget. We may have some room -- again, if our trends maintain, and we want those to maintain, but any improvement, investigation improves, the solve rate, recovery of property, restoring victims to wholeness, if you will, as in your car. That's the idea. Clearance rate is nothing more than solving the crime and arresting someone for the event. That way you take criminals off the street, put them where they belong, and you actually reduce your rates further. So it could be a very good opportunity. Right now, we see it as a deficit because we're seeing it through the eyes of the consultant, but we'll look at the numbers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we're going to flag a $700,000 ballpark for Monday as a cut, subject to wrap-up to your -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cut it and flag it for review. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Subject to -- I don't know what the difference is, but, okay, cut it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's harder to add stuff back in, realistically. That's all. Page 112 June 18, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that 700,000 is going to be a cut unless you can make a case on Monday t2hat is irrefutable about the need for those additional investigators. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It sounds like we may not be that far apart on what we're talking abo'ut here, anyway. As you were saying, you know, maybe there's a room for a bailiff less or two bailiffs less. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sheriff, the Chair said you need to make a case on investigators. But again, as far as I'm concerned you don't need to make a case on the investigator. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Make a case on the 700. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You just need to make a case where you can't live -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Where Don decides to spend his money is his business. SHERIFF HUNTER: Ultimately we go there, but I think it's important to have these discussions pertaining to what our service levels are so that you're informed. You know, that 28 percent control factor that we talk about each year and whether that will be impacted or what the number of cases per investigator might be, compared to other agencies around the state, I think you need to know those things. And it's valuable for me to hear what you are thinking. And then from that point on, we can. talk about how we spend the money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, you're being -- the Chair had said, you know, you need to come back and make this passionate plea. The other option, of course, is come back and say, you know, we can live with that. And before we close this out, I do want to compliment you and your staff. I've done seven budgets now. By far the smoothest and most informed and well presented. So I thank you for that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I want to thank -- first time for me through the process, Don. I want to thank your staff for answering all of the questions that I had[. SHERIFF HUNTER: We've answered all of those? Six pages, I believe. Very insightful questLions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Smykowski had a compliment -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's a dawn of a new era. Is the 717 cut or not, or is it flagged for discussion? COMMISSIONER CARTER: 717 cut. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Cut. Thank you. SHERIFF HUNTER: And the board does intend to follow up with City Council to actually direct them to provide us with their plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mike has made that known. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, what might be needed is to have a letter under cover from both of you, have a signature from you and you saying -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nice idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we're trying to do the budget issues here, can you provide us with that information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How about if we draft that for both of our signatures, Don? Is that are all right? Will you do that, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Are there any other issues? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Pardon me. Nothing to do with the Sheriff's budget or any budget item whatsoever. I'm reverting back to Page 113 June 18, 1999 other business this morning, if I may. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We adjourn. See you next Monday. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's got something. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh I thought you said -- MR. WEIGEL: Nothing regarding the budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think we're out of here. That's okay, we're not. Go ahead, tell us. MR. WEIGEL: Just a point of information and that is, this morning under other business, I informed you and discussed our burning ban, and told the board that the ban by duration had terminated. As it turns out, no, it has not. It has not. Now, I've had communications through my staff at the Governor's Office at least twice weekly including as recently as yesterday, being told that nothing new had issued. But low, I've learned since I spoke to you this morning that another executive order of Governor Bush did issue on June llth extending his previous orders, the ones I referenced this morning, for an additional 60 days until August llth, 1999. So on Tuesday's agenda anyway, as I had promised a couple of weeks ago, was an item concerning the discussion and potential action concerning our ordinance, and I would suggest that that just remain there, and then if the board wishes to entertain an emergency ordinance to undo the prescription which is linked to the Governor's orders, that we could do so at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which if we're going to have a 4th of July show, we are going to need to. MR. WEIGEL: You would need to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Last call, anything else? MR. WEIGEL: No, that's it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Last call for alcohol. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's it. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:25 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOAR (S) OF SP IAL DISTRICTSfUNDE TS CONTROL OMAN ATTEST: Attest as t0 Chat ml'$ Page 114 Sl~atu~e c;, ~ y .- June 18, 1999 These minutes approved by the Board on ~ , as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 115