Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/17/1999 B (Budget Workshop) June 17, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOP OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 17, 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 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BUDGET WORKSHOPS THURSDAY,.OUNE 17, 1999 FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1999 : NONDAY, O~NE 21, 1999 ' -. Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners wtll conduct a budget workshop at the Collier County Government Complex, 3301 Eat 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. ~hursday, June 17, 1999 - 9100 a.m. ~ ." "";- General Overview Ad Valorem Tax Implications ~' " Debt Service Funds |200's} Truer Funds (600's| ~.. 8STD General Fund (111| Special Revenue Funds |100's| E.terpri~e FUnds (400's| Internal Service Funds (500's) ~:.. Capital Funds (300's| Friday, June 18, 1999 - 9100 a.m. General Fund {001).Overview General Fund Operating Dlvisions~ BCC : County Attorney Management Offices Support Services Emergency Services Public Services Community Developmen~/Envirommental Services Public Works Courts & Related Agencies State Attorney/Public Defender/Court Costs Airport Authority Operations Review of General Fund Supported Capital Projects Constitutional Officetel .? Froparty Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Clerk of Courts Sheriff's Ofilce *t4~nday, ~une 21, 1999 - 9xO~ a.m. Wrap-up * Discmelon tqardlnl County A~_-~n~ra~'z Pedonnance Bv~ua~ion cr~e~ .... '. 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 COMMISSIONER8 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA P/~MBLA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN DWIGRT B. BROCK, ClaRK June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right, we'll call the meeting to order. And we'll start with the pledge of allegiance and go forward on our agenda after that. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have a copy of -- you're over there. That's going to be confusing. I don't have a copy of the notice or the agenda with me, but I understand that the way we notice the meeting indicates that the first item we'll have today will be the discussion of the comprehensive plan. So we should start with that and start with Mr. Mulhere giving us an update from yesterday. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I have copies of the draft final order from -- as of Wednesday, which will change a little bit during this week, but I want to pass that out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And can I just ask you to start with this? Is this the -- is this draft prepared by the administration commission staff, or by the DCA staff? MR. MULHERE: No, this is prepared by the administration commission staff. It was actually prepared by Theresa Tinker. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who's their attorney. MR. MULHERE: No, I believe she is the -- I'm not sure of her exact title. She works for the office of planning and budget, with specific focus on growth management issues. MS. STUDENT: I believe she acts as secretary of the administration commission. I believe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Doesn't matter. I just wanted to know which agency this is coming out of. MR. MULHERE: A contingent of county employees, myself, Marjorie Student, Barbara Cacchione and Bill Lorenz, went up to Tallahassee and spent all day Tuesday meeting with Cabinet aides. We met with about 10 Cabinet aides. And then we -- we addressed our concerns to the Cabinet aides with the DCA's recommended final order. And then we -- the item was heard on Wednesday at the Cabinet aides' meeting. A number of additional individuals from the county were also there who spoke on their own behalf for various interests. I would tell you that I think we made a lot of progress in educating the aides as to what our concerns were. And in fact, I was impressed with the extent of knowledge that they had regarding the issue. I think we made a lot of headway. And I thought by handing out this final draft order, we could go over some of the significant issues. First of all, there were some dates that were of concern to the staff. We really have a, as you know, a phased approach in this recommended order, and the first phase would be to rescind the EAR amendments that were found in noncompliance, and to transmit the interim amendments which would restrict land uses in the rural agricultural area. And I did -- although I was not at the meeting last night, I did listen to your discussion, and I think you are correct in that the DCA's recommendation to not provide specific time frames for the rural fringe, separate from the balance of the rural agricultural area, is accurate. They are not recommending that, nor are the Cabinet aides recommending that to the administration commission. However, they have placed some language in the document that encourages the county to -- the term you used, bifurcate the study to come forward as quickly as we feel comfortable in terms of collecting the data and analysis on, let's say, the rural fringe area. And of Page 2 June 17, 1999 course, your staff feels very comfortable because we have collected most of that data, that we can come forward in a very expeditious fashion with respect to amendments for the fringe, rural fringe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question at that point? There's no -- there are no draft interim -- we're putting off the question of what kind of open space requirements -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- and all of that. We'll put all of that off, even in the fringe. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. Both the DCA and I would say my take on the administration commission is that they do not want that type of specificity at this point in time. Certainly coming back with the remedial amendments, that's the appropriate time for specificity. So this final -- this draft final order calls for us to return -- or to transmit the -- rescinding the non-client EAR amendments and the interim amendments, which will restrict land uses in the rural agricultural area by September 14th. The original -- the DCA recommendation was originally for July 31sto We indicated that was not possible. The board would not be here, and wouldn't meet until August 3rd, and August 3rd was a very busy agenda and we did not have time to put all of that together. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The date is now what? MR. MULHERE: September 14th. So we will have that scheduled, those remedial -- those interim amendments scheduled for your consideration on September 14th. Of course we'll take them to the Planning Commission before that. MS. STUDENT: I need to make one statement here, if I might, Bob. There's also a provision there that requires implementing land development regulations. Also fall on the same track as the amendments. We don't usually do that. And I explained that to them. But we could have the LDR's go on the same track and just back up their effective date to such time as the amendments which they implement are effective. And they -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll be -- MS. STUDENT: -- seem to want us to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- double tracking. MS. STUDENT: Under our code we could probably do that as an emergency. Because as you know, we amend the code twice a year. We could do that as an emergency amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So on September 14th what you would have for us would be specific amendments basically describing what the limited uses will be in the far eastern area, which will be those ag. related uses that we've talked about before, those non-urban uses. And in the rural fringe, we will say no -- MR. MULHERE: It will be treated exactly the same for purposes of this, the interim policies. The difference is that this -- this final draft order indicates and encourages the county to come back more quickly with remedial amendments in the fringe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. When we come back, what is the process when we come back September 14th, or when we come back November, April, whenever we happen to come back, what is the process? Because my biggest concern here is if the state just chooses not to address this, or chooses to address it only in a manner they see fit, not that the county sees fit. Do we then end up in effect with nothing out there long term? Page 3 June 17, 1999 MR. MULHERE: Well, the final recommended order here of the draft COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It could go on for years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: -- does provide for time frames within which the DCA must review and respond to us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But not approve. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. I mean, we will need to prove to them with the data and analysis that our recommendations are supported. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's where the risk here is. Because they've already said that the data -- and you know, I'm just reporting what I've heard, guys. But they have said that the data that we have currently presented to them does not support development at the level that the majority approved with that open space. Those regulations, they would not support. So we need to be reasonable in our expectation that what we're going to send to them can't be what we've already sent to them. It's going to be something different. MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, what they have said is that the data in the -- on the record as part of the judge's recommended order, finding us in noncompliance, they will not look at any additional data, because it's not part of the record as part of these remedial amendments. However, if we submit that additional data as part of our remedial amendments sometime down the road, more quickly if we have the data, but up to three years for the far eastern rural area -- and by the way, that date is now inserted back into the draft document, so we do have a time frame specified for that -- we will have the job of proving to them that the standards that we develop are supported by the data. And I note that last night you discussed the potential for having different standards in different areas, and I think that will be part of the information that we put together. And one area may have greater -- we already discussed this with the board. One area may have greater natural resources than another area, which may require that that area have a greater standard. But we will be bringing back those amendments to you at a later date. This is actually a three-phase process. The first phase, some sort of interim standards in rescinding the noncompliant issues. The second phase, there are 12 issues that they want us to come back with as of November 30th with remedial amendments. And there is much more accord on those issues in terms of the remedial amendments. So we can bring those back. Those deal with drainage, school sightings, et cetera, groundwater protection. I do want to say that Bill Lorenz did an excellent job representing the county's position on the drainage and groundwater protection issues. And in fact, this document is quite different than the DCA's recommendation. There were certain recommendations that would have had profound implications on our resources and would have required monitoring and other types of activities that clearly are not required by 9J5, but were addressed in the judge's recommended order. And I think that Bill did a good job. And this document has been revised to require that the county only submit remedial amendments that comply with 9J5 and do not go any further. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Under this scenario, what would be Page 4 June 17, 1999 expressly prohibited and what would be allowed during the interim period until we were to come to some agreement on the various areas with DCA? COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be the rural area or the fringe area -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Both, for that matter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- or both? MR. MULHERE: If you would turn to Page 12 of that document. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the answer is everything's treated the same. Both the rural fringe and the far eastern will have the same list of uses approved, pending our documentation through data that we can give different amendments. MR. MULHERE: There are two, I think, important issues found on Page 12. The one -- the first is that this document specifies what will not be permitted during that interim period versus a previous version that said what would be permitted. And the difficulty in saying what will be permitted is trying to address every single item that might come up. Communication towers, as an example. And so the approach here was to revise that to indicate what would not be permitted. And those are, I think, very consistent with -- to those items that were not to be permitted, as we discussed them with the board, including golf courses, driving ranges, residential developments, no extension of sewer and water, no commercial or industrial development. And of course it would allow continuation of agricultural uses or housing in conjunction with agricultural uses. But there are a number of other uses that fall within the rural agricultural district that are not prohibited here that could be permitted as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In addition to that, the next thing beyond that six, it talks about Camp Keais Strand, CREW, those areas that shall be identified as NRPA's. MR. MULHERE: I wanted to get to that, because that will be an important issue for the board. The draft recommended final order, as it stands today, will require us to map and designate as Natural Resource Protection Areas a number of large environmentally sensitive areas of land. Several of those are within the fringe and were already mapped as Natural Resource Protection Areas. A couple of those are in the rural agricultural area. I would certainly encourage the representatives of the property owners in that area to discuss that. In my conversations with them, based on the language here which allows for final revisions to the map after the comprehensive study has been completed, to my knowledge they were not objecting to, for example, the Camp Keais Strand and Okaloacoochee Slew. But I'd rather that they address that issue to you. As far as the Belle Meade and the South Belle Meade -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wait, one second. Commissioner Berry has a question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question in regard to the Southern Golden Gate Estates shall be mapped. What does that mean, Bob? MR. MULHERE: The acquisition area for Southern Golden Gate Estates -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then -- MR. MULHERE: -- and Picayune Strand. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- what's permitted there? Page 5 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The next line, only ag. directly related uses and one single-family unit, if the lot was already created. MR. MULEERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, but most of that Southern Golden Gate Estates is a platted area, right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They can have one house per. MR. MULEERE: And they would be permitted to build a home on that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This has always been kind of confusing to me, because on one hand, the state's acquiring the land, and then I hear from people who are trying to get permits to build or whatever, and I'm never quite sure exactly what to tell them. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that that's probably a legal question. I'll say that I think that if -- first of all, the original date that the DCA proposed was -- if you'll remember, was back in 1989. Anything that was not created prior to the adoption of our comprehensive plan in 1989 could not move forward. Then they came off of that date and suggested March 19th, 1999 as the date. And through our discussion with the Cabinet aides and DCA, they have agreed to the actual date of the administration commission, which is when this will become effective, and that's June 22nd, 1999. So any -- there's two implications to that date. The first is that any application for land development in the rural area that has been submitted and deemed complete by the county prior to June 22nd, 1999 will be able to go forward under the current comprehensive plan. The second implication deals with these Natural Resource Protection Areas, and what they've said that is within those areas, private lands may be used for agricultural purposes, or if platted prior to that date. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're going to have one house. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're going to have one house. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But private lands can be used for anything else. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On Item 1 through 6, my question before was, what is prohibited, and that's listed there. What is allowed? If you own a piece of property out there, you just are stuck in limbo until we settle something? That goes back to my prior question, that there's nothing to prohibit DCA from simply declining. They can review our reports, but they may not accept it, they may not approve it. And this could go on for years. And if you're a private property owner out there, what happens to you during the three years, five years, 10 years that it takes Collier County and DCA to come to some agreement? MR. MULHERE: Well, two things. In Golden Gate Estates, the only permitted use out there is a single-family home. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand that. I'm talking about MR. MULEERE: Well, in the rural agricultural -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- everything else. MR. MULEERE: -- area, yes, the limitation would be to anybody that owns a piece of property out there could do any permitted agricultural use, or could put a single-family home on the property. However -- Page 6 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's per lot or parcel. MR. MULHERE: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if you happen to have a 700-acre. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- lot, you can have a home. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. And again, that's not inconsistent with what they originally proposed, because the idea was to hold off the golf course or residential type development until the data and analysis -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind that at all. I -- you know, I wish we were doing something stricter than we are. But I don't mind that at all, except for the fact that there's nothing that says DCA will ever approve a plan from us. I mean, that could go on for 10 years, it could go on for 15 years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we'd get back in this process, wouldn't we, Bob -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -~ get back -- going back the Governor and thereafter going to court. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who -- perhaps a question for our legal staff. Who then becomes liable for private property rights issues? If that is -- we do end up before the Governor and Cabinet seven years from now because we still haven't come up with something that we and DCA agree to, and there are people who own property there who feel their rights have been usurped. What -- you know, do they sue us? I mean, they can sue anybody they want. But realistically, who's responsible there? MS. STUDENT: Well, I think the county would definitely be sued under Burt Harris type claim. Other state agencies that are involved can also be brought into it. And I would think if I were representing a private property owner, I would want to think about bringing in the DCA and the administration commission as well. On an inverse condemnation claim, I'm not so sure that it would include all those entities, but I am sure that the county could be sued in a situation like that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marjorie, could you talk about what Burr Harris says as far as damages for temporary moratoria for this comprehensive plan related -- MS. STUDENT: Burt Harris, for -- I mean, if it went on and on and on and on, then you get out of the moratorium situation. But under Burt Harris, there's an exception for moratoria, because temporary impacts to real property are exempted. But I mean, if it went on for five or six years, which is the scenario that we're hearing, that's -- to me, that's not a temporary impact anymore. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know on one hand we'd like to be optimists and think oh, we'll all work hard and we'll get this fixed. But we also think how long some of these issues have already been dragging with DCA. It has been years and years and years and years. So it's not that far-fetched to think it could take much more than three years to come to agreement on these things. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I'm biting my tongue to try to not say anything incendiary, so I'm going to control myself. But the bottom line here guys, is we as a board are going to have to make concessions about natural resource protection. We'd better understand that that's Page 7 June 17, 1999 what this deal is. We have lost that debate about whether or not we're going to protect the environment. We're going to have to do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't like I'm arguing with that at all. I don't disagree with that at all. I think my question is just this open-ended process that, I don't know, we'll look and years from now maybe we'll come to a settlement. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, is there a possibility of establishing a time line where DCA has to make a decision where it doesn't drag out? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, there is a time line in there by which they have to respond, but they don't have to approve. They can keep saying no. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They can keep saying no forever. MR. MULHERE: Well, not necessarily forever. That three-year time frame -- this final draft recommended order provides for a -- after the three-year time frame, either the DCA or the county can go back to the Governor and Cabinet as the administration commission, and either ask for more time or plead the case that the issues are unresolvable and ask for direction from the administration commission. So there is -- I mean, there is some definite time period within which there's expectation that we will complete this. However, I think Commissioner Constantine is right in one respect within the fringe, where we expect to come back a little bit quicker. We do not have any -- any very clear or concise limitation on the DCA -- point in time within which they will respond to us, and if they don't, then it gets approved anyway. No, there is nothing like that. We made the argument and Marjorie made the argument as well with respect to private property rights and the potential for claims from temporary takings. The state at this point does not agree with the assessment, and therefore, their recommendation is that we establish these Natural Resource Protection Areas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And don't get me wrong. I mean, I have every intent of putting some limitations here. And as you all know, I would prefer to see us make that long-term plan on the eastern part now rather than doing another three-year look at it. But my worry here is, do we end up putting ourselves in a very vulnerable spot for a lawsuit if we go ahead and agree to this as currently worded in hopes that the goodwill of DCA, you know, ends up in agreement somewhere down the road? I think that's a legitimate concern. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It is a legitimate concern. I just have to tell you the competing one -- and you know, I wish we would go ahead and designate the NRPA's today and that kind of stuff. You know, nobody's getting exactly -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Might be a little horse trading here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, so far nobody's getting everything they want. But we definitely know we have a lawsuit if we down-zone the far eastern county to 1 to 40, 1 to 20. Because those guys have already told us that they've got their lawyers, they're ready to see. So, you know, it's kind of a calculated risk. My question is in the rural fringe, are there any permitted uses other than ag. and one home per lot during the study period? MR. MULHERE: Not unless you have a completed application submitted and accepted by the county prior to June 22nd, 1999. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Completed, does that mean rezone application, an SDP, what? Page 8 June 17, 1999 MR. MULHERE: Yes, any final development order. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what are the final development orders? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think a zoning application, a rezone, a conditional use. And obviously, if you have a use permitted by right in that district, yes, if you submit a completed site development plan application. We know of potentially three applications that may come in this week. Two for a freestanding golf course and one -- I believe both of those are freestanding. One may have a residential component and one for excavation. We're expecting from our discussions with property owners that those will be submitted this week, and if they are complete, and if this goes forward in its current format, then they would be able to proceed through the process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my worry isn't so much -- I understand we're trying to do things with golf courses or big developments and so on. I worry that, you know, someone who owns a 10-acre parcel of property and hoped to put up a home for their mom next door is now going to be prohibited from doing that. Those are the concerns that I -- you know, the little guy that's going to get wrapped up in all of this. I understand what we're trying to do and deal with big development, but -- MR. MULHERE: I would like to say two things: One, I want to make it very clear that you are absolutely right in your concern because I do not think that the DCA at this point has bought into everything that we are proposing in terms of the rural fringe. We have to submit -- collect the data analysis, submit it, and prove to them that we are protecting natural resources. And then I think that we'll be able to move along in that process. But with respect -- you're also correct with respect to the limitation, temporary interim limitation, in that if I own -- as an example, if I own 20 acres and it has not been subdivided prior to that date, then I will not be able to subdivide that during the interim period. I could build a guest house on it because that's a permitted use, but I would not be able to subdivide it during that interim period. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: At this point, it would seem to me that today's discussion would be informational and let everybody sort of sink this in. And then as you get a final version, hopefully today, of this draft order -- is that a possibility? MR. MULHERE: I think that that will be probably closer to Friday. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So our vote on it -- MR. MULHERE: Or tomorrow afternoon. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Our vote on it will likely be at the Monday meeting then? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And I -- we are still working, actually, with the DCA and the Cabinet aides and the interveners on a couple of issues, so there is the potential still for some changes. And actually, some changes were already agreed upon -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That aren't yet in here. MR. MULHERE: -- that are not in here. They're basically language changes. And I would represent that those more appropriately represent the county's interests and concerns, those changes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there members of the public who are just dying to speak to us? They think there's something we need to hear on this subject, if you participated in the process? Page 9 June 17, 1999 MR. WEIGEL: We had two persons submit speaker slips during the course of your discussion here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who are those? MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Bruce Anderson and Mr. Wayne Arnold. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come on down, guys. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. And the department has been pretty steadfast in its refusal to recognize the rural fringe area as any different. And in discussions I've had with them, they have kind of prioritized the rural fringe areas as four different, and urge that you all treat them a little differently. And I wanted to ask you to consider, this would not be a part of the final order at all, but something that you would indicate on your own to select as the first rural fringe area that you address, that segment of Immokalee Road that is closest to the urban boundary. That's where the development pressures have been the greatest. It's also where my private discussions with DCA staff, that they've indicated that they had the least concern about. And I particularly have a client who has been ready to file for some time and who has held off filing because they wanted to see what the cjustering standards were going to be that the county adopted. And then of course, you know, that's off the table now. And I'd just like to distribute this and ask you to consider it at the appropriate time. If not today, then perhaps on Monday. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But, Bruce, why don't they just submit before the 12th? Or what is the date, the 22nd? If they've been holding off, why wouldn't they just submit? MR. ANDERSON: They -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bruce Anderson is speechless. Look at this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I love that. How did that happen? MR. ANDERSON: Enjoy it while it lasts. Well, they may yet wind up being forced into that position. It's not a petition that Mr. Mulhere is presently aware of. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, you don't have an answer. That's all right. It was just a question. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it was a good one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, apparently. So this is a proposal for in what order we would take the rural fringe areas for consideration. And I'll just tell you, my vote on that is going to be according to Mr. Mulhere, what's he got the best data on, where can we start and accomplish something first. And that may well be the same area. I would be surprised if it's not, frankly. Anything else for us? MR. ANDERSON: No. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Could I, while Wayne is coming up, just in response again for clarification to Commissioner Constantine's concerns. I do want to say that there is a process so that if we submit remedial amendments and we're found in noncompliance, that we get an ORC report and are found in noncompliance, then if we have established sufficient data on the record to support our position, then we have the opportunity to ask for an expedited hearing and we can challenge. So there is a process. You know, obviously it took -~ it's been quite a bit of time. Page 10 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Couple of years. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, right here. But there is a process that we can avail ourselves of. The same process that the DCA and interveners did in this case. However, our responsibility then would be to establish a good solid record. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because at that point we'd have to convince a judge that our data is good enough to support the development we propose. Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Hi, I'm Wayne Arnold with Wilson-Miller. I just wanted to reiterate, I think, what's been said, that we would prefer that the County Commission establish a very short time frame for dealing with those rural fringe areas. I think you just saw Bruce prioritizing that as the Immokalee Road Corridor. I, too, would concur, and I think DCA staff have clearly said that that is their area of least concern, environmentally speaking. We also have the most environmental data, given the fact that we gave TwinEagles out there that had to go through the environmental impact statement process, Bonita Bay Golf Course. So we do have some established information, as well as other data that's been collected over the past year of negotiation with DCA. So I would recommend that. But I think it's incumbent upon the board to help shorten this time frame for these people, and that is committing to a short time frame for submitting something to DCA. So the more of this we can bundle together in a timely manner, the better. I think Bruce has given you something that says October 1. I think that's about 90 days out. That's certainly consistent with what -- we had a discussion on June 8th with the secretary that you were carrying forward, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and that's an appropriate time frame for staff, as they've acknowledged, and one that we feel the clients we represent could live with as well. It's become very clear that they're not willing to accept an interim standard that's anything other than restricted land uses. They will not accept what the committee has recommended or the board has endorsed for cjustering standards, even on an interim basis, because of the legal issue of not having a record that supports the distinction of the fringe area from anything else outside the urban boundary. It's nothing that any of us seem to like, but it's something I think we're just going to have to live with at this point, unless the Governor just decides that he's going to avoid the record and do this. But I think that certainly has other legal implications as well. But anyway, I'd just like to recommend that we do something in very short order. And I don't know that you have to take action today on that, but certainly, as we come back with the Governor and Cabinet recommendation, if we can establish a short time frame and a schedule that we all know and understand, it certainly puts us in a better position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has anybody had any conversations with staff yet at DCA about, for example -- Wayne, you may have, stay just in case -- that indicate whether or not, for example, the committee's recommendations might be acceptable in the Immokalee Road Corridor? Has anybody started that discussion yet? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I will say that we have had discussions with different staff. And merely because the record that the judge based Page 11 June 17, 1999 his order on did not contain appropriate data and analysis for that finding, if we supply appropriate data and analysis to support the committee and the board's recommendations -- I don't know that DCA is ready to buy off on that standard, yet, but then again, they haven't seen all of the data to support it. Now, you send us back to the committee and in essence you'll end up doing a short-term study that will take that committee's recommendations, the data they collected, in addition to whatever else staff may have, and the standard may change and it may be the same. But that's essentially where I think we're headed in the next few months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I just want to interject that this is part of -- it's not in the posture really of like a settlement anymore. Because once the judge's final order came out, and if you recall, we said all bets were off once that happened. That's because he had a certain record before him of the data that we had at that time. In the process of trying to settle this and go forward, that's been refined and added to. But since that wasn't part of the record, they're constrained by what record they had. And that's why we can't break it out into two separate things or anything, because there wasn't anything there at that time before the hearing officer that really addressed that, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absurd, but legal reality. Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. And Marjorie is absolutely correct. Also what the DCA is looking for, and the reason these remedial amendments for the rural fringe area, we'll so call it that, are being put off are to give you time to get these protections in place. So if they think you have adequate natural resource protection policy and goals in place and critical habitat protection in place, so that when you then go in and say we're going to allow cjustering subject to, and they have to meet these protections, then they have something to weigh it against. And what they're saying now is we don't have those protections so you can't do it until you have those in place. And as Marjorie said, they are ignoring the data that your staff has put together in the last two years since the hearing took place, or the last year and a half. Your staff -- and Bob was right, Bill Lorenz did a really good job of saving you all a bunch of money yesterday on some issues. But I think that you now have probably most of the data you need to get these things in place so you can turn it back around and get back in front of the DCA. And I share Mr. Constantine's concerns that when we're back there, what happens to us? But the truth of the matter is, going forward now, I've looked at the record and it probably is insufficient to push what we want. Let's go build a good record so if we're back in the same position, we're the ones that have the better analysis and not the opposition. So it's not a good answer, but that's where we are. COMMISSIONER CARTER: George, that makes a lot of sense to me. If -- I'm beginning to see -- I think I'm beginning to see the picture here. If we look at these protection areas, there's some priorities on the part of the DCA. And if we take the areas that they're most concerned about, develop a set of standards there, come back and look Page 12 June 17, 1999 at the other areas with a game plan and standards in all of these. And what's not important to them may be very important to us. Developing the Immokalee corridor may be pretty important to this community in terms of what's going on there. But I think there's a window of opportunity for us to set standards that says this is what we want here. Now, if we take the plan to them and we show them what we're going to do in all these areas, I think what I'm hearing is that we have a good opportunity then to get this in place and get it resolved. Today they're saying we're not going to approve anything you have, because you don't have the data base or the standards to support it. Am I reading this right? MR. VARNADOE: I think your reading is exactly correct. I'm hopeful that we can -- when we come back, that DCA will find us in compliance. But even if they don't, we're going to be in a much stronger position then with data analysis than we are today because, frankly, the record that was made doesn't support what we're trying to do now, unfortunately. So I think that what we've got to do, it's a legal game, if you would, but it's the game we have to play in this arena. And we've got to go back and get the policies on our books and then get the data analysis for each of these areas that support the type of development that the commission wants to have out there, if any. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. MULHERE: There's just one last -- I think it's important for me to say, as far as expediting amendments for the fringe, there are limitations on how quickly we can come back in this document currently. This document calls for us to develop and propose remedial amendments on the 12, the big 12 that I discussed separate and apart from interim -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The issues that aren't very controversial. MR. MULHERE: And those are to be submitted no later than November 30th, 1999. And they have indicated that there is a schedule. And I think George just alluded to the fact that with those protections in place, then they would be willing to look at, you know CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fringe. MR. MULHERE: -- fringe or any other proposed amendments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's not going to happen before November MR. MULHERE: Unless the schedule changes. Yes, we have a priority. The first is the -- rescind them and submit interim controls. The second is to amend the -- to set up amendments that deal with the 12 issues. And then the third would be then based on data analysis to submit amendments in the fringe and the rural areas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that date was November 30th? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So realistically, it wouldn't be till next year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. And the other thing just that is helpful to me to be thinking long term about what kinds of settlement we might be able to make in the four fringe areas is that when the two staffs, DCA and ours, were in the posture of being able to look outside the court record and negotiate a settlement agreement, DCA's staff had agreed with the March 19 or whatever the date was, but the proposed settlement Page 13 June 17, 1999 agreement, open space standards, that the board did not like and sent to a committee. They rejected what the committee came back with, and that's how we come to find ourselves where we are. But as sort of a baseline, we at least know that they would have settled for, based on the data that they had, the open space and the conservancy standards. They would have accepted those. MR. MULHERE: We think that they would have. They never actually said that on the record. And we checked the record. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Darn. MR. MULHERE: They were here that day and we were close. At worst, we were very close. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's sort of a benchmark to know where we may be starting. Okay. Any other questions on this item? If not, let's take a five-minute break. We'll come back at 10:00 and get started on the budget. (Brief recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order and start with our budget discussions, general overview. Mr. Smykowski, are you going to start us off? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. I'd like to initially cover some administrative items, just so everyone's clear. The focus of today's meeting is the non-general fund departments, inclusive of debt service, the trust funds, unincorporated area, general fund, the small MSTU special taxing districts, and special revenue funds, enterprise funds, internal service funds, and the non-general fund-supported capital, which is essentially your impact fee funded capital program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're saving the big fund stuff for tomorrow. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund tomorrow is everything general fund from A to Z. Departments that are budgeted directly in the general fund, as well as those that receive support from the general fund via an inter-fund transfer, such as EMS, road and bridge, and the constitutional officers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: In terms of typically, it's been a board decision regarding public input, whether or not that's going to be taken, at what point it might be heard. We do have speaker sign-up slips available, but I'd like to know, and I think for the benefit for those in attendance what the board's pleasure would be in that regard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm going to just allow people to comment as we complete a particular fund discussion. If they have a comment to make on that issue, we'll hear it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unlimited. We'd hope they'd hold it two or three minutes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are speaker sign-up slips in the hallway, as well as in the room here, as well as copies of the summary information books in the hallway and on the front table here for those in attendance. For tomorrow's agenda, the judges were interested in attending regarding the court's budget presentation. And were hoping to get a certain time at which to be heard. My recommendation to them, and I Page 14 June 17, 1999 indicated that I would request the board's indulgence, it would be to hear that first so that the judges essentially could get here and then get back to their courtrooms -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No problem. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- if that's okay with you. CHAIRWOFLA_N MAC'KIE: Good idea. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's great. I do have a short introductory Power Point presentation, probably 10 minutes or thereabouts, and then we'll move right into the general overview of what the ad valorem tax implications are, the proposed budgets. And then we'll move right into the debt service funds from there. Okay, the workshop's obviously going to be held today, tomorrow, and on Monday. The presentation format is essentially unchanged. Essentially we have summary books that include tax rates, tax dollars, property values, summary data for the general fund, divisional and agency summaries for the general fund, summaries by fund type, and summaries of proposed expanded services. The detail books include program summary information, performance measures, individual fund and/or department spreadsheets, and budget highlights. From a big picture perspective on the financial budget overview in accordance with the budget policy, we budget three and a half percent of personal services for salary adjustments. We utilized a 4 percent attrition rate. There was this year a major reduction midstream in the budget preparation process in the state retirement rates. Approximately 6 percent for a typical county employee. Last year's rate was about 16 and a half percent, and it's dropping to slightly above 10. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that have any effect on an employee's retirement pay when they finally retire, or is that just what we're -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. It is just the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- proposing? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. The -- in items of an employment summary, overall 2,599 county employees. Largest agency being the county administrator, followed by the Sheriff. Within the county administrator's agency, 1,261 employees. Obviously the largest division, as expected, would be public works, followed by public services. Highlights of the fiscal year 2000 budget, in terms of it being fiscally sound, the general fund tax rate is less than millage neutral. We pursuant to the budget policy allocated an additional million dollars in gas tax revenue to support road and bridge operations, which is a board expressed goal, and an appropriate use of gas taxes to support road maintenance. There's also no increase in county water/sewer district rates. We expanded the positions by division and agency. The Sheriff has 52. Now, a number of those were associated with the new budget policy related to grant funded positions. When they're absorbed into the general operating budget, we're treating those as expanded services this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many was that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 52. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 52, like a deck of cards. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Indeed. Overall, 142 new positions proposed. General fund. The fund for government services provide to all Page 15 June 17, 1999 county residents inclusive of all of the incorporated cities, the City of Naples, Everglades City and Marco Island. This fund is funded primarily by ad valorem taxes. The tax impact of the general fund budget is a decrease of 15 cents per $100,000 of taxable value, based on the budget as proposed. General fund service enhancements include a GIS system development. That you'll see in the information technology budget. And I will also tell you that the proposed funding source for that, it's a large expanded service, almost 1.2 million dollars, is transfers from your county water/sewer district revenues, as well as the community development fund. So it does show up as a general fund expanded, but it is not ad valorem tax supported. The principal users of the GIS system would be the building and development community, as well as our public works community. And as such, they are the recommended funding source for that system development that Mr. Fernandez is -- has indicated that's one of his highest priorities to develop and implement the GIS locally in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me just -- so the 1.2 million does not come out of ad valorem? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. It is funded 100 -- actually, 50 percent by building permit fees, 50 percent by water/sewer user fees. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The second service enhancement, the EMS unit in Central East Naples area; we've enhanced library and animal control services; increased proposed additional law enforcement presence; enhanced public health care services through proposed support of the Healthy Kids Program; the weekly cable TV news program is included in the budget in the general fund. I will also tell you, that is funded by a transfer from cable TV revenues. So again, that shows in the general fund that was something the board had expressed interest in. The county administrator brought forth a proposal regarding same. The funding source again is cable TV revenues. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cable TV revenues otherwise would be spent on general fund type expenditures, though, correct? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's a net-net general fund. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, no, it's actually -- the cable TV revenue is from the unincorporated area general fund. MR. FERNANDEZ: But it's a general revenue. It's flexible in its use. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The final item was kind of a -- one of the repercussions of the recent Town Hall meeting in Immokalee, an attempt to expand our service provision in the Immokalee area. There seemed to be a demand for that and a need for that. And we've proposed in the agriculture extension budget an outreach coordinator to be located in Immokalee, which would, you know, kind of be a one-stop shop for county government service to try to bring a little more local service delivery to the residents of Immokalee. That is again reflected in the extension service budget. Since the principal benefit, though, would be the residents of Immokalee, that is also funded by a transfer from the unincorporated area general fund. It's not a county-wide tax, it is actually a tax on the unincorporated area residents funding that position. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question before you move on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Page 16 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On the health care services, I think I heard you mention Healthy Kids Program. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Maybe for Commissioner Constantine, I thought we were not going to do that. I thought that was going to be handled by the private sector. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As a matter of fact, we set policy. I have an old letter from Ed Morton that agrees that they would fund the first few years of that. And then one of the first questions I asked Cleveland Clinic when they expressed interest in coming here was would they share in that, and they agreed. So I think board policy has been fairly clear that we weren't going to do that, not only for all the reasons we've laid out previously, but because we've had commitments from both of those folks to fund that project. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they're short about 86,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You need to keep an open mind and listen to what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're short 86,000 because -~ CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. You need to keep an open mind and listen to what the presentation is, because the facts have changed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that's true. I mean, the facts have changed -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, they've changed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but they've changed because those people who have made the commitment are now giving less. When you say we're short 86,000, last year the NCH was at a funding of 250, which was -- $250,000, which was consistent with their commitment to this board when the idea first came forward. This year they're suggesting they're only going to give 150. And so yeah, there is a shortage, but it's because they are reneging on the commitment they made. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, that's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keep an open mind. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion. I would like to hear the presentation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me hear the presentation, but it's just a conclusion. Believe me, I'm the one who went and got NCH to make that commitment in the first place. I have the letter addressed to me from Ed Morton. I'm the one who asked Cleveland to make the commitment as well. So it's from personal experience, it's not an interpretation of something. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we'll get to this on what day? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that will be discussed tomorrow as part of the general fund in the public services division, the public health unit budget, which is where that expanded service is included. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And for what it's worth, I'm resisting commenting on these as we go through, so maybe, you know, everybody could. We'll have our chance to talk about them when they come up on the agenda. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think if I feel like making a comment, I'm certainly going to make it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet you will. I just wanted you to know that it's rare that I resist, and I am. I could talk about the TV show. Page 17 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You can resist all you want, but we're going to talk when we want to talk. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, moving on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The unincorporated area general fund, again providing municipal type services to the residents of the unincorporated area of the county, excluding the City of Naples, Everglades City and City of Marco Island, also funded principally by ad valorem taxes. Services provided include code enforcement, long-range planning, and parks and recreation. The impact of the proposed budget on an ad valorem basis is a decrease of $5.94 per $100,000 of taxable value. Some of the major assumptions. This budget reflects the Sheriff transition to the general fund. We had many long discussions regarding that being a county-wide service. It reflects the parks shift from the general fund, with the exception of beach parks, which are a county-wide asset. There's a one-time expense reduction of slightly over $600,000 from impact fee waivers for deferral -- deferred or waived impact fees that the board in theory would be responsible for. We got an updated number from the finance department. There was a -- essentially a one-time savings. And rather than offset the millage with a one-time reserve expense reduction, the staff recommendation is to establish a capital reserve fund. And there's some logic to that, given that the parks department would now -- is now virtually 100 percent funded from the unincorporated a~ea general fund. Therefore, long-term, any replacement capital outlay that had previously been funded in the general fund as part of your capital project support would now -- since the park operation is funded in the unincorporated area general fund, in theory the parks capital likewise should be funded from the unincorporated area. So we're recommending establishment of that reserve. We'll talk about that shortly when we get to the unincorporated area general fund budget. Some of the other things we'll talk about today are special revenue funds that are supported by fees; the community development fund principally supported by building permits; development fees; special taxes, such as TDC; ad valorem taxes; fees and fines and surcharge revenues. These funds are typically for a specific purpose. Regulation of the building industry, tourism development. And there's a whole number of special purpose taxing districts such as road maintenance, beautification, drainage, fire control, the Golden Gate Community Center and street lighting districts that will also be looked at today. Certain other special revenue funds are restricted in use. ADA compliance; the 800 megahertz; the enhanced 9-1-1 system. We'll also look at internal service funds, which again account for operations providing services to other county departments. Operating on a break-even basis. There's a total of seven funds: The DOR, your three self-insurance funds, the fleet and motor pool capital recovery, and the public works engineering department. Highlights. There was an increase in health premiums based on our current claims experience in the work comp. fund. We're settling out old workers' compensation claims lump sum, which is long term in the best interest of the county. And within the vehicle replacement program, we're -- there's Page 18 June 17, 1999 accumulation of capital recovery reserves for the eventual replacement of those vehicles. Percent change. Obviously you see public works engineering decrease. Obviously we're -- as we build reserves in the capital recovery fund, obviously the budget will grow. Enterprise funds operate like a private business. These include our county water/sewer district, Marco water/sewer district, the Goodland water district, and our solid waste management efforts. Revenues and primarily user fee funded include water and sewer fees, solid waste tipping fees and your mandatory garbage collection fees. Other revenues include assessments, solid waste franchise fees, and recycling grants. On the expenditure side, we're looking at water and wastewater operations, utilities debt service, and the capital improvement program, as well as solid waste collection and disposal and recycling programs. In terms of changes, obviously as the county continues to grow, our user base in all of our utilities and enterprise operations continues to grow, and there's an upward trend in all of the budgeted revenues, as would be expected in a high growth community. Capital improvement program, quickly, includes projects in the CIE, as well as non-CIE capital projects for replacement or renovation. Some of the highlights include Golden Gate Boulevard construction and the road program; a couple of segments of Immokalee Road construction, based on board direction. I will comment at this point, there is a 16 million dollar bond that would be included to -~ that would be required to fund all of the projects in the road program. One of the principal impact fee projects is a -- the roller hockey rink at the Golden Gate Community Center. That concludes the opening remarks. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. Okay. You want to take us through the specific funds now? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Sorry. Shift gears here now. In your summary book, on Page B, as in boy, it does reflect the proposed tax rates for each of the respective funds. Obviously general fund, we've talked about a little bit in yesterday's discussion, as well as in the overview. A 15 cent per $100,000 of taxable value reduction in the proposed millage. We have revised the format of this, hopefully to make it a little more user friendly and a little more translatable into what the impact is to -- rather than talking about millages out to four decimal places, we've reflected what the impact is per 100,000 of taxable value. So it's a little -- hopefully a little more translatable to what the impact is to the average taxpayer. County-wide millage rate is a decrease of 71 cents per 100,000 of taxable value. Moving into the road MSTD's, you do see some impact in Funds 104 and 106. And that is the impact of median construction and maintenance associated with the Naples Scape -- Naples Streetscape Program. Unincorporated areas, I mentioned the overview, a decrease of $5.94. Golden Gate Community Center, a decrease of $7.19. Many of your beautification districts, you're levying a constant millage. Again, that's based on the advisory committee Page 19 June 17, 1999 recommendations, working in conjunction with staffs of Radio Road, Immokalee, Golden Gate, et cetera. They have levied a constant millage for a number of years. And the Sabal Palm Road, you'll notice a decrease of $450.90 per 100,000. And we can talk about that a little further later on. But essentially the permitting efforts to get a permit for that road is being given up on. There's been a long-term effort to attempt to get permits that has not resulted in any permits. And there is no proposed tax levies, so that millage does drop from four and a half mills to zero. So a large impact to those property owners. In Forest Lakes roadway and drainage, you do see an increase. Last year there was no tax levy. The MSTU, in working -- the advisory committee, in working with staff, is recommending a one mill tax levy, which is the maximum allowable per that ordinance, to accumulate funds in part for the resurfacing of Forest Lakes Boulevard within that community, as well as some other improvements. That's -- from a macro perspective, that's where we're at. In terms of tax dollars to be raised by those proposed millages, those are on Page C. Page D reflects the change in taxable property value within the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I'm just not that quick. But we're proposing to collect about 87 million dollars in taxes, is that what that tells me? MR. SMYKOWSKI: In county-wide, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I just want to keep pointing that out every chance I get, because we keep talking about our 450 or 500 million dollar budget. We're talking about a 87 million dollar general fund budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question along that line. Do we really need to increase 13.6 percent in our budget this year in a year when CPI was two and a half percent? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, I think -~ MR. FERNANDEZ: I was going to say, based upon the requests that have been made for services to keep up with the demands created by that growth, that's the number we've come up with. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because our growth factor is more than just CPI because of the increase of construction and new people coming to town. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. But what it appears to me is we had a certain increase in taxable values this year and we spent the absolute maximum we could by ~- and still keep the millage down, as opposed to seeing what all the needs are and then if it's less than that, great, and if not, trimming some away. But it looks like we had a goal with the millage, and I appreciate you staying within that, but we spent everything we could up until that point. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I can also tell you that to get to this level, the county administrator made a number of recommendations on expanded services that departments requested that could not be accommodated, inclusive of a portion of the Sheriff's budget. And obviously as we go through department by department, we'll make individual decisions as we go along. But I can tell you, it was not an easy process to get to the level where we're at now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Page 20 June 17, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page E just shows again just a summary of the proposed millage rates on a county-wide basis. Again, a decrease of 71 cents per 100,000. Unincorporated area, a decrease of $5.94. Page F reflects just a table, hopefully user friendly, that shows how the value has changed from one year to the next. Last year's gross taxable value was 21.3 billion dollars. Overall it has increased to just shy of 24.3 billion dollars. On a county-wide basis, the unincorporated area went from 13.1 billion to rounding to 14.9 billion, so over 13 percent increase in value. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which I think is Commissioner Constantine's point is that it's wonderful that we can say that we're lowering the millage, but the fact of the matter is we're raising taxes by about 13 percent. Is that what this budget would be from a dollar perspective? Because 71 -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- off and then 13 up. So about 13 percent increase in taxes. And we don't have to raise millage for that because our property values have increased to that rate. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the increase in the total amount of general ad valorem tax revenue. This goes back to a statement that I made the first time we had our goal-setting session over in the water plant, and we had all the papers tacked up along the wall talking about the Board of County Commissioners' expectations, and I made the crack that is it -- you've got to be reasonable about these expectations and whether you're going to be able to meet all these expectations within your highest priority objective, and that is to keep the millage down. And the response that I received was yes, it's realistic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Overwhelmingly received. I just want to reiterate your point there, and that is it's a 13 percent increase in revenues, it's not a 13 percent increase in tax. So the individual taxpayer isn't going to see this huge jump. But the point is the same, it's just if there's a way for us to trim that 13 percent revenue down, it will save the taxpayer that much more. MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may, Madam Chairwoman, one more point? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: And the point of my comment there is that this is a community that has a high level of expectations of governmental services and is growing very fast. I'm very pleased that we're able to meet that need this year, particularly with some of the changes we've made in the funding structure within the millage rates that we've been able to present to you. I was very pleased with that. I didn't think we were going to be able to do that. I thought I was going to be here today explaining to you why the millage had to go up this year. So I'm very glad that that's something that we were able to avoid. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, just a comment that, I don't know how many of you are hearing this, but certainly out in my area the comment is it's great to tout the fact that we're reducing taxes. At the same time, when we're talking about increasing a sales tax to perhaps pay for roads, why are we doing this? I think it's -- I'm not so sure that this makes a whole lot of sense. MR. FERNANDEZ: The answer is, they're mutually exclusive in the sense that that sales tax can only be used for capital purposes. Page 21 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: This is the operating budget primarily that we're talking about. We do have a capital -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, it's capital versus operating. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other comments, or are we ready to go? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That will move us into the debt service section in your summary book, Page G-1. Frankly, there's only a couple of issues of note here. One, you'll notice on the appropriations side, the special obligation -- excuse me, the Commercial Paper Fund 299 has 133.2 percent increase in it. And that is a function of the debt service required on the Sheriff's administration building that the board recently approved. And we're funding that out of the allocation of general fund dollars allocated to capital projects, as we indicated during those discussions with the board. So the -- obviously, the budget goes up as a result of the debt service over -- I believe it's 1.6 million dollars on that building. The first year of a five-year payoff of that Sheriff's administration space. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I got that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There's one addition that we will have to make a change, I'm bringing to the board's attention. Recently there was a closing on the North Regional Parks Property acquisition that was recently approved by the board. And that will be funded by impact fee revenue. The debt service on that property is approximately one million dollars a year. And due to the recent approval is not included in the figures here, but obviously that's funded with -- will be funded with available impact fee revenue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So will that come under 206? I mean, where will that go? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That will go to probably 299. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So again, that commercial paper will go off. Okay. Any questions or comments on that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commercial paper is expensive. Keep that in mind as we look at everything we have to do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What kind of interest rates do we pay on our commercial paper loans? I thought it was like three percent. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's three to four percent. Obviously, as the Fed. ratchets up interest rates, that will move up incrementally as well. But actually, that program has served us well, because we typically use it for interim financing. We're not borrowing on a 20-year basis for those types of projects, we're borrowing short-term to kind of get you over the hump in terms of projects. Obviously the Sheriff's building, the 800 megahertz radio acquisition is another example. MR. FERNANDEZ: Talk about as a pool with other counties as well. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's also -- it is a Pool-It program with other counties that was designed to provide a financing vehicle of this nature to meet short-term obligations. So it has actually served us Page 22 June 17, 1999 very well. You've used it exclusively in your parks, as well as your library expansions as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions? Keep us moving. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That will move us to the trust funds. There's a tab called grants/trust. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: D as in dog. MR. SMYKOWSKI: D, as in David, 3. COMMISSIONER BERRY: One David, one dog. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Delta? What else do we need? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Obviously there's a very limited policy-making role for the board here. These funds are an accumulation of dollars that the county holds in trust, typically as a result of donations and bequests. For example, the people make donations to the library for improvements to the library. So while that fund shows a large increase on a percentage basis, that's solely a function of donations received in a given year. So these are going to cycle up and down on an annual basis, depending on what happens. There are a few things I'd like to highlight, though. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we getting tons more money from HUD? I mean, what is that 15 -- 1,518 percent increase, Section 8 HUD? MR. FERNANDEZ: She's talking about the blue sheet. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Are you talking on the grants page? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is the $750,000 CDBG grant anticipated for the Immokalee Airport Industrial Park. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the incubator, is it? Is that the incubator? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Greg Mihalic is nodding yes, so we'll go with that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's Greg's program there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: And really, the name of that line is really more HUD than it is Section 8. Section 8 is the housing assistance payments program. It's a housing program. So it's really more HUD funding. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And one other question just on that. Is this where we would hear, what was it, last year or a couple years ago that we had this whole debate about whether or not we had reached a population threshold that would qualify us for some additional federal money and we were trying to get Marco to cooperate? Do we have that money yet, Greg? MR. MIHALIC: No, Commissioners. The issue there is whether we are going to become an entitlement community, which means do we get money directly from the Housing and Urban Development Department of the federal government, versus having to compete at the state level. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's between us and getting it? MR. MIHALIC: The acceptance of the updated census figures by the Department of Census, and then the certification by Housing and Urban Development that we are indeed an entitlement county. We anticipate that all being done by October of 2000 at the earliest to receive money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And is that -- what's the population threshold? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, with the population threshold. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is the number? MR. MIHALIC: 200,000 is the minimum threshold that we have to Page 23 June 17, 1999 achieve to be able to be an entitlement company. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we have everybody? Marco is cooperating with this now and all that's been resolved? MR. MIHALIC: We have not broached that issue. That is a time issue, and you only have so many days to have them buy in or not buy in. So we have not broached that issue for this year at all. We may not need to broach that issue with them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. We'll get how much money from the feds? MR. MIHALIC: We're not sure, because they have to make an allocation. But we would estimate we would receive between 1 and 1.6 million dollars a year annually. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To be used for? MR. MIHALIC: For assistance to low and moderate income populations. Most communities use it for housing or economic development assistance. About 15 percent of it can go for social service needs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe next year. MR. MIHALIC: I would anticipate if everything is moving ahead in next year's budget, we would have that laid out for you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. Just looking for it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Other things of note on the trust fund page on D-3. The drug abuse trust funds, 616, what we've done with that available money, that money can be allocated to a certified drug and alcohol abuse program. What we're doing is offsetting the general fund contribution to the David Lawrence Center by the available $22,300, using the available trust money to the extent poss -- maximizing the use of that money; therefore, we were able to offset the general fund contribution to the David Lawrence Center by 22,300. So we thought that was an effective use of that money. The Legal Aid Society budget is new, Fund 652. That was approved by the board during fiscal year '99. And the criminal justice trust fund, 699, is an -- it reflects an increase of 18.8 percent. But frankly, that is a good thing. Those are available court costs revenues which are transferred 100 percent to the general fund as a revenue to offset the costs of the medical examiner, the state attorney and the public defender's budget. So that maximizes again the available dollars within that policy area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The bottom line here is increases are good because there's money coming in that's not ad valorem tax money. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this 123 percent increase in library. What is that? They had a big fund-raiser or something? Where did that money come from? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's essentially donations and bequests. You know, people actually -~ some people leave money in their wills donating, making contributions to the library. Again, as I indicated, those are going to vary from year to year, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Was that part of the recent contribution that we all got a letter? Was that included in this? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Here comes Mr. Jones. Because maybe the news is even better. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There was a person that had given some money. That's included? No, it's not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. So the news is even better. Page 24 June 17, 1999 MR. JONES: John Jones, library. No, ma'am. It's -- the trust fund is like a yo-yo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. JONES: We budget expenditures out of it and we project revenues coming in. There's some reserves held in case the revenues don't come in, because we start spending it whenever we really want to. We're also getting donations in, like the one you saw the other day, the $10,000 that specifically said we want it spent in the new headquarters for outreach materials. So we do have some of that. But these are not huge amounts of money, but they can add up. Also, the book sales are in here, which generate, you know, 7 to 8 or $9,000 a year now. So it's kind of a yo-yo up and down. Some years it's big and some years it's not. I remember one year Mr. Constantine spoke to me about the $58,000 in the reserve. But I spent it as quick as I could, I promise. And if you'll give me a chance, I promise, I'll spend this one, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, well get to it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, that's enough for Mr. Jones. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Beauregard strikes again. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Indeed. Under Page D-2 under the grants, just a couple of other things of note. The library grants reflects a large increase. And that frankly is a shift of -- on an annual basis, the library receives money from the state called State Aid To Libraries. And traditionally we had budgeted that in the general fund. The finance department was recommending the grants account, that this actually should be accounted for in a grants fund. So you will see a decrease in the library general fund budget. And correspondingly, you see the increase here in the grant trust fund. So it's just shifting the State Aid To Library's money from one pocket to another, in essence. MPO. The point there, you'll see obviously the adopted budget was $100,000. That is the general fund support of the Transportation Disadvantaged Program. The forecasts in the current budget reflect the worst case scenarios for subsidization of the Intelletran prorider. That is, though, a worst case scenario, I will tell you. But we want -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm actually going to -- when we get to that point later, I'm going to have a request for some increased funding there. And kind of a big picture scenario is what we're doing with transportation. But I'll wait until we get to that point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does that show up on your list of cuts you gave us? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but it does show up on the cover sheet that says that there are two items I would like to add. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now we know why the list of cuts is longer, John. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: List of cuts is only about 10 million more than the list of additions. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Are we going to get to see this list of cuts sometime? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yeah, we got it this morning. As a matter of fact, here, please take my copy. It's not flagged. It just Page 25 June 17, 1999 gives you numbers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, of course, having no interest. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's not true. But that does go to the court reporter, if you would while you're here, Bob. MR. FERNANDEZ: Pardon? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The court reporter needs that. Okay, moving on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We'll now move to the unincorporated area general fund tab. Page B, as in boy, 2 and 3o Again, as I indicated in my overview, this is for services provided to the unincorporated area of the county, and excludes the cities.of Marco Island, Everglades City and the City of Naples. The millage impact of the proposed budget is a decrease of $5.94 per $100,000 of taxable value. The expense ledger is on the left-hand side of the page on B-2. The revenue is on B-3. There are a number of expanded services in parks, long-range planning, code enforcement. In terms of current service, there are a few things of note. Natural resources, you see $358,400 in current service. That was pursuant to the budget policy where we were shifting natural resources from the general fund to the unincorporated area general fund. The only piece of the natural resources budget remaining in the general fund is the sea turtle monitoring component, which is a requirement of the county's beach renourishment permit and, therefore, is on a county-wide basis. Correspondingly, though, there's an increase in the transfer on the revenue side from Fund 113, the community development fund, paying for a large portion of the natural resources budget. As I indicated in the reserve area, you see the first item under reserves is a reserve for capital outlay of $600,000. And that was essentially the -- is being recommended due to the one-time decrease. You'll notice a few lines down where it says impact fee waivers going from 784,700 to 104,2007 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just don't understand that. We didn't waive as many impact fees as we thought we would, so we have 600 grand left over? MR. SMYKOWSKI: And in some cases I believe we've also received financing instruments from developers where they have made commitments to pay us where we have a financing instrument that will mature in seven years when those impact fees become payable, so the county would not be liable. As a result, though, that would have created a one-time reduction, expense reduction. We did not want to artificially lower your millage on a one-time expense reduction only to have it yo-yo right back up, to borrow Mr. Jones' term, in the subsequent year. So we feel that's a prudent use of that money. Again recognizing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that an industry term? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yo-yo. Technical. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Government term. We have a lot of them. Yo-yo's. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Five yo-yo's here, that's right. Moving on. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that from the -- excuse me, is that from the productivity committee that we -- Page 26 June 17, 1999 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that's part of the recommendation. MR. SMYKOWSKI: They recommended decreasing the millage. The staff proposal is to establish the capital reserve using a one-time expense reduction we thought would not be appropriate due to the impact of the millage of the subsequent year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So staff and productivity committee disagree on this point? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is what I think -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We agree that the impact fee waiver number goes down. The question is, what do you do with that one-time reduction? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Productivity committee says reduce tax, staff says create a reserve. MR. FERNANDEZ: Essentially the productivity committee raised this point, saying that there was a $600,000 change here that needs to be addressed. Their recommendation was to lower the millage. We're indicating that a more responsible way to deal with it, since it is a one-time phenomenon, is to create the reserve. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because next year if it's not there and the millage comes up, it's never duly reported what had happened the previous year to cause that to go down. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And this year in your capital parks fund you did not need any money from the general fund or the unincorporated area general fund to replace out playground equipment or needs of that nature. Obviously as that equipment continues to age, having a capital reserve available to fund those items is a prudent use. You have a one-time capital expense with a one-time revenue source. A good use of those dollars. That will move us to the expanded services, which begin on Page B-5 and B-6 within parks and recreation. And, you know, walk down than list, or if you have -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anybody have particular questions about any of those expanded services? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Request for an operations coordinator, $44,000? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come on down, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Morning. MR. OLLIFF: For the record, Tom Olliff, public services administrator. And Marla Ramsey, the parks director. We've just seen an increase in the amount of administrative work required through the parks department. And administrative staff-wise, you in essence have two positions in the department to handle a growing number of issues that are anything from the, you know, Blue Bill parking lot type design work and obtaining of property for regional parks, trying to look for new boat ramp sites, trying to amend impact fee ordinances, trying to revise the Growth Management Plan levels of service standards corresponding to impact fee changes in your ordinances. And there's just not enough administrative staff to be able to handle the growth in that department and the administrative type work that's necessary there. So we're trying to create some positions in Page 27 June 17, 1999 Marla's department where she can keep up with what's out there. I don't know how to try and quantify that any more than to tell you that we're simply not doing a very good job of keeping up with the amount of administrative type projects that are in the hopper. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. This talks about providing day-to-day administrative support and, you know, ensuring deadlines and statistical analysis and all. How many people have we added in the last two or three years for support personnel in parks and rec? MR. OLLIFF: In terms of support administrative type personnel, I don't recall any. I recall maintenance positions being added on a regular basis to offset the new parks that are coming on line from impact fees. But in terms of actual new administrative positions, I don't recall any in the last five years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the number of people that I see when I walk into parks and rec. headquarters over in Golden Gate Community Park, is the same number that I saw three years ago when I walked into that building? MR. OLLIFF: And I believe the same people that you saw. Which is a good thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. OLLIFF: The turnover is very low. But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stock up on those pins. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So John, what you're saying as far as your executive team, we're looking at it right now, the two of you. MR. OLLIFF: There's one additional person that is in that office that works with Marla. That position is currently vacant, as that person was just transferred to another position. So right now you are looking at the administrative team. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But when we -- I mean, that's not a reason to create another position -- MR. OLLIFF: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because there was a vacancy. MR. OLLIFF: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we're not looking to create -- I mean, what you said is just a little bit different than what's described here. This is a support person, this isn't another administrator? MR. OLLIFF: No, not at all. This is a support level person. Operations coordinator is probably four levels down on your standard operational administration type chart. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What will they do day-to-day? You know, my favorite question is, you get up in the morning and you shower and shave, and you go to work and at 8:01, what are they doing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Assuming you mean they're. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Assuming they're men. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- probably shaving their legs, but okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could be. MR. OLLIFF: Assuming we get somebody good in there, they're in there at 7:30 in the morning, they're going to start working on projects, like we're currently pursuing two different possibilities for boat ramp improvements. They are properties -- they are looking at different property options. They would be assigned a project like that, to go sit down with the real properties department, start looking at property maps trying to determine, you know, what we can get those properties for, putting together a proposal for you to take Page 28 June 17, 1999 a look at so we can actually have a project. There are other issues. Preparing executive summaries, request for legal services through the county attorney's office. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who does that right now? MR. OLLIFF: Marla and the other administrative person that's there. And in a lot of cases, B.J., who you know, who is in a secretarial position in the office has to do a lot of that work as well. And she does a lot of that work after hours. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Satisfied on that one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I am. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I bet there might be three who are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I am. Are there any others who are satisfied with that need? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two. And a nod, that's three. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next question was a request for Maintenance Worker II to maintain athletic fields at the new park. What have we been doing out there? I know we've added onto the park or completed some work at the park, but what are we doing there that's any different that requires 31,6007 Fourth item down. I'm sorry. Max Hasse -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: At Max Hasse. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and Corkscrew Elementary. MS. RAMSEY: Well, currently we're working with the school system to put in additional -- we're currently putting in two new fields in conjunction with the Corkscrew Elementary, to light them so that we'll have additional fields. And we will maintain those. So right now we will be looking at two fields there. And then when the middle school comes on next year, we'll be adding on two more fields here. One of my requests in this budget is also to improve and light a soccer field at Max Hasse and to add two Little League fields without lights. So when you add that all together, that's an additional of about eight, seven fields, I guess. Seven fields. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the root of my question isn't -- obviously if we put a facility in, we need to maintain those facilities and take care of them. The root of my question is, we are making those available and sharing them with the school. What part of the funding are they participating in in maintaining those? MS. RAMSEY: They don't participate in maintaining the actual field itself. They provide the funding to build the field to our level, which is more than their level, and then we provide the lighting on top of that. And then we provide the inside the fence maintenance. Not the grounds maintenance, just the field maintenance. And then of course, we pay for lights. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they put some money up front and then in perpetuity essentially have free -- MS. RAMSEY: And of course the land that it's sitting on. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The land that it sits on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Okay. I was just hoping we -- and that may explain some of that. I was hoping we could grab a little more money from them on that, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions on this Page B-57 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not until we get to B-6. Page 29 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, let's go to B-6. Same folks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B-6, item halfway down the page has the request to provide funds for a county-wide country fest. And Tom and I have actually talked about this, but I wondered if it might not be worth exploring doing a couple different projects during the course of the year. If you remember, this is -- I'm trying to remember how many years ago, maybe six years ago, City of Naples had the Whalers play at Cambier Park, and there were literally like 10,000 people that turned out for that. And they said, good gosh, we'll never do it again, because it's just too many. And they have had a number of smaller events down there. But there is -- even five years ago, there was a demand for that type of entertainment. Those type things can generate a big chunk of the revenue or a big chunk of the amount of money it costs to return that. It says here on this type thing, $10,000. I think we may even be able to do it, depending on how we do it, something better than that. I'd rather estimate low and have the pleasant member come to us. But I wondered if we might not actually make that a larger number. There are a couple of other different things that might appeal to different audiences and have, during the course of a year, two different events. And if they happen to go really well and fund themselves, you could use that money for other events later. But if we might not make that double what it is, just to allow for another event sometime during the fiscal year. And it's not a big dollar amount, comparatively speaking. And I do think that we will generate more than 10,000 back in revenue on that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'd actually -- sorry, I was going to just ask Tom his thoughts on that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't quarrel with the event, I quarrel with the funding source. Why aren't we going to the TDC for these type of events versus using ad valorem taxes? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would say that's bound to be because this is for county residents and not for non-county residents. TDC money can only be spent if we're pulling in people who are going to sleep in hotel rooms. And these are for people who live here. MR. OLLIFF: We try to go to the TDC funding route on the original jazz concert that we held, and that didn't go real well. In fact, that went very poorly. The TDC perspective, as well as at the board level. So historically, this is one of those areas where this parks department is just getting into what I think a lot of communities do. Some two, three, four, five major type recreational events during the course of a year. Historically, we've only done one, which was the jazz festival. The board just added on its own initiative the 4th of July recently, which was great last year, and we are planning to do that this year. This is the third event that we were looking to try and add, which is a country-type festival. But I think Commissioner Constantine's right, this is the kind of thing that we'd really love to expand, because I think it's one that increases the profile of the good things that we do from county government. And if we can expand this budget, we'd be all for that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- one thing Tom and I have talked Page 30 June 17, 1999 a little bit about kind of piggybacks on what Commissioner Carter was saying, and that is longer term that may be something we can develop, but Palm Beach has a very successful festival every May, I think the first week in May, which started out as they did maybe nine years ago or something, they did a concert, and it was a community type event. And it turned into, what is it, Sunfest or whatever they call it. And each year it grew. And it's actually a three-day event now. And they have a number of different types of music and different days will attract different people. And people literally from all over the state go to that every year. So it's too big for us to dive in and try to do that type thing out of the blue. But I think it we get our feet wet with a couple of events, that's something longer term that might be a good fit. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we could end up with a combination of funding for longer term events. And I would hope your revenue side would pick up on this. MR. OLLIFF: It will. I think what Commissioner Constantine has described is correct, this is sort of an early stage. And once you start to develop some history on these events, then you cannot only go after larger national site sponsors once your crowds get to that level, but then your revenues do increase and they become a whole lot more self-supporting than the first two or three years of an event. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's the proposed location? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's my question. MR. OLLIFF: Sugden Community -- Sugden Regional Park. This particular country fest is scheduled for the Vineyards. But if we were going to do more of these type events, I think Sugden is probably the only park in your system today that's geared for that type of event. We may be looking at the new regional park in the north end once that's opened as being a good site as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there support for a $70,000 amount here? I would support that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two. That's three. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 70,000 instead of 34,700. Other questions on the parks and rec.? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Down at the bottom, just parks and rec. We've been dealing a lot with the transportation issues. And is there a way for this to pony up with Intelletran and take better use of that or is that just not going to work for what you're looking to do in here? MR. OLLIFF: We actually do use the transportation system throughout the urban area. We just simply did number crunching when this last issue came up. And we had to provide some interim transportation and found out in Immokalee only it is more cost effective to have their own transportation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That takes us through -- well, please look through and see if you have any other questions on B-8, B-10, and we'll be done with public services. There is a requested but not recommended. And by the way, I wanted to mention how much I appreciate your putting those on, Mr. Fernandez, to let us know the kinds of things that are being asked for that you couldn't support in your budget but -- so that we have those options available from a policy perspective. Page 31 June 17, 1999 I wanted to hear -- because the children's after-school program is one of the most over-utilized, one of the most successful programs we have in the county, I wanted to hear what the $17,800 would do. MS. RAMSEY: On that particular position actually was asked for at each one of our community parks, and I didn't support it at any of the community parks, but because this is a separate fund that is funded by MSTU, I thought we had to let you know that I didn't recommend that we do that request out of this fund. But what that was -- proposes to do is provide a full-time position for after school, so you would have consistency with a lead person at each one of the sites -- Golden Gate Community Center was one of those -- so that we could then have people being trained and consistent all the way through. Right now we have a part-time person and then you've got my two staff people at each one of those community centers that really have to take a lead on that after-school program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But you don't recommend this? MS. RAMSEY: I don't recommend it this year. I'd like to see it one more year before I recommend that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other questions on public service? If not -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page B-14 is environmental -- community development, environmental services. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just on the very first item -- I don't know who's going to address this for us, but on the very first item, a quarter of a million dollars for professional planning to assist our committee? Surely we have some staff -- I did the math on that. I mean, we could hire somebody on a permanent staff position for four years for that amount of money. It just seems like an awful big chunk. I know the select committee has a big responsibility and we're trying to achieve a lot with that, but this seems like an awful big dollar item. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, Barbara Cacchione with your comprehensive planning section. That is an amount that we had talked about, approximately 250,000, for outside consulting services to come in and kind of do the overall project. It is turning into a very large scope of what we're talking about here. We don't know exactly what that figure will be until we do the RFP and put that scope of services out there and get bids back in. We put in probably what we felt was a good amount to start with, but until we actually get the RFP's and responses from these consultants in terms of what they would charge us for the scope of what we'd like to do -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you help me with what that scope is? Because I mean, again, the example I use is, you know, we could hire somebody on your staff for four years and only spend a quarter of a million dollars, so -- MS. CACCHIONE: That's very true. The resolution that was passed as part of the selection of the select committee was to look at very broad issues of community character. We are currently in the process of meeting twice a month with that committee to try to narrow down what that scope of services is and what work products they would like to see the consultants Page 32 June 17, 1999 prepare. We need to be specific in that scope of services so we know what we're getting and paying for. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would almost rather see us find someone who is very good in this field and hire them. And, you know, so you have a $70,000 a year person, and -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner, I respectfully disagree -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- with that conclusion, because I sat on the select committee -- and perhaps I can share it with what Barbara is saying here this morning is that what the select committee is looking for is to go and find the best of the best in this country to come in and look at how this -- whatever we scope out, to make the input back to us in terms of what do we need to do to get to where we want to be in terms of how we look as a county. And we do not feel that one person could do that in terms of what we're scoping out. Probably one consulting company can't do that. One consulting company will probably be the general contractor and look for other sub-consultants to work that entire project. And whereas I agree, it would be wonderful if we could find one or two people that could come here and do this on staff, I think the magnitude of the project of what we have given to the select committee would not allow that. And I think what they're looking for us to do is to spend the money to get the right people here to tell us what we need to do at some future date. Then I think we'll be in a better position to say yes, we need one or two people on our staff to implement and carry this to its entirety. I don't know if I've said everything that's coming out of that committee or not, Barbara, but that's the feeling I'm getting from the group as we're trying to scope that project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I just add to that, that the -- you know, when we appointed this committee, this was part of the pitch. I mean, that was -- as Barbara said, that was in the resolution that we adopted. I think it would the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think a dollar amount was -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think it was. Wasn't there a dollar amount, Barbara, in the -- MS. CACCHIONE: Not in this specific resolution. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There was a suggested dollar amount. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In the staff report, I know there was over $200,000 referenced. And I think this is one of the most important things we're going to be doing in this county in the next few years, and that it's just not even imaginable that it would be possible for one human being to do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. I'll stand corrected on that. I'm just amazed that we're going to bring in a consultant and give a quarter of a million dollars and -- how long of a project is this? I mean, is this something that they're going to work with select committee for 10 years or for six months or for -- what's the time frame expected on this? MS. CACCHIONE: Time frame, we would expect to send out a scope of services, if approved in the budget, after the budget year in October. The time frame and the specific work products haven't really been worked out. That's all going to be part of the scope of services that's developed and then brought back to this board. And a final budget amount will be determined as we get the RFP's back in. Page 33 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume we have some target, though. I mean, are we looking at a multi-year thing here? Are we looking at several months? Are we looking at a couple of weeks? MS. CACCHIONE: I would expect it would be a year-long project, and it might involve multiple consultants as well. There may be different groups of consultants that are brought together for this project; one specializing in design, maybe perhaps one specializing in greenway and open space development. There could be a variety of people that will team up together to do the work products that will be in the scope of services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've heard two voices of support for this item. Are there three? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm supporting it only because when the group came and spoke to me about their wishes about this project, they did indicate this kind of a dollar figure. And so I -- you know, when I agreed to -- whether it wasn't specifically stated in the resolution, I had an idea of the amount of money. It's a lot of money, there's no question. But I also think we're making some determinations that will be a long-term -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, don't misunderstand. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, support for the select committee is absolute. It's just -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: A lot of money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with all the talent that we have, not only on staff but retirees and people who live in the community, that just seems like a ton of money to me. But there's three. MS. CACCHIONE: You should also note that 25 percent of that will be from the development services fees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other questions on the development services budget? I had one. And I don't have with me, though, the -- I think it was the productivity committee who had a recommendation for shifting some additional dollars into the building permits and non-ad valorem tax. Can you talk about that, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. Be happy to. Yesterday the productivity met. There was a recommendation from the productivity committee with their subcommittees working on the appropriate funding mix, and the support of ad valorem programs such as code enforcement to the extent possible by building permit dollars. The proposal was for 33 percent. One-third of the code enforcement budget should be funded by building permit fees. Mr. Cautero attended yesterday's meeting. He felt uncomfortable at that level, but agreed to 20 percent of the code enforcement budget being funded from building permit fees. That would increase revenue from the building permit fund by an additional $209,400, reducing ad valorem further. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And respectfully, I'm going to find myself agreeing, I think, with the productivity committee's recommendation, unless the lawyers tell us it's not legally defensible. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, based on the -- MR. CAUTERO: If I may speak? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've had this -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've had the discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we've had this discussion before, yeah. And whatever obviously is the maximum we can legally justify I Page 34 June 17, 1999 think we'd all like. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. I had a very good meeting with the productivity committee yesterday and showed them data that they, I believe, were impressed with. 17 and a half percent of our cases could be attributed to new development. 82 and a half are not. In six areas of the county where development has no deed restrictions -- or five areas, I should say, where there are no deed restrictions, that are older established subdivisions, these contain the urban area of Immokalee, Naples Park, East Naples, Naples Manor, and Golden Gate City. I agreed to up it to 20 percent furthering a more detailed study, because in those areas you do have some new development. And I think the productivity committee felt comfortable with the commitment that we made to continue to study the area. I believe you're walking on very thin ice if you raise that to 33 percent. And I think the productivity committee felt very comfortable with the numbers. I would feel very uncomfortable with anything higher than 20 percent at this point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, but at 20 percent then, that would -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's 209. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: An additional $209,400. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we've only got a million left to make up from the Sheriff's rating of reserves? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What does that do to the bottom line here? I mean, will that reduce that 317 to $18,000 or something? MR. SMYKOWSKI: You lost me there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: B-14. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Total expanded, says 377. The question is, does that make it then 1687 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, there would be additional revenue offsetting that of 209,400, so that -- yeah, net would be about $100,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. Any other questions on development services? I got one more, and that is, have you added enough additional code enforcement agents? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. Yes, ma'am, for the record. There's an expanded position in there, I believe, and we feel comfortable with that. One other item, if I may digress, that pertains to the fund that you're discussing now. The productivity committee also recommended some additional permit fee funds be shifted to graphics and long-range planning, and I concurred with their recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is this not the place where we would be discussing -- is what you're telling me you're going to add one code enforcement officer this year and that's it? Or just is it just one in this particular fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, this is the only fund that code enforcement is budgeting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why are we only adding one when we have -- MR. CAUTERO: Because we added three last year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's still not enough. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The position proposed to be added is a customer Page 35 June 17, 1999 service representative to handle the administrative side of all the casework. MR. CAUTERO: Well, we lost Marco, that's 3,000 cases. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I mean, if it's as many as you're asking for, then it's major. One other question about your budget, Vince. I'm not sure if this is the place for it, but I get a lot of calls from payers, from developer types into the system complaining about the amount of reserves, something like 7 million dollars in reserves in development services? MR. CAUTERO: It's actually higher. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: More than that? Why does that reserve -- why would we not be hiring more people so that we can be process things more quickly and efficiently, instead of -- MR. CAUTERO: Well, that's coming up in your discussions later today -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: -- that we are asking for additional people in the Building Department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll hold for that. MR. CAUTERO: I will tell you that I'm looking at renovations for our building over the next year to year and a half in the GIS system, which will probably cost in the neighborhood, a package deal, somewhere between four and five million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh. So it ain't just extra money laying around. Okay, anything else in development services, anybody? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have one more. Is this the point to bring this in, Mike? This is regards to Pelican Bay, and I passed out a sheet in regards for restoration. As you well know, Pelican Bay and WCI have progressed very well on the restoration process and all those -- all of those monies have been paid for by the residents of Pelican Bay and WCI. We're down to an area of maintenance. And there's one item in here. As you can see at the bottom, you can see the list of dollars that are spent in terms of doing total maintenance. What we're requesting is that as a part of the county budget, $133,500 be a part of the county's responsibility of maintenance for a natural environmental protection area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, how much was that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: 133,500. We have also had a meeting with Pelican Bay this morning as another part of this process, and with Ed Ilschner. That is, we do median beautification on U.S. 41. Pelican Bay is willing to do a 50/50 deal, if I can use that, with the county. The residents will pay 50 percent for the capital improvements of the median as an offset to this. So we're trying to work out a package here where we do not duly penalize the citizens of Pelican Bay who are big overall donors to the unincorporated area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Like I say, I think that the county has an obligation to continue to take some maintenance expense for this, our only Natural Resource Protection Area. And especially considering the fact that on the face of the document it says that maintenance is the county's obligation. And I don't know how we can avoid -- seems to me that, you know, the participation by others has been generous and it's our obligation. Page 36 June 17, 1999 I also -- when we get to talking about road improvements via landscaping, I'm thrilled to hear that the Pelican Bay folks will pony up half the money to improve U.S. 41, which is just a fantastic extremely necessary improvement. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that 50 percent? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Capital. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Of the capital. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not from maintenance? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, not from maintenance. It will be covered under the MSTD. And we've already set board policy to cover all the maintenance of all median beautification in the county. But the capital side has always been an issue. And this will give us an opportunity for us to -- for the Bay to pay 50 percent of the capital for that project, the other 50 percent coming from other sources. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: MSTD. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The MSTD. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I thought they were going to do all that beautification after they six-laned the rest of that roadway. Are you saying you want that other section done now? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, no, we will do it in conjunction with the widening of U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, okay. So you're -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Timing's the question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: A timing question. We're trying to get everything synchronized here, and we will do that as the road is widened. And I believe they begin that in August and it will start in our section first and work north. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Finn, we know you're not going to like this, because if anybody's met with them on this, he doesn't like it when we say we're going to fund these landscape budgets if we get a 50 percent match outside of county funds. But I think you're going to have to hear that that's the county's policy. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to point that when we get to Section C under special revenue, we'll have an opportunity to discuss this in depth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We had a practically wrestling match over these issues yesterday. So when we get to it on the whole landscaping COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's the reason I -- because I remember having a discussion about this, and I'm a little -- okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Are there three votes in support of this $133,500 county maintenance funding for Clam Bay restoration? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question of whomever from staff can answer this. We had some debate years ago, two or three years ago, maybe longer, about some of the monitoring we did, and the question at the time had been great, we gather all this information, and nobody could tell us anything they ever did with the information. So what will we do as we spend 35, 36,000 for biological and hydrographic tidal flow monitoring and water analysis? What will we do with the result of that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Comply with the permit conditions, for one thing. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Ward's here -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Jim Ward can probably address that Page 37 June 17, 1999 question better than I can. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come on up, Jim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the others on here as well, recorders and so on. MR. WARD: Thank you, commissioners. Jim Ward, Pelican Bay services. The primary responsibility will be to meet the conditions under the permit so the information will be gathered and put in report format, sent to the regulatory agencies. We also anticipated putting it in some format that everyone could be user friendly to it, could understand it and disseminating that information to the public. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Basically what the agencies then will do is determine whether or not the permit that they've issued can continue as it was issued, or if the conditions have to be -- conditions of the permit have to be adjusted based on the data collected throughout the process. MR. JONES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a third vote in support of this? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think if we -- we're doing the project, right? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And they're paying for it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then I think we've got to maintain. I mean, I think it's crazy if we don't maintain it, unless there's some other way it could be funded to be maintained. Mr. Fernandez, is there any suggestion? MR. FERNANDEZ: We don't know of another way to do this other than what's been suggested. It was not included in the budget proposal initially, consistent with the standing board policy with respect to this issue. The board has not been willing to pick this up in the past. Mr. Carter asked that we give consideration to it this year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is the same issue that we made Pelican Bay pay for it, for every dollar of the restoration. I think we have a maintenance obligation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've got to maintain it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That sounds like three. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, then, okay, no point in commenting then. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know there are other members of the public who are here on this issue, but I doubt they need to talk to us now that we have -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think they want to talk you out of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I failed to ask for public comment as we go along. As we finish the -- what did we just finish, MSTD general funds? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if there are comments on issues to this point, now would be the time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I've only received two sign-up sheets and they both are on the same subject. It has to do with the MSTD general fund, Naples Scape funding. We haven't gotten to that one yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have not gotten to that one yet? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, that funding discussion will actually be when Page 38 June 17, 1999 we talk about the road MSTD's, what we have funded. And I believe there are some -o CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, keep us moving. Support services? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Page C-2. We're into the special revenue funds. As I indicated in my overview, there are certain funds that are restricted dollars. Two of those are reflected on Page C-2, the 800 megahertz fund, which is -- there's a surcharge on traffic tickets supporting maintenance of the 800 megahertz radio system. The only thing of note -- I think of importance in this fund is that obviously our system will be out of warranty coverage, and we'll be paying for a warranty service on the 800 megahertz maintenance components on the radio system. The ADA improvements fund, those available dollars are used for improved handicapped access. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where does that money come from? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Two sources: Handicapped parking fines, as well as there's a -- we get a cut of the gross sales of the Subway sandwich shop that's on the government campus now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions on that page? Not much discussion there, so move us on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Pages C-4 and C-5 are the Community Development Fund 113, which is funded principally by building permit revenue. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's where I had the reserve question. But frankly, if what Vince has already told us is that he's got a 4 million dollar expenditure coming, then maybe the reserves are not too high. So do other people have that question? Or if not, you don't need to bother, Vince. MR. SMYKOWSKI: C-5, there -- well, there are expanded services proposed in the planning services section and the building review and permitting section. Those are outlined on Page C-6 and C-7. Again, the funding source is building permit revenue and available development fee revenues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four and a half new people in building permit review; is that right? Bottom of C-5. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, that's absolutely correct. And five people in planning services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Looks like a good improvement. Questions, Board Members, on C-6 or C-77 COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that going -- is the building review and permitting, is that going to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that enough? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that adequate? You think that will do it? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're trying to tell you, Mr. Cautero, we'll give you more if you think you need it. MR. CAUTERO: Depends on what area. Excuse me, Vince Cautero for the record. I was talking to Bob Mulhere, I apologize. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, it's -- and I, like Commissioner Mac'Kie, have had the same concern expressed to me about the time at various times. It's not all the time but it's at various times that we're a little slower than what we should be. MR. CAUTERO: We believe the number is adequate. Because what we Page 39 June 17, 1999 do now is we use people who are certified to actually double up in the planning review. Well, this will give us the opportunity to even use more than that if we have to. If you grant the expanded positions, we'll be able to hire new people in, most likely promote from within, because you have to have a certification in accordance with the state law, and then hire inspectors in. That's usually the way we do it. We have more than one inspector in each area, though, who could step into that planning review specialist position. We're also asking for someone to come in that would concentrate on signs. That seems to be a very cumbersome area for the building department, as well as the planning department. So that's one of the three that we're asking you for. I think that would be adequate. Because we don't use just one planning reviewer in each section. We actually have two instructional now, one in plumbing mechanical and one in electrical. But in essence it's more than that, because we double up when we need it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Do we have enough people out inspecting jobs, actual construction? MR. CAUTERO: Yes, we had three expanded last year. And even though there's an increase in the number, we've seen the numbers per inspector come down somewhat, which is what our goal is. And with more planning reviewers, then we would dissipate that work out. COMMISSIONER CARTER: My concern, Vince, and you're hitting on it with the signage area, but maybe this is in other areas, is that we make sure that we follow through once the permits are issued, and that we check things out so that all of a sudden something happens and no one follows through and we know later we end up getting into code enforcement, but they say, we're too busy and it becomes, as everybody is saying here, very cumbersome. Do we have a good system to make sure is that where you're going with this. So you issue it, you follow through, and we make sure it's in compliance. MR. CAUTERO: We don't have the system now that I will tell you I'm 100 percent happy with. This will accomplish that. If I can -- if we can meet our goal. If we do meet our goal, we will have a system that I could tell you I have 100 percent confidence in next year. And that's -- I need this expanded to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm happy with that. Any other questions on development or environmental services? Then we could talk about the special revenue funds. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. On Page C-9, there are three funds. The Pollution Cleanup and Restoration Fund 108; the pollution control fund, which is a county-wide tax. The proposed millage is a decrease of 56 cents per $100,000 of taxable value. There are no proposed expanded services. The pollution cleanup fund is state money received for remediation of petroleum contaminated sites. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's really not much discretion here. Are there questions, Board Members, on these special revenue funds? I don't have any. MR. SMYKOWSKI: SHIP dollars, we're increasing -- there was an increase in the allocation available, as well as a carry-over of some of the prior years SHIP appropriated. That's why the large budgeting percentage increase in SHIP. On C-13 are the four fire districts. Isle of Capri, there are no proposed expanded services. Again, they typically levy -- or last Page 40 June 17, 1999 year levied one mill. That is the budget proposal. So there would be no change in the tax levy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions, Board Members, on the fire district? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just explain the Horr's Island one, please. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. I'd be happy to. Last year -- well, actually, it's a result of the Marco Island incorporation. The Goodland and Horr's Island residents were previously in the Marco Island independent fire district. When Marco Island incorporated, the new boundaries did not include Goodland or Horr's Island. As a result, they were without fire protection. Last year they were incorporated into the Collier County Fire Control District. The millage was reduced. We traditionally have levied two mills within that funds. Last year we levied 1.7979 as a result of that incremental value from Goodland and Horr's Island of being included. Long term, though, the goal was to create a new MSTU. That was the board policy direction. The board did create that new MSTU0 So there's a contract between Goodland -- between the board and the City of Marco Island to provide fire protection service to that area based on the taxable value. The millage for the Goodland and Horr's Island residents would be 1.2067. So they would save $59.12 as a result of the creation of that new MSTU. And within the Collier County Fire Control, pursuant to the initial creation of the Goodland/Horr's Island MSTU, the direction was to increase the millage back to the old two mill levy, because again, the value from Goodland and Horr's Island in FY-2000 will not be included. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did that clear it right up for you, John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Because you lost me about 10 minutes ago. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I ask you one question about the Ochopee Fire District -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- the 677? Is that for the new position, or for the additional position? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Those expandeds are outlined on C-14. Two part-time firefighters. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions in that section? We'll go to public works. Public works, my favorite subject. This is where we get to talk about Naples Scape and median beautification, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Absolutely correct. The first three funds there are the road MSTD's. That is where pursuant to the board policy direction, as Commissioner Carter indicated, the maintenance for median improvement projects has been budgeted. In addition, in the proposed budgets, as identified on C-17, there are some expanded services in Fund 104 that are Naples Scape projects, which are the capital construction. The 255,000 for CR951 and 522,000 for the East Trail from Airport Road to Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just as an overall intro to this subject, I wonder if there's interest on the board. I don't think that the road Page 41 June 17, 1999 district boundaries as they're currently drawn are sufficient. We used to have five road districts, and we've redivided them after Marco went out. And now we have three, oddly numbered 2, 3, and 5. The districts used to be a lot more closely aligned to the County Commission districts. And although, I don't think that's any magic, it sure was simpler when we had some idea that this was the East Naples District, this was the Golden Gate district, this was the North Naples district. I wish that we could ask staff to look at those boundaries again and see if we might be able to improve on what we currently have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I kind of like the boundaries like they are now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You like them like they are now? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because I think they're more functional that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps staff could comment on how they arrived at those boundaries. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. Good morning, commissioners. When the MSTD's were originally set up, well over 20 some years ago, they were originally set up to coincide with commission district boundaries. Obviously, over time the commission district boundaries have changed somewhat. Then two years ago when the City of Marco Island was formed, the -- what was 102 or MSTD one, if you will, comprised most of the area. And if I may just take a second here to point it out. Most of the area from U.S. 41 south, including Marco Island, when Marco Island was formed, it became burdensome for the rest of what was left, based on the property values to carry the entire district. So we came in and we combined what was left of two with three, and that's where those districts are now. We have talked a couple of times over the last, oh, three or four years, I guess, with both the County Attorney's Office and our office about the possibility of rejiggering those lines again perhaps to go back to their original intent. But that's a job. And they've simply not been changed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting that's anything we do today. I just wanted to bring it up as something that I see as a potential problem. Because the concept is that basically the people within the general area of the road district are paying for their own roadway improvements and paying for their own landscaping improvements and maintenance, and it's not quite that simple when you have East Naples and Golden Gate in one -- in one district. Because East Naples is not going to want to pay for Golden Gate, Golden Gate's not going to wants to pay for East Naples. I just wonder if there might be a better way to draw them, But I don't have a suggestion today. I just wanted to put that out there. How are we going to go about discussing these funds? MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, Edward Finn, public works operation director. The funds -- as part of the funds, we're proposing the inclusion of capital streetscape projects. These funds primarily are designed and have been used to provide maintenance dollars for roadways within the district. And most recently, the board has Page 42 June 17, 1999 clearly directed that the maintenance of streetscape projects be included in these. What the board will see is within the MSTD representing this area, there are two projects proposed for next year. One project is on CR-951 between Golden Gate Parkway and Green Boulevard, and the other project is U.S. 41 East from Airport Road heading east towards Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Since that's an area I'm particularly interested in, I'm going to pause you at that moment to say what I'd like to see there is there is an expectation in the community that we are -- the section of the East Trail that you described that's in this year's budget is the part of the trail on which construction is completed farther east. All I would ask is that in this year's budget we would also fund the engineering and whatever work is necessary so that we're ready to apply for the grant as soon as the construction is completed on the bridge section of the East Trail. If we don't, we're going to lose another year that we'll have to sit out there with a completed road and bare medians. So -- MR. FINN: If I may, Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- could we please add that. MR. FINN: Subsequent to our discussion yesterday, I followed up to try and get to the bottom of all this. Those road segments actually are under contract presently with an architect. The conceptual design for one segment is approximately 85 percent complete. Staff is intending to bring those to the board at their August 3rd meeting between vacation sessions and get conceptual approval to move forward under that conceptual design. Based on that early start -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, Ed, are you saying that they are funded in current year's budget? MR. FINN: They were funded actually yes, in prior year's budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Completely different news from yesterday, but good news, so I'm happy with it. MR. FINN: No, and that's why -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the dollars are there. MR. FINN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The dollars are there? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the design, so that we're ready to apply for the grant at the earliest possible date. MR. FINN: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: We're talking just the design costs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't care. What I want to know is what do we have to do to get ready to apply for the grant. MR. FINN: That is in the works. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is funded completely? MR. FINN: Subject to usual contract changes -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. FINN: Yada, yada, yada. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understand. Is there anything else that we need to do to be ready to apply for that grant at the earlier possible date? MR. FINN: The board needs to be able to pass judgment on a conceptual design, hopefully as early as August. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, if I may interrupt. The answer to your question is yes, everything necessary to apply for the grant Page 43 June 17, 1999 is funded currently. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Thank you very much. MR. FINN: The earliest possible start date, given the time frame we have, is going to be February of '00. It is possible -- one of the questions that was raised is can we do both segments in FY '007 The answer is if the funding is available, it is possible to have both segments under contract during FY '00. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if we wanted to do that, would we need to make a change to this budget, if we wanted to have both segments? MR. FINN: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that change would be what? Because I want to make it. MR. FINN: That would add about $522,000 to the MSTD 3 budget. And if you look on your detailed pages, there are already two projects budgeted in that particular fund. In part, our plan called for doing a Phase A, which is the phase between Davis and Airport, in FY '01, in part to split up the millage impact of those projects. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What would adding that 522,000 do to the rated tax at 100,000 per? And before I keep holding us up, is there anybody else who's interested in this analysis? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the problem is I think you're trying to propose to raise taxes in an area where maybe people can't really afford that burden. Since they're going to be paying for it from MSTD 3, why don't we just wait and do that in the next fiscal year, because they've already got two big expensive projects in it for this fiscal year that we're discussing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you're right that that's the balancing act, and that's why I'm curious to know what it would do to the tax mill. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to see them all built tomorrow, too. But I think you need to be more conscious of what you're asking the citizens. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Granted. That's exactly what I want to know. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Budget as proposed currently is at $46.26 per 100,000. It would increase to 57.61. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it would add 10 bucks to the budget to move that up. But a year, I think that's worth it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but some of those people might not think so. COMMISSIONER CARTER: $11 for 100,000, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. Well, I'll go ahead and say I support it. But are there other -- are there two others who do? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would prefer to wait, unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see that done. MR. FINN: If it makes it any easier, Madam Chairman, the design is going to be completed for both segments in roughly the same time frame, so in the follow-on year, if millage -- if funding becomes available, that project will be ready to go in the other segments. And given what sometimes are uncomfortably long time frames for completing projects, it may not be unrealistic to say we're probably not delaying it more than a couple of months. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You could start October the 1st in any case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good point. Page 44 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: So will you be all right with that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just going to have to be. MR. FINN: So we have the segment between Airport Road and Rattlesnake in the FY '00 budget for that particular MSTD. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the other project is a developer project that we already approved; is that right? MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's what, Heritage something? MR. FINN: That's on CR-951 between Golden Gate Parkway and Green Boulevard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what development? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not a development. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not a development project? Then who's doing the matching funds there? There aren't any? MR. FINN: There are no matching funds. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then how does that come to be such a high priority? MR. FINN: This is an arrangement the board entered into with the MSTU that exists out there to do beautification. The Golden Gate beautification MSTU. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. That's what I was just trying to identify. I mean, the description of how many miles on 951 didn't mean anything to me. Okay. MR. FINN: The other project that the board has already discussed today is the one on U.S. 41 north, Sea Gate, north in front of Pelican Bay. As has been mentioned, there's been some discussion with the Pelican Bay folks, an indication that they may provide some funding. The budget as presented to the board does not include full or partial funding for that project. I will say that that MSTD with the budget as proposed does not include any funding for beautification projects. The proposal that I heard would add about $251,000 to that budget. And I -- maybe Mr. Smykowski could tell us what the millage impact to that would be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because we like that idea. The question is, though, is from a construction timing schedule -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: You wouldn't do that until 2000 -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, it's not going to happen in this fiscal year, so let's not worry about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that right? MR. FINN: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. MR. FINN: No. The segment we're talking about is already six-laned. It's not going to be under construction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. I was thinking of the wrong place. MR. FINN: Can't be done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe we could do that one this year. MR. FINN: It can be done. If the board wants to accelerate that and is interested in raising the millage, it would allow us to move forward with that. Of course, design would have to be undertaken in the design table of that project completion. I can't speak to you right at the moment of the design. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Jim, I think the community is ready for that one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Our community is ready for that, so just tell me what the numbers are and we'll go. Page 45 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You'll write a check? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I heard them tell me that this morning. MR. SMYKOWSKI: $51.72, compared to the budget as proposed, which was 46.26. So it's about $5.50. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Per hundred. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right, per $100,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Per 100,0007 It's not -- so I would say let's move forward with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two votes. There's three and four. So that one's going up. MR. FINN: We will make those changes on our proposed master plan for these. And that will be reflected here as well within the budget. The other beautification projects that were subject to some discussion were those projects that had some private funding. There were two projects proposed: One of them on Goodlette and one of them on SR-951, south of Port au Prince Road. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The one that's on Goodlette is the one that I have a lot of support for. This is the one that's right in front of Moorings Park. From that stretch of Goodlette on down to like the car dealership. I understand we have a 50 percent match from private dollars on that project. Which MSTD that would be in -- MR. FINN: That would be in MSTD 2. And that is Solano to Pine Ridge is the proposed segment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what would be the millage implication of putting that project in this year? MR. FINN: The -- that's a good question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask just a general question to the board? There is -- we've had a policy before of we have shared particularly in the gateway areas, or paid outright in the gateway areas, like a Davis or U.S. 41. When you talk about Pelican Bay, that's kind of the entryway to urban Collier. And we've talked about doing that now on 951. Again you get off Exit 15 or you got off of Exit 16. We did that on part of Pine Ridge. But in those areas that are more inclusive or more unique to, you know, particular residential neighborhoods or so on. If you go to Bayshore or you do others, then those communities have paid for them themselves by and large. Are we altering that policy if we do this? Goodlette isn't a gateway into the community, it's in the center of the community. So are we in essence altering that policy and is that one that we want to get into? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess that's what we're discussing right now is whether or not we want to do that. I think a 50 percent match in that area, I think that's a major enough roadway in our community that it would be appropriate. Obviously if we can get 100 percent private money, we would want it. I think that -- how would you say it -- horse has been beaten as thoroughly as it can be beaten, and we're going to get 50 percent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the proposal is to take it out of MSTD number two and 50 percent match from private sources, so that it's not a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- general county funding. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's on Goodlette, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right, on Goodlette. I think that it's appropriate, as you make the very good point, and that is that we're Page 46 June 17, 1999 not talking about general county dollars, we're talking about MSTD 2. And that's people who use that road. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In fact, you could make the other argument what we were just talking about, the 41 segments that we were talking about could be considered full county funding instead of the MSTD's. You know, you could make that argument the other way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, you could. And I could go there. MR. FINN: I don't think Commissioner Constantine has had an opportunity to kind of see what staff's proposal was for the funding. I've tried to put that on the image machine here. Our approach for county-wide funding to come from the gas tax fund would be just for those gateway intersections, if you would, the one mile around an intersection. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Put the little map up there. It shows it better. Little circles on his map that -- no -- yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is a little map. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A little map. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A cute little map. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The circles are where they're proposing general fund. And that makes sense. MR. FINN: And when we say general fund here, we're saying general gas tax funding that otherwise would go towards road construction projects. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. And I want to be very careful. I like pretty, but if it's a case of no road or pretty, I want the road. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's why your question is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where I'm going. When we're being told on one hand gee, we have a shortfall, we're not going to be able to afford roads, and the level of service question we'll dealing with and so on, and on the other hand we're saying well, we're going to pay for all of these. These are a signature to our community. And I don't argue with that. If any of us go to Florida Association of Counties, or you go to Leadership Florida or any other group that is state-wide, they say oh, gosh, your roads are gorgeous, it's a beautiful community. And it does make an impression that I think is worthwhile. But I've got to agree with Commissioner Berry, if it's -- you know, if we're struggling with how we're going to fund some road lanes, I'd hate to spend that money on flowers instead. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's why what we're talking about here is MSTD money instead of general gas tax money. Because if I were asking you to do that with general road improvement money, your point would be right, we can't ever have trees over asphalt when we need asphalt. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does any of this section fall within the city -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- portion of Goodlette? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Goodlette? No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MR. FINN: If I may just give a very brief overview of this concept. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has everybody already heard this, though? MR. FINN: I believe Commissioner Constantine has not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize for that. Page 47 June 17, 1999 MR. FINN: The county-wide concept is the gateway intersections identified in the streetscape master plans. Regional improvements are identified as major arterial roadways identified in the streetscape master plan. The funding source there would be the MSTD road districts, minus any local contributions, minus any grant fundings, that kind of an approach. The local roadways would be funded as they have been, typically by MSTU's, local MSTU's that are established to fund those local roadways. Thomasson Drive being an example, Golden Gate beautification district, Lely beautification district, all being examples of local taxing districts designed to fund beautification on roadways that are more local collector than major system arterials. And what we've gone through is we've gone through and identified those segments accordingly so that we can look at a road segment and say that's regional, that's local, that gateway intersection is a county-wide funding mechanism. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We already polled ourselves on this one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We can move on. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers that wanted to speak on this subject. You might want to take them now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now who could they be? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who could it possibly be? MR. FERNANDEZ: They are Michael Corday and George Botner. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You also had asked the millage implications in MSTD 2 of that addition. It would increase it to $10.73 per 100,000 from 8.09, an increase of $2.64. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's worth it, guys. We need to do it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already voted on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I voted on the Goodlette Road one? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As far as you know. Mr. Botner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. As long as we're doing it, that's all that matters. I'm fine with it. MR. BOTNER: I promised Chairwoman Mac'Kie that we'd be brief with our comments. For the record, George Botner, president of Naplescape. And I'm joined here with chairman of our sub-committee on the subject of budget and funding, Mike Bruet, who will speak for just a few minutes also. You might recall a couple of years ago we -- or you all did adopt a streetscape master plan as part of the code. And one of the issues we always had with the streetscape master plan was the method of funding and could we come up with a system of funding that was as rational as the plan itself and one that we could put into place and of course revisit at budget time every year, but it would be a system that we could all agree to. And it would give us the long-range understanding of what the costs of maintenance are going to be on this community. Taking that task to heart over the past year, we have been looking at the MSTD's, which I guess actually technically are MSTU's, since that's how they were set up in '76. But to take those three that you just discussed and use those as the funding source for both capital and maintenance so that you could avoid the concern of trying Page 48 June 17, 1999 to position the importance of road construction with landscape construction. Of course, at Naplescape, our feeling is pretty obvious. We think you shouldn't do the one without the other, that they belong to be married together. Especially in this kind of community. But going beyond that, we did review all of the MSTU's and the projected revenues for them over the next five years and applied to that a schedule of both capital and maintenance. All of you and the administrator and public works staff have seen the results of that work and we have met on a couple of occasions with public works staff to review that. And I'm sure that a good part of the intent of that work came out in the eventual public works recommendations for funding this year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But do you like what we're proposing to do this year, after the board has subsequently looked at the budget? Do you have any suggestion over what we've seen? MR. BOTNER: We only have at this point one other major suggestion, and that relates to a review of the funding source and policy that to our view there's no reason to engage gas tax funding in this program. When we look at this -- the cost of this program, spread out over five years, the millage rate for each of the MSTU's is, I think all of you observed, phenomenally inexpensive as it relates to the overall grand picture of what we're doing. That's one general proposal that we would like to make to you and have you consider. Perhaps not now, since we're in the middle of the budget and we need to fine tune some things relative to that approach. The second more minor item relates to a public/private partnership that we developed for this county, going back to 1996 with Gulf Bay Development as the principal private supporter. And I can tell you in '96 on State Road 951, which was at that time just four-laned, we secured a commitment from that company to prepare a concept plan for the whole three miles of the four-laning, which they did. And they agreed at that time to come forward with a demonstration project. Seven-tenths of a mile to actually fund to the 50 percent increment that we had at that time expected our private partners to get involved with, and they agreed to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: George, I'm going to interrupt you right there. Because I thought that that was a reasonable thing, too, to ask a developer to come in with 50 percent. But I've changed my mind. I think that developers who are going to benefit from this from a marketing perspective need to be pay 100 percent of the capital. And in fact that's what happened at the Vineyards, that's what happened at Collier's Reserve -- am I right, Bob? You guys had a list for me yesterday of -- 50 percent's not the match for developers, 100 percent of the capital is what a developer has to pay, because the benefit is there for him from a marketing perspective. MR. BOTNER: Would you agree, though, that as part of that relationship with securing that capital funding that the county would provide the maintenance at the time of installation as their part of the bargain? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would think that 100 percent of the maintenance is the county, if 100 percent of the installation is the developer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things I want to be careful. This is not the first time I've said this, but we're talking Page 49 June 17, 1999 about developers and new projects and they stand at -- if we're talking about greenscaping roadways in Collier County, there are an awful lot of areas like Golden Gate or Immokalee Road or others that need to be taken care of before a new development starts having county general maintenance pay for them. There are roads that are already existing with neighborhoods already there and people already traversing them every day that should be a much higher priority than something that might appear on Livingston Road down the road, or something that isn't already built. MR. BOTNER: Yes, sir. And we agree with you wholeheartedly. The interest level increases dramatically when there are private sector dollars that come into that equation in terms of priorities. And what we would have suggested as part of an overall rational comprehensive program for funding is that we develop a long-term schedule of roads year by year, and that we amend that every year as you come to budget. But that the proviso is, is that if you want to jump your place in that schedule, there needs to be significant private dollars attached to it for that to happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I would ask is if the board would direct -- I've asked our staff, public works guys and Mr. Finn, to meet with the Naples Scape folks to hash out what the -- this policy ought to be. We're not being asked to adopt it today. But you've put the issues on the floor, so we will kind of have a heads up on what to be watching for as the policy recommendations come in from staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we have a body of experience that fairly well dictates what the policy is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- so I don't think it will be a long discussion. I have no objection '- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think your select committee, as they work through their agenda scoping everything, is going to be some new information to this equation, too, so that all of this will probably be an evolving policy as we go along. MR. BOTNER: But, you know, if I may suggest that that policy starts with you all. And what's really important to us in this community and your staff is to have a very clear understanding of what that policy is so that they're guided by that. And we in the community, when we're trying to generate the private support dollars, also understand that and know that when we bring them to the table, there's going to be a deal that can be done, because it is in concert with the policies that you all have established. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I think we ought to move on. Mike, do you have something you just need to tell us? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Mike Bruet for the record. And on behalf of the board of directors of Naples Scape, I'll be very quick. We may disagree at times of how to get through these landscape projects, but certainly from the board of directors, we want to say thank you for being open and always providing us staff and allowing us to work with you all. And I'm sure we can solve these issues as they come up. So at this point in time I won't take a lot of your time but again, we say thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Take more if you want to -- okay. I was wondering if we might be able to finish just this section and then take our lunch break. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. Page 50 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because there's not a lot left. Any other public works road district questions in particular? COMMISSIONER CARTER: One question I have, and I'm sure this will be get factored in somewhere, is that we have gone through and looked at road projects and wastewater projects. And we have a shortfall. And my question is, how is this all integrating? Are we picking up a percentage of that shortfall here? Do we still at the end of the day when we get done with all of this do we have 251 million shortfall in everything we're doing? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, part of the calculation of that shortfall included an assumption of a transition of funding to put more funding to direct more of the transportation funding towards the gasoline tax, the transfer to road and bridge. This recommended budget is consistent with those assumptions that were used to compute the 251 million dollar shortfall that we talked about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In other words, we aren't reducing the 250 million -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- at the end of this budget time. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. That's what I needed to know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other road district questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- one. When would be an appropriate time to talk about our impact fees in relation to the City of Marco Island? Would it be in this section or -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll talk about that this afternoon. The last thing scheduled is capital funds, and we would look at the road program at that point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What I'll probably need to do is get copies of this out to the other commissioners and to you staff people. So I'll leave it here for you to get us some copies during the lunch break. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything on the MSTD general fund -- I'm sorry, road funds. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The only other expanded service within this section was in the Golden Gate beautification on Page C-19, budgeting for landscape design on Santa Barbara, Phase I, in accordance with the Golden Gate streetscape plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And their committee has asked for that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. That's also within their existing millage -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: God bless them. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- one-half mill that's levied. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is Commissioner Constantine recommending to cut this out? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did not recommend that one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So glad to hear that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I didn't see that on this list. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keep us moving. Keep up moving, everybody. We have a lunch break. Nothing else there? We can stop at that point? Commissioner Constantine had asked for an hour and 15 minutes. Anybody have a problem with that? Okay, we'll be back at 1:15. (Luncheon recess was taken.) Page 51 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we ready? We'll call the meeting back to order for the budget workshop. If we could get you guys to kind of tone down back there so we can talk up here. Mr. Smykowski, where are we? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page C-23 in the summary book, towards development funds. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My only question here is something I should be able to look at it and tell but I couldn't, and that is, does this have the third penny in or out? MR. SMYKOWSKI: In. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And does this -- does this have the third penny in beyond the date by which it will sunset without a super majority? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought so. So -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if we back it out, what does it do to the numbers? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. Because, I mean, that -- that is exactly what needs to be put to, to the board, frankly, to make that decision. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. MR. MIHALIC: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic. The third penny will bring in about 2.8 million dollars, so, obviously, if the third penny is not continued we have to reduce these numbers by about 2.8 million dollars. And that would be -o COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Because it goes to December 31st, so that would be one quarter. MR. MIHALIC: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course, that's not the biggest quarter. MR. FERNANDEZ: Three quarters is the 2.8. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be the first quarter. It would still be in effect. MR. MIHALIC: You're right, Commissioner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because then my next question is going to be, what projects are you going to cut? MR. FERNANDEZ: 2.1 is the number. The number is 2.1 million. That's three quarters -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 2.17 MR. FERNANDEZ: That's three quarters at 2.8. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we would have to subtract 2.1 million from this 20 million dollars? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what would be -- what projects would you recommend to cut if that 2.1 goes away, because, I mean, we've got to factor that in. We're pretending we have it and we don't. MR. MIHALIC: Well, Commissioners, I think, really the way to handle that is to go back to the Tourist Development Council and ask them to rank those Category A, B, beach renourishment projects and then have a certain funding level that they want to commit the funds for and then, after that, have it as a -- I would recommend an advisory or an auxiliary level of recommendation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we need to do that between now and the next round of hearings, assuming that somebody doesn't change their Page 52 June 17, 1999 mind and get us a fourth vote. MR. HUBER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Harry Huber, Public Works, Engineering. As far as Category A funds, if you have the sheet for Fund 195, it's showing a reserve of 4.8 million. So the -- using the funds that would be generated without the third cent, it would just be a matter of the reserves being reduced by 2.1 million, or whatever. So, I mean, we could still do all the projects, but the reserves would be significantly reduced. That's all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And are the reserves the money for beach maintenance or are they purely typical reserves in the event of an emergency? MR. HUBER: Well, primarily it's, you know, for emergency purposes, although, you know, heretofore we hadn't really prepared budgets, you know, between the normal budget cycle. We just, every time the applications come in, we took it from reserves. But, you know, it's a matter of how much you want to keep in the reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's accumulated fund balance within the beach fund. And it would drop 2.1 million dollars from the 4.8 where it is currently. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's about as clear as mud to me, as far as understanding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 2.7 would be left. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: After this coming up fiscal year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But, so, is what you're telling us, Harry, that this third penny is only important with regard to reserves, we don't need it for anything else? MR. HUBER: Well, certainly it's a matter of how much you want to keep in reserves. The original intent was to build up the reserves for a catastrophic event or something like that. And, as it's turning out, certainly without the third cent we're reducing the reserves rather than building them up. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Remember, the reserves are a one time phenomenon. So, if that reserve is used to cover this budget, for example, it's gone, because the third cent won't be there to continue to build it up. Okay? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought that might -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, next year it doesn't come back again in its current state. MR. FERNANDEZ: If the reserve is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? You can use it one time and that's it. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's one time money. The reserve is not a recurring source of money. Okay? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: So if you use that reserve now to make up the difference between this budget and the revenues that would be created without the third cent -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- then next year, for that same level of activity, you don't have revenues to match it because the reserve part is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I have this question then. I understand Page 53 June 17, 1999 that. I wonder if there would be direction from a majority of the board to give direction to staff -- hey, guys, it's kind of hard to hear. I'm sorry. It's just real distracting -- to give direction to the staff to develop this tourist tax budget with and without the third penny, because either -- I mean, that's the question that has to be put -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's what we need to do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- to these guys, and, if not to them, then to the voters. We've got to have the answer to that question. MR. FERNANDEZ: We need to develop another budget without the third cent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a majority of the board that wants to do that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I would like to know where we are without this third penny. I want to know what happens to everything. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. Just a projected ten years, or whatever -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is an appropriate amount of projection. The other question that I had on tourist tax money had to do with museums. And I understand there is a museum funding issue on Tuesday's agenda, but I'm not going to be there, so I don't understand. Does this budget show an increased amount of funding for museums out of tourist tax? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the amount goes from what to what? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what they're saying is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Percentage wise. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Without changing the budget at all, just use up reserves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. I'm on a different question now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question now is, on museums, they used to get seven percent. Now they are going to get sixteen percent or something. What is it? MR. MIHALIC: Up to fifteen, by the ordinance amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And so that this budget contemplates that ordinance amendment, even though it's not technically going to be adopted until next Tuesday? That's my question. MR. OLLIFF: What's contemplated here was actually an ordinance amendment that was proposed and submitted as part of the budget prior to the board's decision on Robert's Ranch. This budget here -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you are, for the record? MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. For the record, Tom Olliff, Public Services Administrator. I think my address is here. The budget allocation is actually in this budget going from 7 to 9.9 percent. We've amended that in Greg's ordinance amendment that you will see on this coming Tuesday to actually go from 7 to 15 percent. In addition to this budget, that provides roughly $250,000 more money, which is dedicated to the Robert's Ranch project. And, if you'll recall, that's what we told the board, roughly it's going to take some additional county money in order to get us to the point where we can completely match what we need in state grants in order to be able to do the restoration. In addition, that provides us some cash up front to be able to do some of the grant application work. Page 54 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Without reducing the funding that's currently provided to the Collier County Museum, true or false? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And -- but does it contemplate any applications for funding from any other museums, for example, the Wilkinson House? MR. MIHALIC: No, commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, if such an application came in to the new tourist board the way it's going to be structured in this annual thing, it would -- is there a possibility? What would happen? MR. MIHALIC: All museums would come directly to the TDC. They would not go through the umbrella tourism board. And that would be a recommendation they would make to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And they would have that discretion to make it out of reserves? MR. OLLIFF: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And that's when -- and this o- when you do this projection for us it's also going to include these changes from the museum funding, because, I mean, it's just getting a little more confusing, trying to anticipate what the repercussions might be of the third penny. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to need to have a discussion at some point after last night's talk with the sheriff and then, talking about this, somebody assigning reserves money for what is a beginning of the year budget item, we're going to need to, at some point, maybe even before this three-day process is over, talk about reserves and how we define those and what their intended purpose is. Because, for someone to say they're going to apply reserves to something because they don't want to spend other money for it, that's not what reserves' intended purpose is. And they may legally be able to do that, but we may want to alter board policy so that it's not so easy, because that's clearly not the intent of reserves. Either we budget for it or we don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I certainly support re-visiting our budget policy on reserves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything else on tourist tax? And certainly we'll have to get to that. Anything else on the tourist development budget? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in general, do we want to -- I don't know how -- tomorrow will probably be our longest day, but maybe Monday, as part of wrap-up, do we just want to set some time aside specifically for that; is there any objection to that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For that reserves discussion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Because that will impact our overall budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sounds like a wrap-up item. Does that work for everybody? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Where are we now? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page C-27, Miscellaneous Special Revenue, including the museum, public guardianship. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But this is, again, something we don't have much discretion over, right? I mean, this is -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- just a report. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. The only issue within museum, the Page 55 June 17, 1999 expanded, was based on that increased funding of, of TDC dollars, just so you're aware of that. That would address that as part of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions on that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- that TDC discussion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions on the rest of public services? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, one. This wasn't on my cut list but it was a question mark. On the museum request to increase part-time volunteer coordinator position to full-time. We have this debate in various departments every year about, we certainly have a number of volunteers, who are great for us, but we keep adding positions or having requested positions every year from various departments to coordinate these volunteers. And I'm wondering, one, Mr. Fernandez, county-wide, how many volunteer coordinators do we have now, and, two, just what's the necessity to double up, I guess, on where we are right now in the museum? And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if the necessity is there. MR. OLLIFF: County-wide, my -- I can only -- I can only think of two volunteer coordinators. There's only one in my division, and it's here. And I know there are none in the other divisions, with the exception of, perhaps, the overall RSVP volunteer coordinator, and I believe that's a split position that we don't even pay for 100 percent of that position. In the museum, volunteers were one of the things that you wanted us to not only generate but to help do the operations in certain cases at both Everglades City and at the central museum here. When we put in the half-time position that you did approve, we found out that our volunteers tripled in size. So we're getting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great news. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that answers my question. That's what I'm looking for. That's helpful. Thanks, Ron. I didn't mean to drag you up from the back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Anything else before we move to enterprise funds; is that what's next? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is next, correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything else before we make that move? Okay. Take us to the enterprise funds. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page E-2 and E-3 is the Collier County Water & Sewer District Operations, Fund 408. There is no proposed rate increase. The fund is in a very strong financial position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I want to know. Where? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No proposed rate changes. Obviously there is a -- there are a number of expanded service requests. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know. A thousand percent in administration? That's noticeable. A thousand percent increase in the administration? COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's know as general overhead. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's known as general overhead. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Budget change. Oh, utilities. I'm sorry. I was one line off. Thank God. But still, a thousand percent, what is that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we adopt a budget of 8,000 for that and we have a forecast of 123,000 for that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the question. Page 56 June 17, 1999 That's probably you, Mr. Finn. MR. FINN: Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, for recognizing me in this interesting question. I'm sorry. I don't know what line it was. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Utility general overhead, the adopted budget for '98/'99 was $8,000. The forecast is $123,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: One bet, that is revenue, and that is from late charges from past due utility accounts that are reflected in the general overhead budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think the question was just, how did we come to under-forecast so significantly; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That is correct. MR. FINN: I am going to suggest to you that there was probably a change in how the budget office was coding the revenue source relative to being in the bigger numbers in water or sewer operation revenue and they put it into this smaller line item where it's showing up a lot more obviously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't know. Because it says last fiscal year, '97/'98, actual, 156,000. And then adopted the following year, which is the one we're in, 8,000, and then the expense that we are projecting to be 123. So it appears to be consistent from year to year to be a six-figure number and somehow plugged into the budget, and it's not a big dollar item and it's not that -- MR. FINN: Staff will pay much closer attention to this, and I will review this with the budget office and make sure it's appropriate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. It's something we probably want to know at wrap-up, was an answer to the question. Can you point me to the line on here that tells us, I guess it's maybe carry forward or -- where is, what if this were in fact a private business, the profit line here? MR. FINN: When the auditor presented last year's audit, I think they told you we were in a very strong position. If you were to read this and look at the increase in reserves, that would probably give you an indication of our relative profitability. But I would caution you on looking at it strictly on those terms. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But tell me, what's the number? MR. FINN: The number would be the difference between growth and revenue, about 6 million dollars over the last several years, last three years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Six -- is there a line on here that shows me that? MR. FINN: No. I'm looking at the difference between the '99 budgeted reserves of about 10 million and looking at the 'OO proposed budgeted reserves of 16 million, and telling you we've added about 6 million dollars to the available fund balance in this fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In one year? MR. FINN: No, ma'am. Over the last couple years. It is showing up in this one year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the, quote, unquote, profit is about $3,000,000 a year? MR. FINN: No. I do not know that number offhand. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But you just said it's 6 million dollars over two years. Didn't he? COMMISSIONER BERRY: You don't know if it was two one year and four the next. Page 57 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What he's really trying to say is that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Average. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you can't really, the way this is structured, pull out a number and call it -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know that. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, I will be happy to go to the coffer from last year. I will photocopy the page and I will send you a memo indicating the number that you're looking for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: More easily than that would be is if, at wrap-up, you can tell us what the number has been. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Perhaps there is an average over five years. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The issue being, can our rates go down? Right? I mean, isn't that the fundamental issue? Board members, isn't that the issue, since Mr. Finn's not going to answer my question? Isn't that the issue, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FINN: No, no. Well, there's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Not whether we're making a profit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we're making a profit, the issue is, can we lower rates, true? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not necessarily. You have the need for capital improvements -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and to invest back into your system -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That money doesn't just float around. That goes towards future expenses for capital. MR. FINN: No. And I will -- I'll answer not your exact question, but I'll answer in general about reserves. The contingency reserve is set at ten percent of operating. The cash flow reserve is set at three months of operating expenditures, and that would cover us in the event of, you know, some critical inability to generate our revenue on a given, given period. We literally spend about two million dollars a month in operating expenditures. The capital reserve, which represents about three percent of our total property plant and equipment that we own, that is available for a multitude of purposes. An example of the use of that funds is the recently completed north water plant expansion. That project was completed using funds from this source as a bridge financing mechanism to avoid the use of or, rather, to avoid needing to bond to complete that project. A similar thing is being done for the upcoming north wastewater treatment plant expansion where we're going to use in-house financing to bridge the gap between annual impact fee collections and the large outflow of capital dollars to complete that project. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the question that I have for wrap-up, Mr. Fernandez, is projecting reasonable reserves for necessary capital outlays in the future. MR. FERNANDEZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is the -- I don't know what to call it except for profit -- the profit generated by -- is there any profit generated by this enterprise fund? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Another way to ask your question is, are we collecting too much reserves? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Page 58 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because we don't really get into profit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. FINN: That's an interesting question. Our rates were most recently revised in late '97. At that point in time, frankly, the overall rate was held revenue neutral, as you may recall. Instead we had a little shift between water and wastewater. The question you're asking is one that we have already started to look at. But, given the uncertainty of several things, we're a little uncomfortable jumping out ahead of any kind of a change or revision to the rates. For example, we are in the process of looking at a comprehensive approach to re-use irrigation. In the event the board directs us to move in that direction, there will be substantial needs in terms of capital expenditures. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'm just asking you to share that information with us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As it gets -- yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: The answer to your question is that the issue of what the appropriate rate should be, based upon all the system's needs, is a very complicated question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it's a question that we address periodically when we do comprehensive rate studies. It's typically a very exhaustive process of taking all of these factors into consideration, making projections of your needs for the future and determining what your rate should be. As Mr. Finn indicated, we did that last in '97. Is that right? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: And considering -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, Bob, let me just tell you. There's two issues for me. One is whether or not we're over collecting reserves. Thank you for telling me how to describe that. And the other is, in these enterprise funds, because it's not taxes, we rarely give them the scrutiny that we give ad valorem budgets with regard to administration and overhead. And I just think it's appropriate to do that at some point instead of just keep going through and saying there's no expanded service. I would hope that you would audit for efficiencies and see if we're over-administrated or over-staffed or if there's any possible savings in there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it makes you feel any better, I don't spare the scrutiny when I go in my little Cutlass, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I still try to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the employee per user ratio, or something. You know, there must be some reasonable measure about what's the -- what it should be. MR. FINN: There actually is a study being undertaken presently in wastewater operations being done by an outside firm to kind of give us a baseline relative to private sector, give us an idea of whether we are as efficient as we should be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I'm looking for. MR. FINN: That report should be available within about three months. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. MR. FINN: That's something that is going on presently that may Page 59 June 17, 1999 be of interest. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, what happens is, when you get in your fi£th year of looking at these budgets, you start looking for something else you can dig at when you've dug at everything else for so long. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, but I think what Mr. Finn is trying to tell, at least what I'm hearing this afternoon, is there are a number of anticipated projects that we need to deal with, and that is why they are very cautious about touching the rates, because we will need those reserves to meet those anticipated needs. So, like you, I would like to know how that ties together. I think that's the direction that you're asking for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I'm asking. And people -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: What are the tie-downs? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: People who are interested in profitizing our utilities will tell you that we are one-third over-staffed. You know, those kinds of things. I have no idea if that's right. So I would like to have some kind of a -- and that -- apparently your study is anticipating that. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, just got somebody's attention. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner Mac'kie, just a minute. You were talking about the reserves and how you say it went from ten million to sixteen. If you look at the contingency reserve, capital reserve and cash flow, you can't say that it's -- that it's even in all of those. It's not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You've got two in one, seven in one and six in one. But, you know, from, let's say, the cash flow, you went from two million one to 6.3. Okay. So you picked up four there. You went from six to seven in the capital, you know, and another one point something or other in the contingency. So, you know, it's hard to just say it's one, one thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I just want to get the -- I want you guys to break it down, as I'm sure you already are, and share that information with us. Hi. MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Water Department. I just -- the question was just asked. I just ran those numbers, at least as far as the Water Department is concerned. The typical privatized industry runs between 1.7 and 2 employees per thousand service connections. The typical governmental run or municipally run agency runs somewhere between 3 and 4. Our numbers for Collier County Water Department are currently 2.6. Actually, not currently. Let me say that I, I made a presumption and I included the five positions in the expanded -- that we're requesting this year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, assuming that is approved, then we would be at 2.6 per thousand users, that how you -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Connections. MR. MATTAUSCH: Service connections. That is correct. And that's pretty much a standard for the industry. Prior to my coming here, we went through an extensive competitiveness study, and I bring that benefit to Collier County. And those are the ~- those are the comparative numbers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's exactly the kind of thing I want to Page 60 June 17, 1999 know in wastewater. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What did you say the private sector was? CHAIRWOFLAN MAC'KIE: 1.7 to 2. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we're 2.6. COMMISSIONER CARTER: 6. That's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why they have so many complaints and we don't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, it's valid. Okay. Other questions on water and sewer? I don't have any, pending the answer to those questions at wrap-up. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have -- is this on Page -- are we on E-4, is that -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Let me ask one question, and this is -- deals with the Department of Revenue. There is a request for an increase in payment to the Department of Revenue to find a new Customer Service Representative II position. I don't know where we bring this up about that department, but I know EMS has had difficulties there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bring it up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And there was a one time $300,000 anticipated savings by having our own Department of Revenue. I know the productivity committee is revisiting this whole issue. I would like to revisit the whole issue and ask the question. How much of that could be privatized or outsourced versus having an internal department, and what kind of savings could we anticipate by re-thinking how we do the work? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How interesting that you would raise that point because it gets raised every year. And we never see changes as a result of it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm going to ask the question because I'm new and I don't know any better. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're so glad. Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, we are in the process of looking at that very question as it relates to the EMS billing. CHAIRWOMAN FLAC'KIE: And I'm aware that you are, as to EMS. MR. FERNANDEZ: That study is underway right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's true. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But my question would be, do we need to keep that fifteen seven in there if we're studying that, for that position? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my question would be, does the Department of Revenue work? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's the big question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or does it cost us more in the long run? Neil promised us, you know, big bucks savings. Every year we see increases in Department of Revenue. I've never believed it worked, but I would love to be -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's why I'm inclined not to add positions to this function until we get those questions answered. Page 61 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I could support that cut. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Where's Slash? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where is Slash Constantine? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, after we get through enterprise funds, the internal service funds are next on our schedule, which would include, be inclusive of the DOR -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And perhaps the appropriate time -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's really where -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- to ask the question about that is, to address that need, would be when we're discussing the DOR budget. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because if we cut it in DOR, it will be automatically cut here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. So we'll watch for it there. Anything else in water, sewer? Take us to solid waste. Ugh. That's an ugly picture. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, actually, there's a few miscellaneous enterprises funds on Page E-9, utilities debt service, Marco Water and Sewer District. The only thing of note there is Marco Water and Sewer District, July '99 anticipated rate increase due to increased bulk sewage rates from Florida Water Services Corporation. So essentially, as those rates increase, they are passed through. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me -- let me interject something here on this. This might be the appropriate time. I asked the question about a week ago, would it make sense to just go ahead and transfer Horr's Island, Key Marco, that water service over to Florida Water rather than keep it ourselves. For one thing, it would reduce their rates by a bunch, since we buy water from Florida Water, put a surcharge on it and then ship it to them down the same pipe. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How logical. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I know. But I wonder if maybe it would make sense just to turn that over to them. It's probably more of a nuisance to us than it is anything else, such a small little thing. MR. FERNANDEZ: The eloquent Mr. Finn, I believe, can speak to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Finn? MR. FINN: That's a good question. That area has kind of been subject to kind of off again, on again planning, and some of the assumptions that were made when that development was first approved and the county stepped in to provide service or have subsequently proven to be incorrect. That might be a viable option. The difficulty is that the water being provided to that island depends upon Goodland Water District system in terms of storage, re-pump and supplemental disinfection to provide adequate fire fighting water supply and adequate quality of water. So we have contemplated it, but we still are going to have some need to handle it, in lieu of Key Marco stepping up and building their own storage facilities. And that's how the county got involved right from the beginning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Why don't we do this. This is probably not a good subject for budget discussions, but why don't we, sometime in the fairly near future, have an agenda item? You can research and give us the options. MR. FINN: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN M3kC'KIE: That sounds good. Page 62 June 17, 1999 MR. FINN: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for bringing that up. And now solid waste? We got water-sewer debt service. Do you need to talk about that one? MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are no issues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's nothing to talk about. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are just payments on outstanding bonds, principal and interest. There is no latitude there to make changes, frankly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. Solid waste? MR. SMYKOWSKI: E-12 is solid waste funds, the grouping of the solid waste funds, landfill closure, solid waste grants, mandatory collection. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is any of this outside of what we've already approved in our discussions about the landfill, the early closure, the -- all of that; is any of this new? It's all what we've already approved, isn't it? MR. RUSSELL: Well, we do have expanded service within the solid waste department that we had not discussed before that you haven't seen before. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So that would be -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Those are on E-13. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that million eight we've already talked about. MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it's from there down? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your name, please. Your name? MR. RUSSELL: Oh. For the record, David Russell, Solid Waste Department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the 32,8 for Assistant Recycling Coordinator, 32,9 for Equipment Operator, 32,8, oh good, for another Department of Revenue. And why do we need to increase reserves a hundred thousand bucks? MR. RUSSELL: That's related to the five percent on our reserve for contingencies. That's related -- if you add these expenses together and take five percent, that's the increase to the reserve for contingencies. The DOR related item here is related to increased staffing at the landfill scale houses. It's not an in-house DOR, a function, so to speak, and, due to growth in that area, Naples Landfill is doing something like 500 transactions a day. And that amount is like a -- on average, a transaction every minute point two, on that order. Having a hard time maintaining staff in that position. We've trained some people and they have kind of run away scared from the position. We're leaning heavily on some -- a couple of veteran staff people that are willing to work very long hours and have kind of grown into this high rate of transactions. And I think we're in a little bit of exposure here if we have to lose those people, for whatever reason, to have adequate staffing to do the job. It's just -- it's turned into quite an onerous task. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Norris has a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On our -- Mr. Russell, on our recycling program, do we end up making or losing money on our recycling? MR. RUSSELL: We lose -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Household recycling. Page 63 June 17, 1999 MR. RUSSELL: We lose money on recycling. Are you asking about the curbside program? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. RUSSELL: The title to recyclables goes to Waste Management, and it does not cover their cost of operation for collection of recyclables. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What happens to it; is it truly being recycled or is it going into the landfill anyway? MR. RUSSELL: No, no. It goes to their recycling center in Sarasota and all the material is additionally separated at that point, the plastics from the glass, aluminum, so on and so forth, and goes on to markets from there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, the reason I'm asking is we've got 32,800 for an assistant recycling coordinator to try to develop more recycling business. And I just wonder if it makes sense to try to increase how much we're going to lose. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's how much Waste Management is going to lose, right? I mean, the loss on recycling is not the county's loss, it's the operator's loss. MR. RUSSELL: Our goal in adding this position was to just increase recycling generally in the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But can you answer John's question? MR. FERNANDEZ: Whose loss? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please. Whose loss? The county loses money or Waste Management loses money on recycling? MR. RUSSELL: Waste Management loses money on recycling. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So let's not line their pockets in order, you know, because we need to -- the motivation for recycling is something other than financial. How is that? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, it's an environmental issue. You are protecting the environment by the more you can recycle. And is it cost-effective in dollars and cents? MR. RUSSELL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. MR, RUSSELL: No recycling program in this state is cost-effective. It costs hundreds of dollars a ton to recycle. It does save some landfill capacity, but the return in all these endeavors is minuscule as far as that goes. But every community does it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it's a touchy-feely thing, folks. This is not -- everybody's been led to believe that this is going to -- everything's going to be improved if you can recycle plastics and aluminum. Granted. It may keep it from being thrown along the roadside, and I really doubt that, if you come out and drive down Immokalee Road. But, nevertheless, it's one of those things that everybody was sold the idea that if you put all these things in, there will be a market. And you know very well from past presentations, until they get to the point where you all buy recycled material, you don't have a good recycling program. And there is not a market for it. And we're too far away down here. Now, maybe if you lived up in the northeast where you had a better market situation, it might be a better deal. But I think overall that's even iffy. But it's one of those things that everybody loves to jump on and they get all warm and fuzzy when they throw their aluminum can in their little green bin and they think, boy, we are saving the environment, you know. Well, Page 64 June 17, 1999 that's a bunch of baloney. But if it makes you feel better, do it. You know, and I do it too. I do. I throw my plastic and my aluminum in that little recycle bin, and they cart it off. But for everybody to say that this is just a wonderful program and that we're just doing so much, you guys are kidding yourself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. I disagree. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You are. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me tell you what. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Financially, you are. CHAIRWOMAN BERRY: That's right, financially we are. If we're only measuring if we're making money. We're losing money. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. I didn't say making money, Pam. No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, then what are you measuring because you're keeping '- COMMISSIONER BERRY: For what? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- stuff out of the landfill? It's going somewhere. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it doesn't stink. Glass and aluminum don't stink, Pam. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that's not the only issue. That's so far from the only issue. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, God. Well, let's all get warm and fuzzy here and then we'll be all right. Let's move on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If keeping -- if you feeling warm and fuzzy keeps that money in there, then I'm happy. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. We're warm and fuzzy. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm warm and fuzzy. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, there is an example right there of how we need somebody to be talking about the benefits of recycling because apparently we don't know what they are. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, yeah. Right. Well, I'll buy it when you can tell me how they turn around and use the product and that it makes sense. And right now nobody has done that very successfully. You can read all kinds of information about it. All it is, and they'll tell you, it's a warm and fuzzy program. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, we're going to package it up and bomb Kosovo with it, so -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, maybe that might be cost-effective. MR. FERNANDEZ: One caveat to that, there's a state mandate of thirty percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's that, if nothing else. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, then where did that come from, you know? Warm and fuzzy Washington, probably. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good Lord have Mercy. Somebody please make this a headline tomorrow because that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I hope so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's just bizarre. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Batt, warm and fuzzy, okay? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bizarre. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Warm and fuzzy. We're into that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. What's next? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Moving on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Moving right along. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Miscellaneous enterprise funds? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. That's the -- Page 65 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions on solid waste? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The reserves, I guess, there, would be highlighted as a follow-up issue if, on this global discussion of reserves we're going to have, is that five percent something magic so that we have to have an extra hundred thousand reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Within the solid waste fund, though, remember, you're accumulating funds and your rate structure is geared to accumulate funds toward that eventual construction of a new landfill. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. The new landfill. Let's not start on that one either. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm not suggesting a site. Wherever it may be, ultimately end up, it will be expensive. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, that's not a warm and fuzzy. That's cold, hard facts, reality. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's smelly. Cold and smelly. Okay. Move us on, please. I beg you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: First responder training, we -- those are just reimbursements we receive from local fire districts for conducting basic medical programs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that the City of Naples program? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. This is with all the local fire districts. MR. FERNANDEZ: All the fire districts. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. You can tell me later. Internal services? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Internal services. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, oh, look, Department of Revenue. First one. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Department of Revenue, that is correct. There are three proposed expanded services on Page F-3. You have seen two of them via the other departments. The scale house issue, Mr. Russell talked about. Commissioner Carter mentioned the customer service rep. within the utility section. There's also the ambulance billing, senior customer service representative. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's interesting, though, the descriptions of these -- yeah, I guess they do match, the 32,8 is the scale house, and the 15,7 is the utilities billing. Okay. Tim, we're on our favorite subject, Department of Revenue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless them. I still owe Bill Burton that steak dinner, don't I? No. That was a different topic. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was a different topic. Just so he doesn't buy you a steak dinner is all that matters. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's right. I can feed him all day long. MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. John Yonkosky, Department of Revenue Director. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you show us -- can you answer the question this year about how is the Department of Revenue saving the county money? MR. YONKOSKY: I believe so. The sheets or the handout that you've just received, I'm not sure whether we've ever sent this to the commission or not, but this is actually -- the spread sheet on the top shows the dollars collected by month and then activities underneath of that in each of the sections that the Department of Revenue performs for you. We've collected seventy-four and a half million dollars of Page 66 June 17, 1999 your money so far through the first two quarters. At that rate we will be collecting $111,750 at the end of the year. And, when you look at it, our budget is 2°6 million. That's 2.3 cents per every dollar collected. And I suggest to you that any businessman in the country would like that kind of a collection percentage from his accounts receivable and collection area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not that we could get him to do it necessarily, but what does the tax collector charge us? MR. YONKOSKY: The tax collector? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Two point -- MR. YONKOSKY: I don't know. You might ask Mr. Smykowski on that, but he gets three percent, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. So that's certainly a -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you're beaten by point seven? MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. And we also provide customer service. That's a significant portion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second to none. MR. YONKOSKY: -- of that. That's second to none. And I firmly believe that. The second sheet -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Constantine had a question. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just what 'I think would help, that percentage is, I think, a good statistic for us, but also, have we increased in particular areas, ambulance collection or other areas, since your department is doing that rather than each department trying to collect their own? Since we've brought this all into one, have we seen an actual increase in percentage of collections? MR. YONKOSKY: I think you've seen a significant increase in percentage of collections. And, in addition to that, we use a lot of business techniques. Marginal costing, for example, where we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Arm breaking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whatever it takes, John. MR. YONKOSKY: We do. We use business techniques, and those things are applied, putting the Department of Revenue together, and this question comes up, as Commissioner Mac'kie said, every year, and I think that's healthy, that you do that. We -- by putting the departments together, you took various departments that had to be staffed at full in order to accommodate, because you had not -- you did not have the ability or the mobility to move staff from one section to another. And I do believe that the productivity in the Department of Revenue is significantly higher than in many other departments in the county because of this. But we're also your bill collector, and we're also a sore thumb because we don't function as a normal governmental entity would function. We don't. What you did when you put us together is you said, take business techniques and apply them. And everything from marginal costing to many, many other things, such as the bank draft and the lock box and things that had never been tried in this county, are being tried and they are being significant. Commissioner Constantine, you asked about collection percentage. If you go back to the page on ambulance billing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you tell us how far back? MR. YONKOSKY: That would be the third page back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: It shows the gross billings by year. And that Page 67 June 17, 1999 first year is the actual year that you created the Department of Revenue. We were in existence for five months. You had -- $223,500 was the total amount that you paid for ambulance billing collection that year. There was four people that were doing it. The unit cost that year, the cost to bill an ambulance transport was $18.24 and the cost to collect a dollar was twelve cents, twelve cents and change. And look down the line. In 1998 the cost to collect a dollar was 0.046 cents. The cost to collect or bill a transport was $9.02. So, yes, I would -- and I can show you, demonstrate that in every area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's pretty impressive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the whole point of my question is, I think you do save money. I think the department -- we do raise the issue every year but I think there is -- MR. YONKOSKY: It's healthy. MR. OCHS: Madam Chairwoman? Excuse me, if I might -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's pretty impressive. I just would say, take this to productivity committee. Because when I was on it, this was something that they so desperately wanted to study, and everybody had the same questions. These look like good answers, John. MR. YONKOSKY: And they did look at it, Commissioner Mac'kie. They looked at -- the productivity committee looked at it. If you remember that report, last year at -- the month of September we were going through budget. We kept saying let's just wait until we get the report from the productivity committee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It was possible. MR. YONKOSKY: I've got that report framed because they gave us a glaring review. And it was based on -- their review was based on activity-based costing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Glowing, maybe? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think he means glowing. MR. YONKOSKY: Glowing, not glaring, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Glaring? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Happy, glowing. Good. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Glowing. MR. YONKOSKY: Not glaring. Okay. Glares off my wall or does -- okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's proud of it. MR. YONKOSKY: I certainly am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Ochs had something. MR. OCHS: That's what I was going to mention, that your productivity committee did in fact do a fairly extensive review of the DOR last September and not only concluded that they were doing an efficient job but also recommended that they expand, perhaps, their billing techniques into other areas of county government. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe I'll stop bringing this up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's see. How long does it take from the time -- the biggest issue I have is, with EMS, from the time that we bill it until the time that we collect it and getting that money back to that department, which seems to be a difficulty. And what's happening here? I mean, this does not answer that question for me. MR. OCHS: Okay. MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Carter, if you would turn to the last page? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. That's very interesting on the last page. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of the handout? Page 68 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER BERRY: One particular -- MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, ma'am. The last page of the handout. Your budget that you gave us for a fee collection this year was $3,564,000. Divide that by twelve and the requirement is $297,000 a month. Through May we had actually collected and deposited into the county's coffers 2,376,000. I mean that 2,376 is what we should have collected. We had collected $2,007,000. The difference is $368, and the hospital, which you all know we currently have dispute about, about the interfacility transports, owes us as of the end of May $576,000. We would be $207,000 ahead of the cash budget requirements that you gave us last year if we had that money from the hospital. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, of course, the hospital's position is something about that they didn't ask for the transfer, that it's not their responsibility. They dispute the fee? MR. YONKOSKY: That is -- that is the difference of opinion. And let me just give you some figures. Last year there were 16,062 ambulance transports. COMMISSIONER BERRY: How many, John? MR. YONKOSKY: 16,062. MR, OCHS: Billable. MR. YONKOSKY: Actual billable transports. The hospital's share of that was 1,594 or 9.92 percent. This year, from October 1 of '98 through the end of May, there was 12,458 ambulance transports. The hospital's share of that has already exceeded last year. It's 1,668 interfacility transports, or 13.39 percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, I'm so confused by that because didn't they buy some vans and they called us up and said don't be worried, we're not going to get in the EMS competition business. We've got these things that look like ambulances but they're not. We're only doing interdepart -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Interfacility. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- interfacility transports. MR. YONKOSKY: They have two vans that are supposed to transport people from location to location within the health care systems. I don't believe they are being used as much as they should. And that's because they are not allowed to have an ALS or BLS service on those. They are wheelchair transports. And a lot of communities might have those, but the charge is significantly less because there are no services provided, other than the transport. In the month of May there were 1,212 transports. Of that the hospital was 194, or sixteen percent. So what we're seeing is a significant increase. And you might want to talk to Jeff Page tomorrow because, in my discussions with him this morning, he's telling me that they are feeling the stress of all of a sudden the volume's increasing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the hospital is paying for zero of those? MR. YONKOSKY: And the hospital is paying for zero. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ed? Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would like to, if we could, focus back on this, this final page that we looked at. It says budget for fees, 3,564,000. I think a more interesting figure would be the amount billed rather than the amount budgeted. Could -- Mr. Yonkosky, do you have that? Page 69 June 17, 1999 MR. YONKOSKY: The amount that's billed so far? Yes, sir, I do. MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. The '99 amount billed. MR. OCHS: Madam Chairwoman, while he's getting that, to answer Commissioner Carter's original question directly, it takes us about ten days between the date of service and the day, on average -- ten working days, or less -- to get the bill out to the customer after the date of service. There's about a ten-day lag time there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then the collection period is an average of what? MR. YONKOSKY: It varies, Commissioner, depending on if it's -- the way that the ordinance is structured, if it's a Medicare transport, we've got to bill Medicare first. So they receive a bill and the ordinance says you've got to wait forty-five days before you can take it then and, if you get a denial from Medicare or until you get a denial from Medicare, and then you bill the individual or the secondary insurance. And then you've got forty days after you bill the secondary insurance before you're allowed to bill the patient. This came about as a change in the billing process when we accepted assignment in 1994, right before the fiscal 1995 year started. We became a participating provider. We entered into agreements with Medicare and Medicaid that said that we would accept assignment, because then they will pay the cash directly to us. If you don't accept assignment, they pay the cash to the individual. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you've got to go after it. MR. YONKOSKY: Then you've got to go after it. And the -- one of the key problems with our ordinance right now is that we do not have the capability of putting someone into collection in a short period of time for -- it's approximately 120 to 150 days from the date of service until the individual, if they decide not to pay, goes into collection. The -- one of the primary reasons that we're asking for that position for next year is because we want to form a psuedo-collection process so that we actually send out the letters rather than sending these accounts out to a collection agency to collect at the end of the 120 days. We want to be able to turn them over and send out a collection notice -- start sending out the collection notices ourselves to see if we can't enhance the return that we're getting from the collection agency. They get twenty percent and they're -- we've got a new RFP that's in process right now. But collection agencies don't provide us much more than five to ten percent of what we turn over to them. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you think you can be a better collector than an outsource person? MR. YONKOSKY: We -- yes, we do. We do think that if you approve the pseudo-collection agency concept. Back in my private life when we used to design computer systems for doctors and hospitals and install them, what we did was include in that system a pseudo-collection agency, give it a name. We haven't got a buy-off from the county attorney's office on that right now but we would like to form that pseudo-collection agency. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I would like to get a word in edgewise here, if I could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And probably get an answer to your question. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. First I would like an answer to my question and that is, I think it's important that the board has accurate information with this presentation. Page 70 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think the, the way to get there is to start from the billing amount rather than the budgeted amount. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. So what is the amount? MR. FERNANDEZ: And if we could start from that and then, before we go into any more detail about the different approaches to billing and collection and so forth, I really think we need to get this study, to bring me some recommendations, give me a chance to look at that and make some recommendations to you on whether changes are in order and the basis for those. And at that time I think we can have a full discussion about whether this works or not and, as I said, the changes that need to be made, if any. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Speaking of accurate information, I just had a note passed to me from Guy Carlton just in reference to their collection. They do collection for monies for solid waste and are doing it for a buck per account, which is roughly 0.8 percent. So they've got a pretty good price tag going down there themselves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A little better than that three bucks you were saying. MR. YONKOSKY: That was negotiated with us too. That's true. Maybe we could do that with the rest of the special assessments that go on the tax roll. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we could. I know Guy is trying to be as efficient as he possibly can as our friendly tax collector. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the answer to the question that Mr. Fernandez posed, I'm dying to know. MR. YONKOSKY: Through May of this year we have billed $4,117,140. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 4,117,0007 MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct. And your -- historically over the last ten years we have averaged sixty-five percent collection, in the last ten years. So the amount billed turns to sixty-five percent of that, is what -- historically, over a ten year period. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But right now, what these numbers would show is, if you billed about four million, you've collected about two million, so you're at about -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fifty percent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- fifty percent. MR. YONKOSKY: And if you add the hospital back on -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then you'd get higher than that? MR. YONKOSKY: That is correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for pointing that out because otherwise that is a bit misleading. Somewhat troubling. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That is troubling. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's so important that we get real numbers that are meaningful numbers instead of the best looking numbers you've got. Any other -- are there thoughts on this particular fund, on these three positions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I guess I'm still -- and I'm not convinced that we should be a -- not outsourcing for collection. I don't know if we want to be in the collection business. That's a whole different face that you put on to the public -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know why we would want to. Certainly COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- versus having somebody else do it. I Page 71 June 17, 1999 don't know. It's -- you've got to -- I'm going to look for efficiencies. I'm going to look for collecting the dollars. Bob? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, there is another dimension to this and that is the dynamics that are created by the agency that actually provides the service being responsible for the collections, whether that improves or diminishes the ability to collect. I've been associated with agencies that have done it a number of different ways. And, in some cases, you can actually help your, your customer orientation, your performance, your qualitative kinds of things, as well as the qualitative -- the quantitative, the numbers, if you do is it in-house. If you -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is it simple that, if I provide -- if I'm doing legal services for somebody and they fuss about the bill, I'm going to be very pushy about them paying the bill because I know the quality of the service I provided. Likewise, I know that I've got to collect a bill, so I'm going to provide the very best service I possibly can. Is that what you're basically saying? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it adds an element to your customer orientation. It really does. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good point. MR. FERNANDEZ: And it's something I've heard the entire time I've been here, that -- and it's a question I think we need to look at very closely, not just in the emergency services area but, have we lost some of that customer orientation by centralizing this function? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a very good point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to explore all that. I had three questions on the page here with these three positions -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Customer Service. Rep II, Senior Customer Service Rep. and Clerical Supervisor. Just what is changing from last year to the upcoming year that you anticipate needing all three of those spots? MR. YONKOSKY: Well, the first one I just talked about, the ambulance billing. We do anticipate -- this isn't growth related, it's efficiency related. That's what we think, that we'll be able to bring that percentage up, that historical percentage, from sixty-six percent to a higher percentage rate, and we believe that the additional revenues will pay for the salary. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wonder if it makes sense to add that, though, pending the study that you guys are telling us is ongoing. I think I would rather leave that out until you finish your study and then tell us what we need. That's my personal vote on that $31,000 item. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I could go there. I mean, I hear what our county administrator is telling us. I would like us to get this pulled together before I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One at a time. Take that one out. I don't know about the other two. But take out the ambulance billing ones since you've got a current, ongoing study pending the outcome of it. MR. YONKOSKY: Would it be possible to leave it in and then you could always take it out if the study turns out that -- indicates that it should? Because you can always do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But then we will have taxed people for it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no. Not until September. MR. YONKOSKY: No tax. Page 72 June 17, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're going to have the study before September, I hope. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll go either way, then. Just flag it. Leave it in and flag it. Is that all right with you guys? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That makes sense. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about the other two positions? MR. YONKOSKY: The other one, if you look on the second page, you had talked to David when he was up here about the landfill scale house. We've got four people there. We've got the landfill, especially the Naples Landfill, is open ten hours a day, six days a week. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Golden Gate Landfill? MR. YONKOSKY: It's only closed on Sundays and three holidays, and there's 433 vehicles that go across those scales. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might point out, it was clearly open for business this morning at about 8:00 a.m. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that that's a growth related position, you know. I can see why that position is necessary. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What about the -- MR. YONKOSKY: And the final position is, we're anticipating, if you approve it, that it would come on line halfway through the year. Since -- and this is a section that performed -- that processes the bills and mails them for utility billing. The growth related -- there's been a fifty-nine percent growth since an additional person was added in there. And we've used things like the lock box and other types of items to try to not ask for any additional employees. But we have not put an additional employee on there since 1993. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that one I would suggest leaving in also pending what the staff is going to give us of this overall picture of whether or not the rates are right in utilities. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any objection to that. The only thing I worry here is it's a -- it only shows partially, and the only thing we're showing in our budget, we don't have a level of service or a current service summary the same way we have in previous years, which is all right except next year this wouldn't show as an expanded service but it would show for the full amount, 30,000, or whatever the full amount is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's true. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Plus that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't know how we scratch that in the off year, because the expanded for this year is a only half. But the other half will truly be expanded next year, so -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: When you give me this number, is this just a salary or does this include benefits. MR. OCHS: That includes benefits, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Everything. MR. OCHS: And the equipment. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other questions then on that page? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to flag that because sometimes we get what we call full-time, part-time people, and we refuse Page 73 June 17, 1999 benefits and that type of thing. I'm always looking at how we do the work and revisiting whether or not just adding a full-time person to the payroll is the answer. There are other ways to do it which are cost-effective. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll support flagging that. That was a thumbs up from Mr. Constantine so it's flagged. There are couple of expanded risk management -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The $54,000 one I had at the top of the next page. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 54,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I get some explanation on that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Safety coordinator. MR. WALKER: Good afternoon. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You put up those signs that said it's a safe workplace, didn't that do? MR. WALKER: Sometimes. Sometimes that helps. Jeff Walker, Risk Management. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've got to have somebody go around and tape them up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For fifty-four grand. MR. WALKER: I had forwarded a memo to all of you that Commissioner Carter had requested a couple of weeks ago, I guess. And within that we tried to outline some of the things that we're doing in the area of safety and loss control. Part of that is a program we call safety designees where we've identified folks within every department who would be the point people for safety programs within their departments. The utilities, or the public works division, is a little different in that it is the highest hazard division within our whole agency. When you're talking about water, wastewater, transportation, those sorts of things, there is a tremendous number of exposures in there. And, as we got into looking at this year, what we determined is that really the safety designee program didn't work that well, given the training requirements that are necessary for that division, the inspection requirements, the accident investigation requirements. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me interrupt you for a second and ask the question, Mr. Constantine's question, since he has food in his mouth, what would this person be doing when they get there at 8:00 in the morning? MR. WALKER: This person would be involved in training employees in things like hazardous materials, safety data sheets. All new employees that come within that division have to be trained within thirty days of all the hazardous chemicals that are in their workplace. That would be a -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How are we doing that now? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many employees do we have in thirty days that handle hazardous materials? MR. FERNANDEZ: One question at a time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many new ones do we hire? MR. FERNANDEZ: Which question should we answer first? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go with his. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They just go hand in hand, I think. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't care. Same thing. Going the same place. Go with how many employees. MR. WALKER: Okay. There are a lot of training requirements. That's the first issue that needs to be involved. The other is, we Page 74 June 17, 1999 are in the process of developing a process safety management program now which is being done by - CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I'm going to pause you because you had two questions. One is how many employees handle hazardous waste in an average thirty days? And the second question is, how many -- I mean, who is handling that training today? I know you have other really important, valid information, but we need that information first. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services. I can't speak for all of the departments but as an example, commissioners, in the transportation department we have several crews that handle pesticides and herbicides as part of the landscape maintenance program. That's one example. We also, whenever there is a spill, we get involved. Every one of our people, at some point or another, has to go through training and, on an average turnover, we have -- I think we have six empty positions now and we probably have three or four people, a quarter, roughly, either through transfers or other turnover. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So one a month? MR. KANT: At least. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Who trains them when they come in was the other part of that question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. KANT: Right now we have programs through risk management. In some cases the training is done off site. They have to go to pre -- like up at Vo. Tech. for some of their courses, some out at the ag. center. Sometimes we have to wait until they can get enough to get a class together. As I say, there's other departments involved. I'm speaking only for transportation services. You could probably extrapolate from my experiences. I might -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would we let a person handle pesticides and that type of thing without going through proper training and waiting for a class so we could train them? MR. KANT: No. What we have is, we can't let that person do part of their job until they do get trained. And I might, just as a final thought, point out, the safety designee and some of the other safety recordkeeping and safety management aspects are now being done by some of the supervisory personnel, and that takes away from their ability to do what they are supposed to be doing as far as the transportation aspect of their job. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would beg to say that any supervisor's job was to train people to work safely. That would be part of their job. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have something to add? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. Again, Paul Mattausch, Water Director. On a daily basis, rather than a monthly basis, I have probably in the neighborhood of twenty-five employees that handle hazardous chemicals. And the law not only says that they need to be initially trained but the law also says in process safety management and risk management that they need to be retrained and they need to have refresher courses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that goes to the crux of my question. It's not just how many do we have that handle it but how many do we have -- and why I said in a month, is, in any given month, either are new employees being trained or are existing employees being Page 75 June 17, 1999 retrained, what's a typical month; is that a dozen, is that three? Is that -- I'm just trying to figure out what this -- how many people this person will be training regularly. MR. MATTAUSCH: As far as the water department is concerned, we have enough training requirements with not only our plant operations people but also the people that play out in the street fixing water mains to do that on a regular basis. Probably in the neighborhood of these people are going to see fifteen to twenty employees a month in some form of training for the water department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then my next question is back to our risk manager and that is, is this going to translate into reduced -- is this going to be a net financial win for us, because we're going to have reduced claims? I mean, is that your expectation? MR. WALKER: That's absolutely the result or the expectation that we want to reach, is -- for example, one of the activities that this person will be involved in is return to work programs for their people who are injured. So that if someone is injured, this person will be involved in establishing modified duties for that person so they're back to work, they're not sitting at home -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Collecting net workers' comp? MR. WALKER: Absolutely. They will be back to doing a productive job. But that's -- those are the types of things. And we want to reduce our incident rate as a result and reduce cost, lost productivity cost. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know, I don't -- I can support this position if you can, next year, show us some numbers about how, you know -- I mean, I could -- I want to see it pay off. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I do too. And I don't mean to be so tough on this. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a difficult position for us to do that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Here's where I'm going with this. I believe that -- I would like to see this position in place. I would like to see the programs in place, but I think it's a dual function here. You never want to take away from the line the responsibility of training people to do work safely. So this may be a supervisory management issue in which this person is working in conjunction with the line. And I never want to hear a line supervisor say, well, you know, it's up to the safety department to train us to be safe. MR. WALKER: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's baloney. That's not how it works. MR. WALKER: We absolutely agree with that philosophy. And I think that the role of this position is to provide that technical assistance necessary to that line supervisor to help him do the job safely. In other words, if you get a person trained in the areas that they are exposed to, then the work they do will be done safer and the supervisor can manage them better in that area. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Well, if this person would incorporate the Dupont philosophy and get this permeated through our whole government's working structure I would be a happy camper. MR. WALKER: Our long-term goal is to go to a behavior-based safety program. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. I think you got support, then, for this position. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll go with that. Page 76 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And then -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I got -- I want to come back to one question though. We have $4,500 for a new projector for training people? I thought projectors were gone and we used videotapes on that sort of thing. MR. WALKER: This is a -- this is a projector for use with a computer. We do a lot of power point presentations. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. WALKER: For example, we're doing behavior-based safety training now, which is a power point program. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think you've satisfied him. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I'm fine. I'm good with it. MR. WALKER: Thank you. I'll shut up. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just as long as you weren't buying another Bell & Howell. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions on the service writer position at Fleet Management? Is it a growth related issue, Leo? MR. OCHS: Really there -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Leo? MR. OCHS: There's basically three things I think Dan will tell you he's trying to accomplish here. One is to have the supervisor out in the shop with the mechanics on a more frequent basis to improve our quality control, primarily. And I'll let Dan elaborate on it. MR. CROFT: I'm Dan Croft, Fleet Manager. One of the issues that Leo mentioned there is our quality control. Right now I don't have anybody to administer my quality control program. I have my maintenance supervisor. He's sitting behind a desk doing service writer duties about seventy percent of his time. That's service writer duties and preventative maintenance program. So I need my maintenance supervisor out to be running my shop, for one thing, and the next would be running my quality control program, and also to be training my new mechanics, because my maintenance supervisor is a double master mechanic and he can provide that training that I need. And it's pretty unusual that a maintenance operation doesn't have a service writer, but sometime in the past that position was eliminated. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this comes out of what kind of funds, because we're not in ad valorem at this point, right? MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. MR. CROFT: That's internal service fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is what now? MR. FERNANDEZ: Internal service paid by other departments, by the user department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So net net, it's going to be a property tax question? MR. FERNANDEZ: If the property -- MR. OCHS: Well -- MR. FERNANDEZ: If the property -- if -- the department is property tax supported, but also utilities -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Some portions but not all? MR. OCHS: Solid wastes -- yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Solid wastes are not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have a problem with it. Does anybody? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Page 77 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Are we to capital? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We are. MR. FERNANDEZ: We are to capital. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It begins on Page H-3. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where does it say 251 million dollar shortfall? Sorry. Nevermind. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It does not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: We try to take baby steps with this every year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: H-3 are the regional park impact fees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have no questions on any of those. Does anybody else? Tim, I don't see any marks on your page at H-3. I'm helping you out here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. Slash is all right with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No slashes on H-3. So are we moving? Other discussions? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're moving. H-4 is community park impact fees. MR. FERNANDEZ: Questions? No. Move on. Library. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Moving on. Library impact fees. Any questions? EMS? MR. FERNANDEZ: EMS. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And our favorite, roads, where we get to the fine print. MR. FERNANDEZ: We do have something on roads that we would like to clarify. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: We want to bring that up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need a magnifying glass. MR. FERNANDEZ: There was a question about the -- a question raised last week when we met with Marco Island about the handling of their road impact fee request. We've since gone back, taken a look at that and realized that there are, in fact, there should have been consideration given to the projects that they have submitted. Phil is giving you a, I guess, a copy of the correspondence that has been sent to Marco Island. Was that what you're handing out, Phil? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's a Dear John -- it's a Dear John letter that we're actually -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a Dear John letter. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was a correspondence that came back to the county from the City of Marco Island. Also the request for -- the original request for the project. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. I thought you were handing them what had been decided from your discussions. In fact -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, part of this -- is that what you're talking about? MR. FERNANDEZ: In fact, I've seen a letter that indicates that there will be consideration given. It's a letter dated June 16th. I'll just read it to '- Page 78 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Somebody just tell us what the issue is, whether -- MR. FERNANDEZ: What it is is that they have asked for four projects, consideration of four projects. They are all on County Road 92. One is the intersection of State Road 951. It's 209,000. The other is the intersection of South Heathwood Drive, 177,000. The third is the intersection at Barfield Drive, 235,400. And the fourth is the intersection of CR 953, which is 177,000. Those are their four priorities. We have determined that the impact fee makes available $311,000, so they have the opportunity to prioritize these projects -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a question. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to address that $311,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do we have something other than a fax from one councilman to one county commissioner that indicates that this is a request from the council? Because what I have is a copy of Ed Day's fax to Commissioner Norris that says, "Please copy Tim." MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. This is what I thought you were handing out. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Mr. Fernandez has a copy of a letter. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll make copies of this for you. Essentially they -- I have been advised by staff that they responded to our initial request for projects -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why, thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- in our cycle. And this was their response, these four projects. I think the letter that you're referring to is an appeal to have us take a new look at it late in the process. But the four that I read to you are the ones that I understand were submitted early in the process and did not get favorable consideration from the staff at that time. We have since taken another look at it and realized that our interpretation of the impact fee agreement was not accurate and that there were, in fact -- these projects did in fact qualify for consideration. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you would like -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Up to $311,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So are you recommending inclusion of all of these projects or recommending consideration of these projects? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think we're recommending that we put in the number of 311,000 and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And let them figure it out. MR. FERNANDEZ: o- and let them pick from those four. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let them figure it out. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I like that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How appropriate. Anything else on transportation? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just, in my opening remarks, funding the road capital program would require bond or loan proceeds of 16.1 million dollars to fund all the projects in the plan for fiscal year 2000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what's the annual debt service for that? I mean, isn't that a line that we have to budget somewhere? MR. FERNANDEZ: Uh-huh. We actually have it somewhere in the budget. Are we going to pay debt -- oh. It doesn't start until the following fiscal year. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So somebody will tell us for next year, though -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Page 79 June 17, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- what it will be and how long we'll be paying it. And then my other question would be if, you know -- we've asked transportation staff to look at, at least, if we did our buildout plan and if we did a road improvement plan that got the roads to a better level of service than D, what would that cost? And so my question is going to be, what is the incremental annual debt service increase if we were to upgrade our road system higher than a level of service D? What would it cost us on an annual basis and for how many years? Is it a question that anybody wants the answer to besides me? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to know -- I would like to know what it's going to cost. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you saying to bring the roads to level C? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm just saying some roads. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think it's going to be at an extraordinarily high dollar figure but it would be kind of nice to know that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I just asked Mike through hand signals if that was part of the analysis that was done from the sales tax and he gave me the signal that yes -- maybe he can come up and clarify, but -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that's essentially the road component of that 251 million dollar deficit that we talked about. MR. MCNEES: Mike McNees. What he said. Yeah. We included that, all the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what is the answer to the question; do you have it in your head? MR. MCNEES: I can't give you the numbers but we showed you, in your spreadsheets, that, with the sales tax, when you calculated the road deficit, the exact dollars, and for what projects that Ed Kant and the transportation people identified to improve levels of service. As you'll recall, there were intersection improvements, there were right of way, advanced right of way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Instead of telling us that, how about telling us in wrap-up what the numbers are? Is that all right with everybody? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so I clearly understand, though, that was -- when you say those were to improve level of service, was that long-term to make sure that we stay at D or that if something is sliding out we improve it back up, or was that to actually change county policy to a different level? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because that's where you were going with this is, how much would it cost if we tried to make a number of these level of service C? MR. MCNEES: I don't think I can certify that it was precise enough to go specifically to level of service C, but we can maybe answer that for you better for your wrap-up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's do that at wrap-up, because, I mean, is the fundamental question here, you know, now that we're talking, we're sort of acknowledging debt service for road maintenance, the question then becomes, is it worth an extra ten percent a year in the cost to carry for that debt service money to get our roads up to an uncongested level? I mean, I don't know -- I can't do that comparison Page 80 June 17, 1999 without some idea of what those numbers are, and that's what I'm looking for. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Kant has indicated that that is what Gavin Jones is working on as a result of the discussion we had on the transportation -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- element. We don't know what his timetable is yet for being complete on that. I don't think he's going to be ready by wrap-up, but I'll pursue that with him and see how quickly we can get that number to you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, in fairness, we just gave him that three weeks ago or something, so CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. I mean, give us the best information you can. Okay. Anything else on transportation? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Project 60091 and 62061 both reference Santa Barbara. What are those projects? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What was the second number? 60091 -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 62061. MR. KANT: Give me one second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The two Santa Barbara projects. 32 -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, there we COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: CIE Number 32 and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think it might be 62081. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And 56. Oh, you're correct. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was just going to loan you my glasses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just got my new prescription two days ago. MR. KANT: Number 32, I -- Edward Kant. I believe that Number 32 is for the six lane -- four lane to six lane section from Golden Gate -- yes, Golden Gate Parkway to Davis Boulevard. That's out in -- that 333 is one of the road impact fee funds and the other one -- if I can find it here again -- 081, I don't have an answer for that but we can find out for you for wrap-up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other questions on roads? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Um. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What else do we have for capital? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have one other one on those. I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm sorry, Ed. This is along the same lines. Santa Barbara, next page, showing CIE 32, 1.2 million. MR. KANT: That's what I was referring to, Commissioner. Let me go back to the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. They both have the same -- MR. KANT: -- forecast. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- number assigned to them. MR. KANT: You were looking at the -- on the '99 forecast, I'm showing 426,000, and then on the fiscal year 2000 -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. KANT: -- I'm showing a million two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that -- is that -- is the 426 Page 81 June 17, 1999 engineering in preparation for the construction in 2000 or -- I just didn't understand the split because they both have the same reference. MR. KANT: I believe that's the case. But again, we'll have that absolutely for you for wrap-up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. KANT: Let me, if I may, I believe that 62081 was -- is showing no funds, and that may be why you're questioning it. That's -- that was for the landscaping improvement which earlier today, if you remember, we talked about transferring to the MSTD. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. KANT: I might point out, that's also true of Number 62 which is -- there's a Golden Gate Boulevard -- Golden Gate MSTU -- if I can find it on here -- about halfway down through the non-CIE projects. Those were the two that were transferred out as of the action earlier today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. KANT: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Road assessments receivable. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Wiggins Pass dredging. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. The road assessments receivable fund is a fund that's essentially used as a revolving loan fund for small assessment projects. Wiggins Pass dredging is the residual cash left over from a project many years ago, all funds budget and reserves. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we use it for short-term projects? I don't understand what we use it for. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The 341 we use as a revolving loan fund for small assessment projects or for things like the Immokalee Beautification. When there was a loan needed to advance that project, we essentially internally borrow from this fund and pay it back over time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Let me ask a stupid question. It's a million dollars. Can we cut it and thereby reduce our millage further? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because if it's just sort of there in case something comes up, maybe we might beautify something in Immokalee, why don't we cut it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, this is totally non-millage related. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It is primarily residual cash from on old road assessment fund from -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it's only millage related to the extent that you could dump it in the general fund if you took it out of here, and that would cut a million dollars' worth of taxes this year. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We could explore the legal possibilities of doing that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't we? It's a million bucks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and have a discussion in wrap-up? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That sounds fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's a million bucks. Wiggins Pass dredging. Anything? I don't have questions there. Anybody do? He's got a handout, just when I think we're about to leave the Page 82 June 17, 1999 room. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll be brief. Those are the water and sewer capital pages that did not make their way into the summary book. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ah. Sure. H-13. Well, since we don't have any idea what this is, I don't know if I have any questions. So why don't you tell us what it is? I hate it when you don't get to study ahead of time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: These are the, the forecast water and sewer capital projects that are proposed for funding next year. A portion of the projects -- the right-hand column on each side reflects portions of projects that are impact fee funded. The middle column, it says user funds -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- are essentially from -- that's a transfer from operating from your utility, water and sewer fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: These are non-ad valorem related but it's like 37 and a half million and 24 million dollars in the next two years to be spent on water projects. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Impact fees or user fees. MR. FINN: The impact fees on Page H-13 are identified as Fund 411. Those are growth driven projects that are in the county's utility master plan. On the next page, the impact fee fund is 413. That would be for sewer impact fees. Similarly, those projects are in the county's master plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question would be in the user fees line. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What are those if not growth driven? MR. FINN: Those projects are called, as a group, renewal, replacement and enhancement projects. As the system ages and components need to be replaced, they are funded out of there. Renewal would be similar, enhancement would be those system enhancements and/or other utility acquisitions similar to the acquisition of Rookery Bay utilities where we are required to use user fees rather than impact fees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions, board members? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Simply put, commissioners, those projects are non-impact fee eligible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. FINN: On Page H-14, there's one thing I want to point out. In the impact fee column, Fund 413, you will note that a project 73031 -- I know that's very small, I apologize. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: About how far down the page? MR. FINN: It is quite near the top. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the name of it? MR. FINN: It is the North Plant 5 MGD expansion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CARTER: To the tune of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a biggy. MR. FINN: And that project is under contract now, or the bid is due to be awarded very shortly. I will point out that that project was originally contemplated to be funded with 13 million dollars in loan proceeds. Because of the good position of our general fund, we are able to fund that with 7 million dollars of internal financing. That kind of harkens back to our whole reserve discussion earlier. Page 83 June 17, 1999 room. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We'll be brief. Those are the water and sewer capital pages that did not make their way into the summary book. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ah. Sure. H-13. Well, since we don't have any idea what this is, I don't know if I have any questions. So why don't you tell us what it is? I hate it when you don't get to study ahead of time. MR. SMYKOWSKI: These are the, the forecast water and sewer capital projects that are proposed for funding next year. A portion of the projects -- the right-hand column on each side reflects portions of projects that are impact fee funded. The middle column, it says user funds -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- are essentially from -- that's a transfer from operating from your utility, water and sewer fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: These are non-ad valorem related but it's like 37 and a half million and 24 million dollars in the next two years to be spent on water projects. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Impact fees or user fees. MR. FINN: The impact fees on Page H-13 are identified as Fund 411. Those are growth driven projects that are in the county's utility master plan. On the next page, the impact fee fund is 413. That would be for sewer impact fees. Similarly, those projects are in the county's master plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My question would be in the user fees line. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What are those if not growth driven? MR. FINN: Those projects are called, as a group, renewal, replacement and enhancement projects. As the system ages and components need to be replaced, they are funded out of there. Renewal would be similar, enhancement would be those system enhancements and/or other utility acquisitions similar to the acquisition of Rookery Bay utilities where we are required to use user fees rather than impact fees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions, board members? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Simply put, commissioners, those projects are non-impact fee eligible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. FINN: On Page H-14, there's one thing I want to point out. In the impact fee column, Fund 413, you will note that a project 73031 -- I know that's very small, I apologize. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: About how far down the page? MR. FINN: It is quite near the top. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the name of it? MR. FINN: It is the North Plant 5 MGD expansion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER CARTER: To the tune of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a biggy. MR. FINN: And that project is under contract now, or the bid is due to be awarded very shortly. I will point out that that project was originally contemplated to be funded with 13 million dollars in loan proceeds. Because of the good position of our general fund, we are able to fund that with 7 million dollars of internal financing. That kind of harkens back to our whole reserve discussion earlier. Page 83 June 17, 1999 we're not looking at a 10 million dollar building or something. We're looking at 632,000. They have just way, way outgrown. Right now they rent a little space in the Winn Dixie Shopping Center. If you go in there -- I would invite you to go in there, literally, any day of the week -- and the people are shoulder to shoulder. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: People -- it would be paid for out of what? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is -- I don't know. Capital general fund. That's where -- when I talk about other cuts, I'm not asking to put something else in without cutting a lot. But -- MR. FERNANDEZ: It's on the sales tax list. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And it's not an item I think reasonably can wait until we find out whether or not we have a sales tax and whether or not it's -- this isn't one of the -- a wish list item. This is a need today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How does it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, it's been programmed before in the budget -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to appear -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would we address this the same we did with the sheriff's facility, by going through that same system to get the monies, short-term paper? MR. OLLIFF: Actually, I'm probably a little out of line, but I know that tomorrow is your general fund capital review, and that 301 fund is probably the fund where you would look at that project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's where -- yeah. What I think, actually, where I see the budgeting coming from that is there may be some shuffling of things that are a lower priority than that. That is, those are services where, with Guy Carlton with his satellite offices, we're all familiar, but the Clerk has things like child support payments or paying fines or doing any number of things that someone may not be able to conveniently get to this campus every day, every week or whenever they need to be doing that. And it is just packed. And they -- those officers can give you the numbers on that. But if we can look, that may be a higher priority than some of the other capitals. I hate to -- if we need to do that to meet that need, okay. But there may be some things we can shuffle around. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that will probably come in tomorrow under the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize. That may be the appropriate place for it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's okay. -- under general fund supported capital projects and constitutional officers. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's be sure we discuss that at that point. Thanks for the heads up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other item I will have for tomorrow, if we're done, is the -- you know, with MPO we struggled with transportation for the disadvantaged for some time. We have a new vendor coming on line later this year. But one item that we've continually had trouble with the last two years, from a funding standpoint, is, who do we serve? We have our list of priorities. You have, okay, if you're going to the doctor, that's a top priority. If you've got to buy groceries, that's lower on the priority. If you are going for a recreational thing, that's at the bottom. There are actually seven different priorities that qualify. The question has Page 85 June 17, 1999 been their ability to multi-load. Is it okay to take somebody to a recreational thing if you're also taking somebody to the doctor nearby? The question of what is recreational? If you're in the Association for the Blind and the only chance you have to read your mail and go through your bills and so on is to go to the headquarters and actually read that, it doesn't qualify as a doctor's appointment, but it's clearly a necessity. If you're a special Olympian, it may be an athletic event, but that is learning social skills and learning to interact with people and responsibility, and so on. If we increase that funding by -- and Gavin will have the exact number tomorrow, but, I don't recall, I think it was $382,000 total, we can cover all seven of those -- we can cover literally every ride for all those services. We don't have to start continuing to judge, okay, the doctor trip goes, you've got to buy groceries, well, tough luck. And we can cover literally every trip for 300 -- it was 360 or 380 thousand dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And anybody who questions whether or not that's an appropriate expenditure just needs to spend some time with the people who utilize that service. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we talk about health, safety and welfare, these are absolute necessities for the people who -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All three of those. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they had the choice, believe me, they would drive. But if you're blind or handicapped or any of those things, this is a service they absolutely depend on. So that's the other item I'll have tomorrow. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Looking forward to that. Anything else from anybody? Going once, going twice. See you tomorrow. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. BO O MM ATTEST: D~qIGHT E. BROCK,if'CLERK - These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected Page 86 June 17, 1999 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: CHERIE' LEONE, RPR ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 87