Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/13/1999 W (Sales Tax Workshop) April 13, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SALES TAX WORKSHOP OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 13, 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 2:35 p.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 April 13, 1999 DISCUSSION REGARDING LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the workshop of the Board of County Commissioners to order. The topic of the day is the sales tax workshop and some capital improvement programs. And we will start with Mike Sales Tax McNees. MR. McNEES: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I don't have a fancy presentation prepared today. I kind of figure you've seen all of me and Power Point that you want to for awhile. I thought we'd kind of get down to brass tacks. I would like to do two things today: One is to answer all of the questions that you have asked us to date regarding the mechanics of a sales tax and the implications of a sales tax. And I'll kind of walk you through those items first. And then, depending on what your wish is from that point, I suppose it would be possible for you at that point to tell us you don't want to do a sales tax, at which point the discussion really doesn't need to continue anymore except perhaps on that issue. Once I've answered your questions, I'd propose that we then walk through the project lists that have been used to develop all of the numbers that you've seen so far and have you tell us which of those things -- and this is with the presumption that you want us to continue to proceed on this issue -- which of these things you don't think are appropriate to fund with the sales tax. I've told you along the way we've included a number of things, not ever presuming that you want to fund them with a sales tax, but we had to have numbers to work from based on the different capital plans that you've reviewed so far. So with that, I'll get right into answering some of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I pause you for one second? Just because I needed to get back to that question about public participation so people know if they need to register to speak. Does anybody have any thoughts on it or shall I -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we having a workshop or a public hearing? This is a workshop, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know how -- yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. If we're having a workshop, let's -- we advertised that as a workshop, I believe? Then we should have a workshop. If we advertise that as a public hearing, we should have a public hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My personal point of view, of course, is different from that, and that is that we haven't had enough public discussion of this issue yet and that we ought to have more. I understand limiting when we get to the landfill, because there has been so much public discussion, and we need to have just a staff workshop, but frankly, we've already had a staff workshop on this, and I hope this is a little broader, but that's -- I'm not going to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie, maybe we can ask, how many people are here to speak on the issue? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see two. Would there be any objection to hearing those two speakers? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is it anything different than what we've read? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do have your written position, of course, and we have the newspaper account. Is there -- do you have more to offer? They say they do. I think we should hear it. Page 2 April 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no objection. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So please, go ahead and register, and we'll ask you to, you know, keep it -- out of respect for this being a little unusual to have a discussion in a workshop. Now, Mr. McNees? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can I ask one question, Mike, before you start this? One of my questions will be, have you reviewed what TAG has presented to us, and do you have an assessment of their conclusions? MR. McNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. MR. McNEES: In fact, I spoke to TAG last night and gave them a point-by-point assessment of those conclusions, so we are exceedingly well prepared to answer their points. I may have left that on my desk. I can get that real quickly, if you want to actually get to that point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like that, because I've got to debate TAG in about three weeks, So I would like that information, thank you. MR. McNEES: It's a piece of cake. I just did it last night. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Listen to that guy. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thanks, Mike. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. McNEES: I don't know any other way to get through the questions that you've asked except just kind of work through them one by one. It may seem a little disjointed. Some of the answers will be relevant to the mechanics of the actual adoption of the tax, and some to the implementation, and we will use probably some of this information along the way in our discussion today as we make decisions. But I'm just going to give you the answers as best as we can find them at this point to some of the things that you've asked. You asked us to research for you voter turnout in mail ballot elections versus general at the polls elections, so that you could use that to help determine whether you wanted to approach a sales tax, if you choose to have one referendum through either a mail ballot, which would allow the tax to begin in January, 2000, or whether you would have to wait until the general election, which would allow the tax to begin January of 2001. And here's how the numbers work out. We only really have one mail ballot that's a valid for comparison, and that is the 1995 mail ballot that was very specifically for a one cent surtax for nine months for only the Gordon River Bridge project. That was the lowest voter turnout of any of the sales tax referendums that we've seen with a 48.8 percent voter turnout. The -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was the lowest? MR. McNEES: That was the lowest. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. MR. McNEES: The highest percent voter turnout was for the last referendum. It was the '96 for the jail expansion work release center where there was a 78 percent turnout. That was a presidential general election. So that was the highest of the three. The other -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the result in each of those; do you know, just percentage-wise? MR. McNEES: The percentage-wise, I can give you the raw numbers. Page 3 April 13, 1999 The Gordon River Bridge failed 14,000 for and 26,000 against. The jail expansion and work release failed 24,000 for and 45,000 against. Interestingly, the one in the middle was the 1990 referendum which was a gubernatorial general election, where there was a 68 percent turnout. That's the closest the sales tax has come to passing. We have been operating a little bit in our plan with the assumption that the more you specify just exactly what the tax is going for, the better off you are. The actual results in Collier County fly in the face of that, because the referendum question at that time was very general and listed everything from schools to parks to libraries to green space preservation to water management to a whole laundry list of project types. And in fact, that was the closest we've ever come to passing a tax. I'm not necessarily going to draw any conclusion from that except perhaps that it's not necessarily a specific project, but just the general need and perhaps the need was identified a little too broadly at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That also had about a $50,000 advertising campaign in favor of the tax, if I recall. MR. McNEES: Yes, that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: What was the -- what were the numbers? MR. McNEES: 21,000 in favor, 23-5 opposed. An interesting sidenote to the turnout issues, Mrs. Morgan indicated that one of the factors on the Gordon River Bridge referendum -- and I can't quote her, and I hope I don't mischaracterize what she told me -- but what I understood her to be saying was the farther away the voter lived from the point of action of the referendum, the lower the turnout. So that the people who lived fairly close to the Gordon River Bridge participated to a high level in the mail ballot. Those who lived farther away did not. And that led to an overall percentage of about 48 percent. So that's the numbers. And I'm sure somewhere along the line as we have this discussion, we may get back to, as you make some decision about if you want to proceed, in what way. You asked us about the statutory prohibition to not have a sales tax directly offset an existing ad valorem levy. The County Attorney's Office has researched that issue and determined that in fact there has never been either an Attorney General's opinion or any type of case law on this subject. So that if we are bound -- we are given guidance only by the statutory language. They have indicated that it is their opinion that we have somewhat broad discretion, that if it's not an existing perhaps debt service levy identified for a specific capital purpose that we're replacing, that the types of things we've talked about, which would be supplanting ad valorem that goes to the road and bridge fund, for example, and to allow to make gas taxes available by virtue of creating a sales tax, it would then allow that subsidy to decrease from the general fund, that that is not a problem, that we have the ability to do that, that it is indirect and that the statutory provision is for a direct offset of an existing specific ad valorem levy. So we have gotten that opinion from the Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How -- and I'm sorry, I missed just a little bit of that, apparently. How could that -- what are the limitations on what could be included in the wording of the ballot? In other words, is there a way to, other than just saying, well, we Page 4 April 13, 1999 promise this will be good for your ad valorem, is there a way to link that and still meet that hurdle you just -- MR. McNEES: I think perhaps that would come down to a ballot question and I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, is it possible to include that somehow in the ballot question? I don't mean the exact wording, but I just think the public would find that far more appealing than on a promise from government, gee, we'll help you out on taxes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you pass an ordinance? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if we do, can we make the existence of that ordinance a part of the ballot question or somehow include it for public notice in the ballot question? COMMISSIONER CARTER: You want to identify exactly how much, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If we're going to offset their ad valorem tax and we're making that promise, this is a great way, if that was the way you wanted to CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We could package it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just solidify it instead of a vague COMMISSIONER CARTER: Specifically says how much and that we're doing it, we'll make a commitment to that. MS. ASHTON: If I may, for the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. I did research the legislative history on this language, as well as talked to people who were involved in the drafting in the legislative hearings, and I would have to recommend against any correlation between adopting this and selling it as you reduce your ad valorem taxes. That may be a result that occurs, but it's not a -- it cannot be used as a sales pitch. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're going to have to -- I mean, is that like hard and fast, you're going to tell us if we do it's going to be overturned? Because that's a critical component. Are we going to lose -- are we going to have this overturned by somebody if we do that against your better judgment? MS. ASHTON: Well, if you place it at the ballot, directly in the ballot, then I think you place yourself at greater risk. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And who sues us over that? How does that -- do you know what I'm saying? I mean COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, who tallies -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- you know, but sometimes if something is not perfect legally, still -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anybody with 83 bucks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, is that true? Could just anybody have standing to sue over a ballot question? I guess so. MS. ASHTON: It would seem that if it were affecting other citizens, then anyone in the county who is affected could. But that's my best answer at the moment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that for me is a tough point there and that's why I ask the question is, it sounds great and we might have the best of intentions, but I say this only half jokingly, you know, I've served here six and a half years and I don't trust local government. Not because anybody is purposely doing anything, but because situations change. And so when we can say well, we'll promise we'll lower the ad valorem tax as part of this and a year later we Page 5 April 13, 1999 think well, we need X, Y, Z or three years later you need X, Y, Z and it goes right back up and the public is stuck with both. MR. McNEES: The only thing I can offer you, and it really doesn't get you past your point, because I understand what you're saying, is you can promise a little more than just generally to lower ad valorem. You can make a specific commitment to the exact mechanical issues, which is one, to no longer subsidize your road and bridge operations with ad valorem taxes. And that is -- that's a direct. This year I believe it's five million dollars that you can send back to the general fund if you have the sales tax. And it -- perhaps that's no better, it's still only a promise, but it's at least a specific that you can identify, this is what we intend to do if this passes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would also suggest that that's in the control of the Board of County Commissioners. I have not heard one county commissioner say that they were interested in raising the ad valorem tax after a representation to the public that they would be reduced. We're certainly not proposing that you do that. I do know that in Alachua County when we put into place the utility tax, we reduced the ad valorem millage in the MSTU by two and a half mills, and that was over 10 years ago. And to this day, that reduction remains in place. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not suggesting any one of us is harboring a desire to increase an ad valorem tax or have it any higher, but it's not unrealistic that through any twist of circumstances that 18 months from now you have three different faces sitting up here. And so what these five people think may be just months after this was approved, if it was on a ballot and approved, could be impacted by a majority of people who aren't even sitting here. MR. McNEES: Commissioner, I think one of the challenges for us, and as we've brainstormed this, one of the things we're going to have to attack at its most basic level is this notion that you can't trust your local government. And I'm going to propose to you that if we launch on this campaign to pass a referendum, then we have to convince people that you can, and that we're doing this because it's best for the community, and that you all can be trusted to live up to your commitments. And I understand that perhaps that's going to be hard work, but I think it's a battle worth having. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me offer for the board a suggestion that for now, for today right now in this meeting, that we proceed on the assumption that we're not going to directly link this with sales tax, and let's work on it from the other aspects of what we're trying to accomplish, and that is community enhancement of infrastructure. And most importantly, our transportation network will be enhanced here. And how this needs to be sold to the public, in my opinion, is that this is the way that we can do some of the things that will keep our community looking like it is today, even though it has to grow over time. But we can enhance our facilities, especially our road network, as already stated, and we can -- this is one of the ways that we can keep our community from ever looking like what you might expect to see on the East Coast. Page 6 April 13, 1999 The alternative to doing this is that over time funding for these issues is going to be more and more difficult, and you're going to see over a long period of time a gradual deterioration of our community. So for all of those people who always tell us don't East Coast the West Coast, and keep our community looking the way it is, well, it's time to step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is and let's go do the job. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's how it needs to be said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with that, Commissioner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like a transcript of that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do we have a motion? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was beautiful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I particularly like the way he had "America the Beautiful" playing in the background. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I liked that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was good, wasn't it? Flag in there. Oh, I got the wrong coat on. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The apple pie running out of his mouth. MR. McNEES: At the risk of moving on, I'll answer your next question. You asked, can you chose the term? We understand there's a 15-year limit and the question (sic) is absolutely yes, you can set the term of this tax. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Within 15 years, you said? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nope. MR. McNEES: Inside of 15 years, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anywhere within 15 years you want to go, but you can't go past 157 MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. MR. McNEES: Correct. You asked can you charge a cent for a period of time and have that changed to a half a cent at a later period of time? The answer is yes, as long as those dates are specified as part of the ballot question, and as long as it's clear in the beginning that's what you intend to do. You asked -- and if Mike Smykowski will hand out some sheets that he's prepared. You asked about what this costs the average family. And I have more of these, if anyone in the audience wants one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Since you're on TV, you might want to stick one on the overhead. MR. McNEES: If maybe Ty would give me back some of those. I'm informed by the attorney's office that from their reading, there is not a 15-year limitation, so we have a term ability beyond that, if you wish. I believe there's a reference to perhaps if the tax is adopted before a certain date, is the limitation that I'm referring to, but we'll assume there is no limitation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. McNEES: What you've just been given really outlines what we're estimating at this point. And we didn't make up any of these numbers. We got these from the property appraiser's office, from the auto club, when it comes to miles driven, from the economic and demographic research study regarding how much a line average tax or an average household pays in sales tax. Page 7 April 13, 1999 And what we did is calculate how much you're paying today out of your general fund for road and bridge and for capital projects, assign that a millage value, and look at how much the average residential house is worth from a tax standpoint, and then how much they're paying each year through their ad valorem for those purposes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So this is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much, by the way, because that's exactly what I had asked for. That's very helpful. MR. McNEES: Very good. And Mr. Smykowski did a great job of, I think, best of all, finding good sources so that we could say, this isn't our number, we're not making this up, this comes from someone else outside the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great. MR. McNEES: So the dollars for the ad valorem contribution, under B, you see the annual cost estimated for how much people drive of the five-cent gas tax that we're proposing would sunset if the sales tax went into effect of about $25. And then the sales tax numbers, on the average household, based on the average wage, which we understand nobody's average, but, you know, we've got to have something to look at, shows you a net cost for that typical household of $40 a year from this change. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So $40 a year increase, assuming there was no -- as we agreed, we're going to assume that there's no offsetting reduction of property taxes? MR. McNEES: No, that is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just waiting for Commissioner Norris to step up and say well, that's only 11 and a half cents a day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's less than that. MR. McNEES: Commissioner, that does assume that the road and bridge -- that does assume off -- lowered ad valorem. Yes, that assumes that that $81 in ad valorem goes away that they're currently paying -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see. MR. McNEES: -- towards road and bridge and towards capital. So yes, it does assume that, and assumes that the five-cent local option gas tax also goes away. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Goes away. MR. McNEES: You asked about how many dollars -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Mike, I'm sorry, but I'm not the swiftest one with numbers, so I'm going to have to be sure I understand this one because I want to get it. This sheet basically here says under C that the average, whatever that is, home would pay $146 a year for this additional penny? MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But that theoretically we would reduce the cost of their property taxes by about 80 bucks, and that by sunsetting the nickel gas tax early, we would save them 25 bucks a year, so that the net cost of the average household is about 40 bucks a year. MR. McNEES: Yes. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. McNEES: -- in a lot of ways, I'm with Commissioner Constantine on the issue of ad valorem. We certainly don't want to over promise, because there isn't a specific levy that we can take away. And as ad valorem grows, part of this is going to be offsetting the growth, I'm sure. And so that's going to be something we have to address very carefully, and not in some way over promise. I think Page 8 April 13, 1999 he's right on point with that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because if we could not reduce any ad valorem, it would be $120 average house -- MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- increase. MR. McNEES: Yes. You asked about the interim service fee and how many dollars -- or actually I think someone from the audience asked that last time. We're estimating the interim service fee could raise 1.4 million dollars a year. That actually is more of an ad valorem support, a general fund support more than for something you would probably want to put in the capital stream, given its size. But it certainly is all one big pot. And so that amount of money is available to your general fund. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we win. MR. McNEES: If we win, for what that's worth. You asked could we implement this prior to the year 2001 without a mail ballot? Our understanding is no. The only way to do that would be a mail ballot that would happen sometime this year as opposed to the general election next year. You asked -- the penny is capped at -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. McNees, there's a presidential primary next March, isn't there? MR. McNEES: March of 2000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it still couldn't go into effect. MR. McNEES: It couldn't go into effect until the end of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: January. MR. McNEES: -- January of 2001, exactly. There's a cap of $5,000 on the taxable value of a purchase to which this would apply. It doesn't apply for anything over that. You asked can you lower that, can you -- and the answer is no, that's a statutory issue. And I think probably the general answer to a lot of your questions is, under the statute this tax is administered like the other sales taxes in that we do not have an ability to make different rules for the administration and collection of this tax as the other six cents. I think that's probably generally what we found. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I had raised that question about the $50 cap. The question being or the reason being for some of the big ticket items, whether it's a car or a washer and dryer or some of those things, people will go to Lee County to save 50 bucks. And that's a valid concern, I think, from the people who operate those businesses, that not only am I going to spend more in my personal life on sales tax, but is it going to impact my company's bottom line? And I think realistically yeah, it could. MR. McNEES: It's interesting that you raise that issue, because that's your next question that I have to answer for you. And I have what I think is an amazing answer for you. And it's amazing in that we spoke to two completely unconnected, independent economists, and they gave us the same answer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Whoa. MR. McNEES: Yeah, I find that incredible, two economists that agree on anything. And what they said, essentially, we talked to a Dr. James Nicholas at the University of Florida and to Dr. Henry Fishkind, that you're familiar with, I'm sure. In fact, Mr. Smykowski did this work Page 9 April 13, 1999 for us. Essentially what they said is, people right on the border, there will be somewhat of an elasticity effect. And they will go -- perhaps people in Bonita will buy in the Lee County line more than on the Collier line, and that for the first week or maybe two weeks, people county-wide will be aware and they may think well, gee, this is a new tax, I'm going to go to Lee County to buy my refrigerator. But over time that the effect of those things is minimal and to the point of nearly negligible. So yes, there is kind of a bang effect in the beginning. And again, this isn't our opinion, we're not asking you to trust us, because frankly we wouldn't know. We tried to find people who do, and that's what they're telling us. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, one interesting thing is that economists and meteorologists are two professions wherein you can be at the top of your field for your whole career and never be correct once. MR. McNEES: I freely admit that. But the fact that two of them agreed, I found that remarkable in itself. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other worry I have there is perception. While we say there's a $50 cap, I don't know if the people always realize that. So if you do go purchase a car, you start -- it's not a great stretch of the imagination that someone starts doing the math in their head, and assuming that they are going to be spending far greater than $50 and as a result make that 25-minute drive up to Gulf Coast Dodge instead of Naples Dodge. MR. McNEES: And I think it's incumbent upon us to, as we sell this thing, if we get there, to make that -- to educate the public and make them understand what it really means, and that's certainly our obligation. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Of course that only assumes that they will never raise their sales tax in their county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It does, doesn't it? MR. McNEES: You asked can we exempt some purchases? That goes back, I think, to what I said earlier about this works like the other sales taxes in that we can't specifically exempt something that's not exempt under the existing sales taxes. With that, you talked about us bringing you options. And I think that applies pretty much to the timing issues and for how long and whether frankly a half a cent or a full cent, and I think that that discussion is better had once you've talked about the projects and once we get an idea. And we've given you a price tag that I'm certain is not going to be the same at the end of day as it was before we started. And that that probably -- we need to hold that off until we get to the actual -- through the projects. With that, that answers the questions that you've posed to us so far, and I would propose to begin to walk through the projects, unless you have something else you -- another way you'd like to approach this. I don't really know any other way to get there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Questions, board members, before we start talking about projects? Let's go. MR. McNEES: Okay. I think I need Mr. Kant first. What we've done is given you project lists and explanations as best we could in its capsule form. And we understand that not everything on this list can you probably tie to a general county benefit. You may not think it's appropriate for a sales tax, and Page 10 April 13, 1999 that's why we're here for you to tell us that, to begin to take things off this list. We have not included in your list the adopted road capital improvement element from your Growth Management Plan. It was our assumption that you have dealt with that plan in detail in other forums and approved it and manipulated it where you thought it was appropriate, and so we're not asking you to walk through that again today. We assume that your approval, that would still hold. So we're dealing with essentially other things on the road issues, and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tell us first what's the number on that one, though, to remind us, in case we're running a tally. MR. McNEES: $212,000,303 in projects. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Over how much time? MR. McNEES: Over 10 years. If you wanted to apply all existing revenues to that, which I assume you probably would, your deficit just related to that is about 23 million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And when does the deficit kick in? What year? Because we're pretty good for a few years. MR. McNEES: In the year 2000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. MR. McNEES: A piece of that deficit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So as of the year 2000, a piece of how much of the 23 million? MR. McNEES: 9.9. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow. We have a 10 million dollar deficit in our road -- in our MPO's adopted road plan as of 2000, assuming we apply all of our capital money to the 212 million dollar 10-year road plan. MR. McNEES: Yes, and that assumes -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Beginning at the fiscal 2000 or at the conclusion of fiscal 2000? MR. McNEES: For budget purposes, those are the same thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's true. MR. McNEES: During fiscal -- I'm not trying to avoid your question. I'm not sure I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This September 30th, will that be the last day that a representative of the community won't be 10 million dollars in debt, or will that be something that is real-life following September 30th? MR. McNEES: What that means is some time during fiscal 2000, we would have to begin to leverage gas taxes to pay for the projects that are in the 2000 budget. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. McNEES: And I see people have already discovered there are copies here, because they're almost gone. So we have more copies of these lists for anyone that wants one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that something different from what we have here in this long memo? MR. McNEES: No, it is exactly the same thing. So I would take you to the first little print page, which is the second page of your handout. What you see on this sheet -- you'll recall that not long ago you directed staff to come back and tell you what level of service enhancements could be made to your current road system outside the scope of the capital improvement element, and what would they cost, and what would the impact be. Page 11 April 13, 1999 What you see on this page essentially is the result of Mr. Kant's work on that issue, how levels of service could be improved and at what cost. And frankly, you've had this and hopefully had a chance to review it a little bit. I'm going to turn the floor over to him for your questions regarding what these things mean, if you have them, and to work down the page. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just a question, that the bottom is that it's 100 million dollar shortfall? Do I read that right? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that in addition to the 23 million dollar shortfall that Mr. McNees just told us about? MR. FINN: If I may, Madam Chair? Edward Finn, public works operations director. This sheet is cumulative of the static shortfall in the AUIR. The shortfall we're talking about is the five-year plan extended out to 10 years, which, if you're familiar with that planning document is not the way that document is, rather, it groups all the out-year projects as just one lump sum. Mr. Kant and I went through that and tried to assign those projects to the proper years, extending them out 10 years. So in short, it's the AUIR shortfall, plus these enhancements on this page provide the total shortfall shown on this page. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are they going to include the three million? MR. McNEES: A number of the items that you see in the very top of the page don't actually cost you more money. They're what Ed calls timing changes to advance something. And some of those you asked us specifically for. I think Immokalee Road is one where you asked us, show us what it would take to advance that project on the schedule, so they don't actually -- over the 10 years, they don't cost you more money, they just change the timing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So does anybody have questions about those? Are those items we're still -- we've pretty much beaten that horse. I mean, those are enhancements that we hoped to see, if we can find a way to pay for them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is not a huge dollar item. We're working on this whole page right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just this very first, first little graph. Then we'll go to this -- that's project timing changes that we were just talking about. Does anybody have any other comments on that section? Then we could go to capacity and safety enhancements. That's the first new money change, as I see it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we talk about advanced right-of-way, the way I read this is as though -- in our little brief summary attached, is as though we're looking at things way down the road, 20-year plan or something. And we just need some help with that, because we're constantly told, you know, your one through five are pretty solid, your six through 10 are reasonable expectation, but once we get beyond there, we're guessing a little bit. So I need some help here if we're spending money on right-of-way for something that's in the year '18. While I appreciate the savings in buying something up front, perhaps considering our dilemma, that might not be the choice we have to make. Page 12 April 13, 1999 MR. KANT: No, Commissioner. I believe that the intent was to show that we have a limited pool of advanced right-of-way funds right now, and we can identify a number of roadway segments, including at least two corridors, where we, I guess you could say, are in the path of progress. And we believe it would be prudent when we have the opportunity to reserve or purchase any right-of-way to be able to do that. One of the issues that we've been -- been brought to our attention on a number of occasions by the County Attorney's Office is that it's very difficult to try to constrain a development by suggesting that we want to reserve a right-of-way, unless we're prepared to buy it, or at least unless we're prepared to work with that development entity to make sure that their property rights are protected. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That old constitutional prohibition problem. MR. KANT: That's correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry. So in this column here, capacity and safety enhancements, it looks like it's a 54 million dollar package. Can you tell us a little bit about what each one of those are? MR. KANT: Yes. Well, we just talked about the advanced right-of-way. The second item is probably the one of most interest at this point, and that is what we're calling intersection improvements. And what we've done is, we've shown that there are some dollars we would like to see programmed at some point in time for interchanges, overpasses, grade separations, flyovers. Pick the word you like. These are intersection improvements that will most likely be quite necessary. The MPO approximately a year ago identified 21 intersections that were likely candidates to require some type of overpass, flyover, interchange, et cetera. And what we have done is we've tried to show some funding that would cover at least three or four of these so that after the MPO and the board goes through the prioritization process in determining what becomes the most critical and what they want to see done, we will have some funds programmed to do both the preliminary engineering work, the design work, and ultimately the construction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this is enough money for three or four flyovers; is that what you're telling us? MR. KANT: At this point, yes. I believe the total was -- yes, is 40 million. Again, that's -- the big driving force there will be the cost of right-of-way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any particular comments on that one, or should we go ahead and hear about the Gordon River Bridge? MR. KANT: The Gordon River Bridge, you'll notice we did not put any dollar amount in there, because there have been several proposals over the last, oh, five years at least, possibly longer, for how such a structure might be funded. At one point, some 10 or 15 years ago, and possibly more recently, they were talking about a toll bridge. So what we wanted to do was to point out that that particular structure, depending on what its final geometry is, if it's a two-lane versus a four-lane or a six-lane, could run anywhere from 14 or 15 million up to 30 some odd million. But we wanted to make sure that if, in fact, that comes about more rapidly than is presently thought might happen, and I say that only in that there is no present plan for it. It's shown on the Page 13 April 13, 1999 long-range plan but we don't have a footprint, we don't have any location, but there may be a need to do some additional engineering work. And we wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, you're aware about the City of Naples and Peter van Arsdale's project and the fact that they're considering putting that on a ballot for consideration about whether or not the city residents alone want to pay for building a two-lane bridge across the river. And then we, of course, would have the obligation thereafter. MR. KANT: I'm not familiar with any detail. I know that that issue was brought up by council, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd ask you to get involved in that process, if you can, just to at least keep us current, so that if in fact we should have a 14 million dollar number on here, because that's what a -- that's what two lanes of bridge is going to cost, and they're going to build two, they're asking us to build two, you know, just so we have as current information as we possibly can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't mind having that information, but the voters just voted against that two years ago. So unless we are going back to a ballot specifically for that, I don't know how we justify spending that money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, I understand it's one that might not get support of the majority of the board, but I'd at least like to know what the number is as we go through the discussion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to know the number. And I understand they're taking it to ballot, aren't they? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The city is. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The city's taking it to a straw ballot. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. The city is certainly in support of it. It failed on a county-wide basis some of us think because the location was wrong. Some people think for other reasons. So -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we've got to crank the numbers. We've got to look at the possibility. It doesn't say we're going to do it, but you know, I'm just a what-if kind of guy. I'd just like to know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. So if you'd get us, you know, a little ~- your better what-if on that one, Mr. Kant. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you saying just for the bridge, Madam Chairman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, there's no sense in building a bridge unless we build the extension of the road and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- I think Mr. Kant will come to that conclusion on his own. I was just hoping he started looking at it, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. We don't want a bridge to nowhere. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's important that we understand clearly your intentions here about our involvement, the involvement of the county staff in this process. As I understand it, you want us to be able to report to the board periodically the progress that the city is undertaking; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A monitoring function. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A monitoring, so that we'll know -- so we'll be prepared, frankly, to make a decision should the City Council put Page 14 April 13, 1999 the question to us, if we pay for two lanes, will you pay for the other two and will you continue the road. I mean, I expect that question to be put to us, frankly. And if we're not involved in the process, we're not going to be prepared to answer it. That's what I'm looking for. Is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's acceptable to me. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It is to me as well. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Is that clear? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. Capacity enhancements, Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Yeah, the next one -- or actually the next two, capacity and shoulder safety, those have to do with continuing the programs that we started with turn-lane improvements. We've started adding some shoulders at key locations. And if anybody hasn't yet, I invite you to go out some evening and take the big curve out by Randall Boulevard, I think you'll find a substantial improvement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. MR. KANT: That's a program that, frankly, we took a little bit of a chance on it and it worked out very well, because I've been in contact with the FDOT, and they were pleased with how it worked on the East Trail. And I think we're going to be very pleased with how it's worked out there. So those are the types of things that we want to do. They're absolutely necessary. We want to be as innovative and at the same time as practical as we can. And that type of treatment is a little bit more expensive than our normal shoulder treatment, which would just be the white stripe and the flat pavement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And as we're just sort of going down this list, I assumed -- well, I assume that at the end of the list, we're going to tell staff which projects we think are essential and which projects we think are -- bear further consideration, and which ones we think should not be included. So everybody's sort of making their own notes as we go, I guess. MR. KANT: We are presently, at least as of last year, we had begun to fund these programs at a relatively low level. I don't have the figures in front of me. And we would like -- as time marches on, costs tend to march on in terms of the increase in costs. And so we would want to make sure that we are able to both stay up with inflation and with our needs as the county grows. MR. McNEES: And to address your comment, Commissioner Mac'Kie, absolutely, we would appreciate it. If you'll make your notes and let us know clearly if there are things in there you don't want to talk about anymore, we need to know that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll finish this page and then we'll go back and do that. Okay, traffic signals. Is that where we are now? MR. KANT: Yeah. Those -- these again are existing programs which we, at least the first two, the traffic signals and the county-wide bike paths, we're finding that the -- there is an increase both in the number of signals we seem to be putting up every year and also an increase in the cost as we go to more interconnections. And once the new county-wide computerized signal systems comes in, everything will have to be interconnected. The county-wide bike paths, the board has expressed many times an interest in trying to get the blank spots filled in, as well as going Page 15 April 13, 1999 back and retrofitting certain neighborhoods. The level of funding on this has been, again at, we believe, a fairly minimal level. And we would propose that we could improve the speed of seeing some of those enhancements by adding to the funding level. I might point out that this last year was a good example. We had 250,000 budgeted. When the bids came in based on the prioritization of the PA -- Pathways Advisory Committee, we would have had to spend about 350,000. We were fortunate in being able to find the money through some carryforward. But typically these costs have been escalating both as to the scope of the projects and the cost per square foot. The other item, the last item -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just address the bike path one? Particularly those in neighborhoods and all, we know there are particular older communities are behind and we need to play catch-up there and do what we need to do. One item that was mentioned in the description here was along arterials. It just seems like dollar for dollar that is probably not -- if we're talking about a money shortfall, that's probably not the wisest expenditure of money. Because I'm not going to see someone -~ realistically, I'm not going to see more than a dozen people on Golden Gate Parkway driving from Golden Gate -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Peddling. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- into their work at the mall or somewhere. And so I hope we don't look to spend much in that way. Whatever money we have, we certainly can put to good use in neighborhoods in those areas. MR. KANT: Perhaps in my zeal to explain these programs, I misspoke. Typically sidewalks on the arterials are included with the capital projects that they're associated with. This particular program was always intended that it would be more neighborhood and the missing link type projects as opposed to the arterial. So for that, I apologize for being unclear. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would just say, you know, as much as I like that and want to support it, it's lower on a priority list when we don't have money. It's lower than something else for me. And we -- just realistically. MR. KANT: We do agree, however, in the last five or six years our consciousness to the intermodal methods of transportation have certainly been raised, and that has been as a direct result of the voice of the people in the county wanting these facilities. The last -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Intermodal. MR. McNEES: That means that we're more aware of the need for bike paths. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Outside of this forum, Mr. Kant, I also want to catch up with you on one of those missing links, too. Not today. MR. KANT: The last item on that list, which is again bridge rehabilitation, we have 116 bridges of various lengths and ages and configurations. Some of those bridges are approaching functional obsolescence. Some of those bridges need some enhancements to bring them up to what will be, I guess, a -- I don't want to say up to code. They're all up to code. But we have -- we're finding that because of the change in travel patterns, some areas that weren't getting a lot Page 16 April 13, 1999 of traffic are starting to get more traffic. So we want to go back and look at those -- that program. I can state categorically we do not have a single bridge in this county which is in danger of any structural failure. That's not the reason why we have that program there. That program is to allow us to enhance these bridges and if necessary to replace them because of the traffic considerations. If they're off the arterial system -- and there are a slew of them, as you're aware; they're off the arterial system in the Golden Gate Estates area and in some other areas -- they would not normally be included as part of an arterial capital project. We are also looking forward to the Golden Gate master circulation plan that the MPO has on its work program, and I anticipate that there will probably be some proposals for additional canal crossings in the Golden Gate Estates area to hook up with other connectivity issues. So we want to -- we believe that this is probably going to be a possible vehicle for funding those types of issues, too, of bridges. If you have any other questions, I'll try to answer them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the summary there -- I don't have any other questions. I'll just go first and tell you my responses is that on the project timing changes, all of those I think are valid projects that need to stay on the list. On the capacity and safety enhancements, I wish I could tell you that I don't want to fund those flyovers, but I guess I don't have an option. I wish -- I would prefer to be spending money there, if we could get just even more creative about alternatives, and I understand there probably aren't any. I do want to see a Gordon River Bridge number on there; not because I'm suggesting this is how to fund it, but just because I want to stay informed. And then the shoulder safety, I agree with. The traffic signals, I agree with. Bike paths, I think could be reduced. And I'm betting that the bridge number could be reduced, is my personal vote. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're looking at 100 million dollar shortfall here. The last thing I want to see is another number added to that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: However. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The tough part is we keep hearing well, we would like that. The voters did, whatever their reason -- and there is disagreement over what the reason was, but whatever the reason, they did vote roughly two to one against that. And I think we need to be very careful not to ignore that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a couple of years down -- just a couple years later. And we need to be very clear on how we're going to fund that. But to the best of my knowledge, the transportation studies still all show -- the models show it's not due yet, it's not required yet. And so I think we had this perception and this discussion ongoing, but the studies that we depend on for every other aspect of our road planning show that that isn't due in 1999. And it's not due for a few years yet. And it may be in this window somewhere, but when we're looking at a shortfall for these things we know are due of 100 million, the last thing I want to do is add something else that there's no substantive Page 17 April 13, 1999 backup that's due immediately. The other is, just to go back to my question before on the advanced right-of-way purchase, how far -- I guess the question I did not get answered was how far in advance are we purchasing that? MR. KANT: It varies. We're -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would be the longest? MR. KANT: I don't have a direct answer for you, Commissioner. I don't know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark it for me. MR. KANT: I could try to find out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there anything outside 15 years that we'd be buying right away for? MR. KANT: Immediately? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In this -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On this sheet of paper. MR. KANT: I'm not able to answer your question, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because those are the kind of things that I think could be trimmed there. I know good planning tries to get it as far in advance as we can. But if we're facing this and it's a matter of prioritizing, if something appears in year '18, then maybe I can't afford to buy that right now. MR. KANT: If I may, if I can use as an example, we know that we have a corridor study in effect right now that we're looking at for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension south of Davis Boulevard somewhere. We haven't come to any decision. The board hasn't given us direction on that, but it's moving forward. At some point there is going to be a corridor and alignment defined that says the road's going to go from this point to that point. As those areas begin to develop out, whether it's in single-family lots, whether it's in the PUD, whatever it's in, I think it's incumbent on staff to be able to look at that and say well, we know we're going to have a road going through here, we have to work with this development entity. And if some of those development entities turn out to be single-family homes, we may have to approach them at that point and say, we need to buy a 30-foot strip and we need to do it now, because that's the only way we're going to get it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. KANT: And that's why I'm having trouble answering your question as to how much or when. It happens almost daily. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Santa Barbara project, just help me, is projected 2008, 2009? Is that our latest numbers we're talking? MR. KANT: I don't have the number. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 10-year plan. MR. KANT: It is within the 10-year plan. And from a road building perspective, that's very close. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And the 10-year plan I don't have such a worry about. It's just I know we have other things drawn in that we speculate about on even a longer term, and that's if those are included anywhere, and they may not be, but if those are included in our right-of-way purchases and we're looking at year '18 or fill in the blank in a 20-year window beyond 10 years, that's one of the items that would be a lower priority for me on the spending. That's all I'm saying. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think all they're trying to say to us is that Livingston is not going to be able to connect to Davis anymore, and they're trying to avoid that kind of situation in the future. Page 18 April 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. FINN: Yes, sir. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have opinions, generally, Commissioner Constantine? Do you want to tell us, is that the only -- the Gordon River Bridge you object to. That one you would like to see more information? Are there others? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. The right-of-way, the Gordon River Bridge and the bike paths. I think as long as the bike paths, money is being spent in neighborhoods and taking care of those type of things. But it just on a dollar for dollar basis doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be putting in anything additional on the arterials. And I think Ed's already answered that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, you want to go through? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you know, I struggle with this, but I'm going to go back to the people who have put it together, the experts, who are -- that we pay to project and give us information. And I know it's cheaper to buy road access today than it is 10 years from now or 15 years from now. And if I didn't need it, I could always sell my access. So I can understand why you've got the number there, and that's why I would support the number. Bike paths on arterials, I agree that -- but that's already funded in a different direction. The neighborhoods need the bike paths, and so that's what these numbers are for. Then I'm saying that's a realistic number. In fact, probably everything here is a realistic projection of what we need to do and we've got to figure out how to pay for it. And we've got to bite the bullet somewhere to say this is what we're going to do. Now, the only exception to that, as I understand it, is the Gordon River Bridge, which is not a hard issue, meaning that we know we're going to have it or not have it. But I'd sure like to be prepared if the city goes forward that we don't end up building a two-lane bridge when we needed a four-lane bridge and we end up costing the taxpayers an enormous amount of money because we've made some shortsighted decisions. So I would like to see that factored somewhere in this process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The balance you support? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The balance, I may not like the number, but I have not -- it's not been demonstrated to me, other than the Gordon River Bridge, which is not even in here, but the rest isn't needed and that there hasn't been a lot of thought going into this process in a strategic long-range plan to take us where we need to be, long beyond when I sit in this chair. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For today's purposes, I'm willing to just accept the spreadsheet as presented here today rather than start tinkering with it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I think they want us to tinker, though, if we're going to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if there's something glaring on there, like if they had some money in there for alignment A, we would be having a conversation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only item on here, and I don't know, hasn't really been mentioned too much, is under item ~- or Roman Numeral I, the Logan Boulevard from Pine Ridge to Green Boulevard. Page 19 April 13, 1999 They're mentioning here that this could be removed, at least moved out from 203 to 207. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you have a lot of happy people live on those streets. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I understand that. You know, and again, I'm -- frankly, I'm just about as much concerned with Logan north of Pine Ridge Road from Pine Ridge North to Vanderbilt Beach in terms of doing something, some enhancement along that side of the roadway. At least south going down to Santa Barbara, at least it's a four-lane at this point in time. Four-lane? Six-lane? Four, okay. But the north is the two-lane roadway, and, you know, that's where it bottlenecks, and, you know, I've got some concern about that, that stretch of Logan, frankly. But anyway, I don't see anything in here talking about the bike paths. Sure, you know, I imagine that some people consider that a frill. On the other hand, I can cite one particular bike path that's been put in, and no, it's not in my district but boy do the people ever use it. It's just amazing. And now with the new shopping center coming down on Vanderbilt, I'm wondering where this is -- how this could be connected up. I'm talking about the bike path that comes down Oaks Boulevard. That bike path is -- I have never seen an area so busy both with adults, children. I don't care whether you're going there in the morning or afternoon, there are people out using that bike path. With the new shopping center coming on the corner of Vanderbilt and Airport Road, to me this would be a perfect area to link up with the sidewalk and make it available for people to get across Vanderbilt Beach Road, get on a sidewalk and go down to this particular shopping area. Somehow or other I'd like to see if that would ever work, because I think this is -- would be a great test area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Me, too, because I'm building a house there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know you -- in that case, we're going to take it out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Take it right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But there are certain areas. I can't say that we just blanket bike paths, but certain areas I'd like to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we finished with this particular page -- MR. McNEES: I need to point out -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- because I'm looking at our court reporter looking weary. MR. McNEES: I need to point out one thing before we leave the road sheet. I promised you that if the numbers ever changed, I would point them out to you. The original spreadsheet that you got on the capital project needs, which is the next to last sheet in your package that I gave it to you just for your reference, shows at the very top you see a road capital number and a level of service enhancement number on the far right of 54 million dollars? That 54 million dollars ties into this number on the sheet that we've been working from, but does not include the 10 million that wasn't -- we didn't look at that as a road project giving bridge rehab and the bike paths and the signals, that wasn't shown to you originally. That's why there's from 90 to 100, that number has changed. And I want to make sure I point that out, because that is a Page 20 April 13, 1999 change, and I know how we don't like surprises in the numbers. And that's where that comes from. And I want you to understand that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, do you think you've got direction from a majority of the board about the items you have on and off? MR. KANT: I believe so, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And Commissioner Constantine, that procedural question -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's proceed -- when we return from our break, our plan is to do what, to go through each of these pages and go through each of the items the way we did with the road projects? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless somebody has a better idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just suggest maybe when we come back, we've only got two public speakers, maybe we'll hear from them first and then continue on with our list? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They could speak while we're on break. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll defer to them, I guess, if they want to speak earlier or later. Let's take a five-minute break. Be back at a quarter till. (Recess.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll reconvene the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the sales tax workshop. And we're to stormwater management, capital improvement program items. MR. McNEES: For your reading pleasure, I have put on your desk an enlarged version of the spreadsheet so that you can read it a little more easily. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I made a copy. MR. McNEES: It's the same numbers as is on the spreadsheet that is attached, but this one's a little easier for you to read. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you. MR. McNEES: We are in the same mode as we were before, only we're here with John Boldt. And you do have detailed paragraphs describing these projects; hopefully you've been able to go through. And I'll just turn it over to John. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Without doing it, is there any of these that anybody on the board doesn't think we need to be doing? As I look at the basin items and the different flood abatement project, there's just not a whole lot of give there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would not want to make a decision and pull one of those, Commissioner. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've been beating this drum for a long time. We need to be doing this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except maybe the Gateway Triangle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Watch it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, that's the only one I can see that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Back off. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- we ought to really look at. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Back off, all of you. They're kidding, people. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question, though, on the thing, on the global perspective. Out of 54 million, we're showing a 36 million shortfall. So assumedly, if we don't have another funding source, all these projects are not going to get done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not all these projects are going to get done, I should say. Page 21 April 13, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assumedly (sic). CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Presumedly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Assumedly is a word. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would guess we would find that out. If we go forward and we do what we want to do and we're rejected, then we won't have to get out the knife and do some big time cutting to find some alternative sources. MR. McNEES: Forgive me, but I guess I have to raise what is the issue that you will hear, and what I hear and am hearing since people are calling me Mr. Tax now, the issue with some of these being can we demonstrate county-wide benefit? Now, I think that your staff is telling you generally even if you talk about water quality issues in the discharge areas, for example, Rookery Bay, Naples Bay, we're fine with these being county-wide benefit. That is an issue. And I'm hearing you all say you agree. I just want that to be on the record that you're aware of that and that you feel like these are still important from that standpoint. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I look at it this way: Which one of these projects would anyone consider frivolous? In other words, we're just doing it for the -- you know, it might be a nice thing to do. I don't look at any of these as -- in that category. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you need some stories from some of these about the flooding problems that people are experiencing, you know, we can certainly bring those up, it wouldn't be hard at all. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The sad part is right now we're in a drought situation and nobody's feet are wet, and these don't seem to be a priority among residents. And that's unfortunate. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then that would be a short discussion of stormwater, unless any other comments. It looks like we think all of those belong on the list, with the funding ratios currently prescribed. MR. McNEES: One of your best presentations I've ever seen you give. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I didn't get back to the TAG guys to ask if they would like to speak now or later. Now? Well, is that -- does the board agree with that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's go ahead and have -- call for our public speakers, and then we'll get back to the lists. MR. FERNANDEZ: Two speakers are Ty Agoston and Victor Neiditz. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As you're coming up, I'm going to say that -- and I've already told you this privately, how much I appreciate your accepting the challenge that we have put to you. You and Mr. Summers were here before and you know that we've noted with great regret his passing and appreciate your picking up the torch by taking that challenge that we put to him and to Mr. Neiditz in bringing us some answers and not just some complaints. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there some sort of a rift tie between you and Commissioner Carter? MR. AGOSTON: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just noticing how you kind of blocked Commissioner Carter out here and I was just wondering if you'd -- if he'd aggravated you in some way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Actually, I think Commissioner Constantine is bored -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're in rare form today. Page 22 April 13, 1999 MR. AGOSTON: Actually, it was a conspiracy on part of the staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A little troublemaker. MR. AGOSTON: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is TyAgoston. I live in that less attractive Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We know. MR. AGOSTON: And I'm speaking for TAG. Earlier a number of you mentioned whether we should trust the government. Well, a couple of years ago I was involved in a sales tax issue that the county voters had rejected the rate of two to one. Now, I may have a problem with the language, but that meant a pretty straightforward message to me. A while before that there was a similar vote on the Gordon River Bridge, and this again, Mr. McNees have (sic) mentioned that it went down two to one and we're still back discussing it. That might contribute to the reason why the public does not trust government, because we -- either we don't mean what we say or we don't follow through. And Mr. Constantine referred to the potential changes down the road that could affect situations now and then, should not affect our decision today. Our decisions today should be based on current situation, and down the road it should be brought up that, well, we have to make a change, and just like we have the gasoline tax, it should be sunsetted. It was promised, it should be sunsetted. If we need another gas tax, it should be put in front of the voter and let them decide. I also have a problem -- I don't quite know what the word would be, what's the noun for ethical -- but the ethics of using the staff in promoting a tax. You guys live and die by the voting public. The same public who's going to pay for this damn thing. I have no problem with whatever you decide to do, and you bring it in front of the voting population and they approve it or disapprove it. But for them to promote a given format and a given format of taxation, I consider unethical. It also allows you to essentially hide behind them. They are going to plow through the hard objections and you be able to sit back and be a lady or a gentleman, whatever case may be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What do you pick, John? MR. AGOSTON: Is there any question? I happen to bring up a point that I have read this from many economists, that every time you have a tax increase, you're taking out a group of mothers from the home and put them out to the work force in order to help pay for that increase. Now, of course a sales tax has been minimized to say well, it's only a penny. Be as it may, there is the old proverb of the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Consequently, I consider it cruel to raise taxes. We at this point already over the past 30, 40 years have increased taxes by a very substantial margin. And for you to sit there in a county that is constantly growing and not hold those people who are bringing in the additional expense, the additional cost, pay for those additional costs. And of course, you know, we talk about well, the starting home costs would be outrageous. I don't see that to be an excuse. If it's your first home, you chances are you'll buy in an old area with a used home. So as far as I can -- I'm running out of time. Thanks very much. Page 23 April 13, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Neiditz? MR. NEIDITZ: My name is Vic Neiditz. I'm a resident and I'm speaking for TAG and also for myself. What I don't -- and I'm not going to say -- I'm not going to repeat everything that was in the letter. You received the letter. The newspaper was very friendly to us, published our piece, and there are no secrets. But the one thing that I don't understand is why you're going around the bush and not talking about impact fees. You've come here with 100 million dollar deficit shortage for a road building program. Seven weeks ago, it was only 90 million. Well, we've put in another 10 million. I'm not going to quibble about the 90 or 100. But the fact is that we are living with an impact fee schedule that was put in based on 1991 costs, and when the consultants recommended the impact fee schedule, you folks had them reduce it by some 35 percent. And what I'm saying to you is that if you were to enact the original fees recommended by the consultants seven years ago, and if in addition you were to enact a higher level to account for the increase in building costs, I'm told by your own staff and by the ordinance that the cost per lane mile was $854,000. Today it's something like one million one or one million two. My arithmetic tells me that's a 35 percent increase. What I'm saying is that if you were to increase your impact fees to account for the original schedule and then increase them to account for the change in the cost, you would be achieving an additional revenue of 80 million dollars. That's pretty close to the 90 or to the 100. And somehow you don't talk about it. You don't see it. You're interested primarily in sales tax. And that's -- I'm not going to comment on other things. Obviously, I'm not a -- I'm not knowledgeable about stormwater systems, but I do remember not so long ago in Pelican Bay they had a problem with mangrove deterioration. And when they analyzed the problem, they found that Westinghouse was largely responsible. And the result is that Westinghouse is paying part of it. And of course when you folks -- when there are other stormwater problems, MSTD's have been established and people have paid for them. So what I'm saying to you is that why don't you charge the people who are benefitting from it instead of the taxpayers as a whole. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No other speakers. And to finish up our agenda item for today -- or our agenda, we have next to talk about the category of facilities. And then we'll be done with these capital projects that they're asking us to rank. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two quick comments, if I can. One for Ty and one for Victor. You know I'm not a real big proponent of the sales tax either, and I'm looking at a number of alternatives and I like the letter you presented. The one thing I would disagree with you, Ty, is taking our staff to task. What they're doing is assembling information, and their role is to, regardless of what happens, whether we put something on the ballot or a private entity petitions to put something on the ballot, I do think it's staff's role to provide factual information. And that may be in a forum or that may be in this place. And -- so I think that's all they're doing at this point is trying to gather all the information and put it all together and show what some of the alternatives are. And we may -- you and I may agree Page 24 April 13, 1999 that we don't like one of those alternatives anyway. But just on the impact fees, Commissioner Carter leaned over and said boy, aren't we doing some revision on those right now anyway? Which is my recollection, as well. Mr. McNees, aren't we doing some revision on those, and isn't that due back to us at some point? MR. McNEES: Road impact fees are due back to you before the end this calendar year, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other comment on the impact fee is that there's nobody here on this board, although Mr. Neiditz accused this board of doing that. But there's nobody on this board that was here when that decision was made to set those levels of impact fees. Just for clarification. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The other thing I'd like to mention is you guys at Pelican Bay. The citizens there are spending a million and a half dollars, that's the taxpayers in that area are spending a million and a half dollars to restore those mangroves and do that area. It may be a sore point to me that it wasn't a county-wide participation in that, but they're doing it. I don't believe that other areas, if confronted with the same situation should have to go through that same process. That's very expensive and that as it may be. So that's always only a solution to tax people in an area for something which is more -- is out of their control, let me put it that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I do think it's important before we go, if we do, to the voters with this sales tax, that we're able to tell them that we're charging impact fees at the highest rates we can possibly bear. Whether that's the maximum that the consultant recommends or if it's something less because it's the maximum that the market can bear without pricing people out at their ability to buy starter houses. Assuming we were -- assuming this were to go forward, I guess, if this impact fee study and roads comes back in before the end of the year, and we're talking about a ballot at the earliest in March, assuming we didn't go to the mail ballot, that problem would solve itself as to road impact fees, or we'd at least we have the opportunity to solve it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one other question. Then how do you address during the season, which we now kind of are at the end of, the people that come into our area, whether it's just on a daily basis -- in other words, they drive in from Fort Myers or Punta Gorda or come over from Broward County, just to spend the day or maybe a couple of days, maybe they don't stay over here. How do we address that need and impact fee doesn't address the need? But they're still creating congestion on our roadways. How -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Gas tax and sales tax. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, gas tax did and when that nickel sunsets, that's a great part of our problem. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, that's my whole point. Then where do we go from here? What are you going to do with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That isn't the entire gas tax here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gas tax does and sales tax does. If they come here, they're spending money on one or both of those. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's why in my view increasing the sales tax is a fair way of capturing those people who should also be Page 25 April 13, 1999 paying for their impacts, not just those of us who are lucky enough to own homes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and I believe Mr. McNees said it's what, like 30 percent of that one percent comes from people who come in for just as Commissioner Berry disclosed. So that's why I think it's an equitable tax. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one thing I would ask as we go through this, and I like the way you've explained the time line there, Commissioner Mac'Kie, because if we're looking at a March ballot, it gives us time to put all this information out. One of the faults -- whether I agreed or disagreed with the proposed tax, one of the faults on the last two that have been put on the ballot is that we said we were going to put it on before we had all the information. And even weeks before it was actually voted, we were still scrambling over the details of what it was going to be. And we've got an opportunity that if we choose to put that on a ballot to do a number of things in preparation for it. The one I would particularly like to see is, let's lay out what are the alternatives, so that the public isn't saying, okay, if I want to have all these things, I have to do a sales tax. What are the alternatives? Is the TAG plan one alternative, is cutting certain items an alternative? What are they? And if we have almost a year in which to do this, we have a great opportunity to lay all that out. And we may find in the process that boy, we still -- a majority of the board would still like to ask for this, but the shortfall is only 220 million instead of 278 million, or whatever the number is, after we do some things. Or when we do our impact fee changes, maybe it's considerably smaller than that, I don't know. But I would like to go through and look at all those alternatives and see what we can do so that it's not just, my goodness, there's a shortage, we've got to have a new tax. Let's -- that's one option, but let's see what our others are, too. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And hopefully -- I mean, I'm just thinking realistically that March is going to be the right time to do it, if we do it. And then we could have a package that we're presenting where we will have addressed impact fees. And maybe roads aren't the only ones we should be looking at, Mike. Maybe we should be looking at more than that, if there's leeway on other impact fees. I know we tried the law enforcement fees and came up against a brick wall there that was impossible to overcome. But if we're -- if we go forward with a package that says yes, TAG, thank you for those suggestions, we're going to incorporate some of those, and we're going to cut a few things off of this list that we think that we can live without and we're still short and here's how we're going to -- here's the alternatives for how to pay for it. So is the board ready to get back to the list? And let's go to facilities. MR. McNEES: Only two things I need to point out. We promised you we wouldn't make changes unless we make them -- you're aware of them. There are two items on this list that you see under the facilities management five-year Phase I Plan that you've already funded, we've already done. That would be the administration addition under the sheriff's projects, one, two, three, four, the fifth item down for 5.7 million. As you will recall just a couple of weeks ago, you sent us off to do that one. In fact, we were going to pay for Page 26 April 13, 1999 that with ad valorem, which is generally the option, speaking of options. We also have funded under -- just under the first subtotal, the fourth floor renovations, so that 2.4 million can come off right from the beginning. And we're funding that one from ad valorem taxes, which is generally the option. Sorry if I sound redundant. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's okay. MR. McNEES: But that's generally the option, ad valorem taxes. So those come right off the top with that. I'll turn it over to Skip for any questions you have on the other projects. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The point being there are impact fees that we could use to cover those. We either build those or we don't. We either build them with sales tax or we build them with property taxes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And once again, I'm not here today -- I don't think my purpose here today is to micro-pick these little schedules that you've set up unless there's something that is really glaring that the board doesn't want on there. I think the broader issue is what are we going to do about funding our shortfall on all of the areas -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess I have a question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- rather than just pick one area, if there is one on there that really gets you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, the jail, you know. We put the jail one out there already. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The jail issue, and again the operations addition at nine and a half, some of the numbers I have trouble with. We need a new jail. We need to do some work there. I think we can do better than 19 million dollars doing that. I think some of the estimates we've seen back from some of the design/build team have actually shown numbers better than that. So we may be able to chip away, not a great part, but every million counts. Operations addition, 9.4 million. I can't believe we can't do considerably better than that. You and I have had that discussion. But I just think as we go through this list, and you -- if the jail is -- and I'm picking this number at random, but if the jail is 17 instead of 19 and the operation center is six and a half instead of nine and a half, I think you can start knocking away a number of those. And it's not going to make up 200 and some odd million, but it's going to make up over the years and over the different projects maybe 16 or 20 million. And you start combining that out, and as Vic had said, you know, boy, you do some math here on impact fees and maybe it still leaves you 20 million short, but that's where if we get a little creative, we may still have a shortfall, but it may be considerably smaller than what we're talking about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And in addition to those questions about the jail and those facilities, my question is whether or not a sales tax is appropriate for funding that project and whether or not, you know, God forbid, that is a project that should be bonded. Because of its long-term -- you know, because of its long-term benefits, long-term use. Whether or not it needs to be paid for some way other than sales or straight ad valorem. MR. McNEES: You have the ability to levy a smaller sales tax and actually bond that, if you were to perhaps go with a half cent. You have to have some revenue that you're bonding against. Your option, you either bond a piece of the sales tax, at which point you don't Page 27 April 13, 1999 have to levy quite as much. You are talking about then bonding ad valorem which requires a general obligation referendum. Our last jail referendum wasn't highly successful. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it was on a sales tax, wasn't it? MR. McNEES: It was on a sales tax. So that option is out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm reticent to say we are going to put -- I think that it would be a -- how to submarine this project is -- or this proposal is to say remember when we asked you, do you want to pay for the jail with the sales tax? Well, we're asking you again, only we want you to pay for more stuff. MR. McNEES: And if you say to us you'd prefer to bond for the jail and we can mix that into the sales tax equation and do cash flow based on a debt service of the sales tax, as opposed to trying to pay cash, that allows us to have a smaller amount of money coming in, but it commits you to a period of time, 10 or 20, probably 20 years, to have the sales tax to guarantee the revenue to pay it back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But could we have it at a half a penny -- MR. McNEES: That's what I'm suggesting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- for 10-plus years if we bonded it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought you said 15 was the max. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MR. McNEES: No, we corrected that. The attorney's office informs me that there is not for this tax a 15-year problem. So that is certainly an option. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, essentially what that amounts to is that we would be making a smaller annual payment but over a longer period of time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. Just like -- MR. FERNANDEZ: So that half a penny may be able to meet our capacity needs, it will require us to keep the tax in place longer and a longer number of years than otherwise. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. But, you know, I just can't see putting the same question to the public again that they've already resoundingly said no to on that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's fine. And there's a point to that, I think going back to my original comments, what we're dealing with here are growth issues. The general public, when they think of growth, probably 90 percent of the time they're really thinking transportation problems. And if this is presented to the public in the vein that what we're going to concentrate on is number one, the transportation issues and making sure that we don't have the bottlenecks in the future, to the best of our ability with what you can physically do. And secondarily, perhaps the stormwater one may be a sleeper that really more people than you would think are concerned with that. I know out where I live that everybody is concerned with the drainage issues. But of course that's an older neighborhood. I live in one of the older neighborhoods. If you live in a newer neighborhood, you probably don't have that same concern. But still, overall, I think that's probably going to end up being high in the public's mind that that's one of the things that can be accomplished here is the enhancement of the Collier County drainage system. And, you know, you can present this in a way that doesn't focus on specific projects, which I -- if you look, that's the common thread in all the sales tax issues we've had in the last several years is that they all focused on a single specific project. But if we go with Page 28 April 13, 1999 a broad general enhancement of the community, then you pull in people that otherwise wouldn't have any interest. I mean, you made the point earlier that the Gordon River Bridge boating pattern showed that the farther you get away the less interest there was. Well, there may be people that are interested in funding transportation issues, but out where I live it may be more important for them to do the drainage issues, but the drainage issue is certainly enough to make them vote yes on the sales tax. So, you know, that's the way, I think, we -- if we're going to proceed with this, it's fine to get all of our projects lined up like this. But I think you have to look more globally when you start going to present it to the public. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And as to those two categories, I agree with you completely. Where I think we have some real danger here is if the general public thinks that this is the Taj Mahal tax, you know, we're going to build all of these great government facilities if we get enough money. That's why this is the list, I think, that bears the most careful scrutiny. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Courthouse annex building, 20 million dollar building, help me with that. I'm sorry, I don't recall what that is. MR. CAMP: That would house all the axillary or ancillary services, like the clerk would eventually be there, the state attorney, public defender. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where is that in the master plan? What year? MR. CAMP: That's in year one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's in year one of the -- MR. CAMP: Phase I, I'm sorry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Phase I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happens to where they are all -- spaces they're all filling now? MR. CAMP: Then that becomes all judiciary, either courtrooms or judicial suites. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just seems to me -- and I realize we're going to get our master plan that will allegedly convince me otherwise, but that seems to me like that might be a space need that is ahead of where we really are right now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hate to tell you, expect a phone call from Dwight Brock this afternoon, because -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I already got it. But 20 million dollars. MR. CAMP: We're also looking three years from now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When we're looking at a shortfall of the kind of money we are, and I wander around there, and when we had the debate whether or not we needed the extra courtroom for three or four years and, you know, it's only this past year we finally got to the point where we said, yeah, okay. But to suggest that that whole building now is necessary within two years, I don't know. If we're looking at a 20 million dollar shortfall, we can stay a little more -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Cramped. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and cramped really isn't the right word, because it's -- you know, everybody's not on top of each other like they were in Building A. I mean, this isn't that bad. And I'm sure they need some improvement, I'm sure somebody will be upset Page 29 April 13, 1999 over there because I've said it, but if we're looking at a 100 million bucks and this is 20 million, I would -- this drops way down on the list for me. MR. CAMP: Absolutely, Commissioners. The only thing I would mention is that everything seems to be connected to everything else. Your space needs here would then go on hold also, because this whole thing is based on the state attorney, for instance, who has two floors in this building, leaving here and going over to the annex. And then that would give you some space for BCC, for instance. I remember -- CHAIRWOMAI~ MAC'KIE: I don't need space. MR. CAMP: -- Commissioner Mac'Kie had mentioned that she had a concern about Phase II in the tower building. Well, related to that, of course, would be to gut this building for the constitutional officers. So everything is kind of interrelated to some degree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, and that goes right to the how broken is it question. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not horrible. My digs are too big. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mine are not too big and they're everyday. And when you get three or four people in here, then they're not too big. But I certainly don't need more. And I was looking here, too, the election building demolition, which is not a huge amount of money, but nonetheless -- that's actually on the next page. But didn't we just refer to that like three years ago, four years ago? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four or five, maybe. MR. CAMP: Yes. And quite honestly, the master plan for the entire 20 years, even though this is a little premature, as you've stated, is to get rid of all one-story buildings to utilize the property that you've purchased. And you are absolutely correct in that. But it is to make room for the tower. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the BCC administration tower is a 19 million dollar item on here. I'm a little uncomfortable with it right now. And I don't know how far out that is, but it seems a little far out to me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second 10 years, or the second phase. Second five years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The fifth floor renovation for the courts, what is -- is that changing that into courtroom space or is that -- what do you mean by renovation? That's the second page, top item. MR. CAMP: That's correct. That's to make the administrative space that the clerk would have now into judicial either courtrooms or suites. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And where is the clerk going? MR. CAMP: He would go in the annex. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I guess those go hand in hand then, because I don't like the 20 million dollars in the courthouse annex. And if that doesn't happen, then we don't need the two million on the renovation for the fifth floor. So that's 22 million. I have no idea what the tower -- what the necessity of a new tower is. And I'm sure that will come to me in the plan, when you all bring the space plan. But right now today, uninformed, I don't have any idea what that is, and that's another 20 million. So, I mean, that's 42 million that I don't have any comfort level with at all with Page 30 April 13, 1999 right now that shows up in the next few years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wasn't that in the plan? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, the board has approved the plan. You have seen the plan already. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I've seen it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The tower? MR. FERNANDEZ: The entire plan, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a different name or something? I don't have a -- where is this tower going? MR. CAMP: It hasn't changed, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is the BCC administration tower going? MR. CAMP: Where Mary Morgan's building is now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when is that happening? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Over where? MR. CAMP: Where Mary Morgan's building is now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When is that scheduled to happen? MR. CAMP: In 2007. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But -- and this is the critical point here. I have a very clear recollection of when this space master plan came back to us, we were late, it was exhausting -- no, it was late, we were exhausted. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Like now? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Like now. And we said okay, give it to us, but this doesn't bind us to anything, and thanks, we'll accept it, but this doesn't mean we've bought. And, you know, this is one of those things that we can be told over and over, well, you already approved the plan. I'm not suggesting you're doing that, I'm just saying heads up to the board, we may have had it, we accepted it, but we surely haven't adopted it as our capital improvement program. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we approved -- approved it -- the first five years was pretty well thought -- it was all well thought through. Let me change my expression. The first five years tells us it's much easier to work with. The next 15 years. As you go out you may have some alterations to that. But how much did we pay to have that plan done? MR. CAMP: 219,000. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, if we paid that kind of money to get a 20-year plan, I'm not going to sit here this afternoon and try to pull things out of it until we've got the long-range picture here, because we went through that, and so we must have a framework in which to make these decisions. Now, it may not have to be done in year nine or 10, maybe it's year 12 or 13. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I sure hope I can get you to use that same approach on the money we've spent on the landfill studies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to have to talk. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would say -- this is just for me, obviously, but I would say I would look out of the nearly 30 million that are listed for the jail space, 240 beds, and the operations addition, that I would expect several million to be cut from that 30 million. The courthouse annex building I'm not sold on, 20 million dollars. I'm not sold on the need for that. That may be somebody's idea of what would be great, but I don't see it as a need, and there's a distinct difference. Which then renders the fifth floor renovation of courts for an additional two million -- no, almost 2.2 million. Page 31 April 13, 1999 And the BCC administration tower which shows here for 20 million. I don't see as a need either. I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie, we have got plenty of space as is. So we're looking at 45, 46, 47 -- close to say 50 million dollars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we could almost cut this list in half. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question in regard to the courts. How does this affect -- if we acquire another judge and all those kinds of things, doesn't this have some kind of an impact, Skip, on all of this? MR. CAMP: It will in the outer years, absolutely. Right now, as you know, you're building two judicial suites on the fourth floor, but in the outer years, certainly. And again, it will be tied to their -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One related question to the cuts we just made. It shows here parking deck with 1,130 spaces, if we do not build a new BCC administration tower nor a court annex building, do we still need the 1,130 additional spaces? MR. CAMP: The answer is no. You'll need some but not to that degree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So that 12 million then becomes substantially cut as well. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Cut this in half. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we could be down 60 million, 55 million. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This list could be cut in half. And I realize, you know, with great trepidation we talk about this, but I personally can't imagine we're not going to be able to sell a sales tax to the public and tell them what we're going to build with it is government buildings. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not the way it is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even as a component, John. And I agree, the first two are the way we sell it. But other people are going to be out there saying, well, what about this 120 million dollars worth of government buildings that you've got out there? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not funded through the sales tax. That's my point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree. This list almost has to come off the sales tax list in its entirety, or at least by half. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This list, if we don't need it, shouldn't exist. Not just whether we pay for it with sales tax or something else. If we're going to say you've got to pay -- you need a sales tax to pay for these other items because your ad valorem is going to these buildings that we don't actually need, then that's not going to sell either. The public isn't stupid. They understand it, no matter which shell game we play. And so I think this is a healthy exercise to go through and cull out those things that we're uncomfortable with so that if we choose to ask them, then they think, okay, they have cut X, Y, Z. And the things that remain are the things that they genuinely need. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not only need, but it's community enhancement: Transportation, drainage, parks, libraries, other recreation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which in my mind don't qualify as needs. You've got to have drainage. You've got to have a good roadway system. Page 32 April 13, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I like the community enhancements and needs. Frankly, I agree, they are needs. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will tell you at some point in time in this plan if some of these things are needed, they're going to have to be built and paid for, because that's what the other constitutional officers need to carry out the services for the citizens of this county. Now, I'm not saying that some of them can't be postponed, shouldn't be deferred, and maybe revised, but I'm not sure you're going to eliminate it all. You just may be postponing paying the piper down the road. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like we're going to need a presentation on the master plan when we have more energy than we had, frankly, the time that it came before us previously. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we need to take a hard look at the master plan, because we told them to go back and tell us how to pay for it. MR. McNEES: Just to throw one thing on the table while it's fresh. It hasn't been that many weeks since we have stood in here and had people ask, why are we facing this problem with Building A? Why didn't we fix this 10 years ago? Well, because we didn't have the money 10 years ago. And I think one of the things that we're stuck with is going out there and selling to the voters that some of this ivory tower, quote, unquote, space really is needed. And that if you can't provide the government services without the support staff to do it, and that those people have to have a place to sit. We haven't built a government building here in longer than anybody can remember except for the courthouse building over here which serves only the court system. So sure, that's going to be a real hard sell, but I think that if we're going to look ahead and have a place for those people to sit and not have Building A coming down on us in 10 more years, we have to do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What about Guy Carlton's Taj Mahal, that addition that we put on? That counts. MR. McNEES: With the exception of Guy's Taj Mahal, we haven't built significantly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm sure he's on his way up here right now to strangle me. MR. McNEES: And I'm sure that he's going to tell you that 10 years from now he's probably going to outgrow that little Taj Mahal that we have built him. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are these items something that could be bonded as far as construction? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are these good candidates for bonding? MR. McNEES: All these government facilities could be bonded. And if we went with perhaps a half-cent sales as an option with more bonding -- in fact, that is one of the options that I have given you when we talked about this originally, a half-cent tax and bond more of it, that is certainly an option for you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But does this -- Mike, what does this do to the cost when you bond? I mean, bonding is not inexpensive, but what does this do to the cost of these items? MR. McNEES: Well, generally, don't they say it doubles the cost, it triples over time, the cost? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, it doesn't. Page 33 April 13, 1999 MR. McNEES: The total amount spent? But it's not unreasonable to fund something that's only to last 20 years or 25 years with 20-year money. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I will tell you in my previous life that we were criticized -- first we were criticized on being, believe it or not, a pay-as-you-go for paying for buildings. We were criticized by none other than the Greater Naples Civic Association. They criticized us for building school buildings on a pay-as-you-go basis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because they were bondable. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, because they have a longer life. And you have future people, future students, families, et cetera that are going to be paying the cost through taxation -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Valid point. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- on those buildings. And there's some validity to that. You know, I think all of us, many of us sitting up here, we kind of function on the idea of a pay-as-you-go basis. That's probably the least expensive way, and it would be nice if all government entities could function in that fashion. But at the same time, I think you need to be realistic and we may not be able to -- and obviously we're not slated to build all these things at one time. But I think it would be a funding strategy to come up and look at -- I would like to see a bonding effort what -- you know, a scenario of what we could build and bond those items over a period of time. MR. McNEES: We can certainly bring you that. I believe that with some of the changes you're talking about, there's a good option, perhaps, of proposing a half a cent tax with some bonding to get over the humps of when there are some shortfalls in given years, and we can put all that together for you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I still go back to what I've been pounding on all day. If we're going to present a sales tax to the general public, it has to be one that they're going to want to vote for. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'm going to go on record right here and now as agreeing with Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twice in a month. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That if we start talking about funding government buildings with a sales tax, they're not going to vote for it. Are you, Ty? See, you got -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ty's not going to vote for it, no matter what. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've got your answer right there. So anyway, but personally, I think take all these government facilities out of the sales tax discussion. We'll fund them conventionally some other way. Commissioner Constantine has got some ideas about maybe trimming costs. But I think we can work out a way to fund these through conventional methods and save the sales tax for what's going to be really important to the people in the community. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Roads. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're the ones who's going to be paying for it, they're the ones we're going to ask to vote for it. Let's use it to fund things that are going to be important to them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Roads and drainage. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And other things. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but that's the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Libraries, community centers, parks, that Page 34 April 13, 1999 sort of thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So because we've gone through your list today, Mr. McNees, what -- do you think you've gotten some direction from us sort of where to go from here? My, what a challenging thought. MR. McNEES: I did until that last part, because now we're talking -- and I'm really not trying to be funny. We're talking now about parks and libraries and such which -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have impact fees. MR. McNEES: -- for our plan are funded generally with our impact fee stream. Before we abandon government buildings, and I feel like maybe I'm lying down in front of the train, and I'll apologize for that, the sales taxes is a conventional revenue source. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. McNEES: And if we had a, quote, conventional revenue source with which we could meet this, what has now gone from 100 to a 50 million dollar shortfall on the government buildings, we probably wouldn't be here today. Because, you know, we've looked at what those options are. They generally come back to ad valorem or some pledge of bonded ad valorem taxes, which again require referendum. And I think it's been our feeling as we've strategized this thing that we will have to sell the public on the need for some of these buildings and convince them that they're not Taj Mahals. Because those other options are worse. And if we had some readily identifiable viable funding source for those other things, we wouldn't be here talking to you about a sales tax. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mike, maybe, you know, this is back to the point of I'm not sold on the space plan. I -- you know, I haven't bought it yet. And here's two I hear that aren't sold on the space plan. If we're not sold on it, we certainly can't go out to the public and say we want you to tax yourselves a special tax for it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I think that's an excellent point. I think that we probably should schedule a session where we go over that space plan in more detail than we have and we talk about the things that the board feels to be higher priorities on that plan. Because there are some things on there that are really not optional. It is a plan. It's a forward looking attempt to plan for and to provide for the space for the operations of government. But you may find some things on there to be more critical than others. And Mr. McNees' point is a very valid one, if the board does find that there are things on that plan that are in fact critical needs, this is the best way to pay for it. Now, I do understand the comment that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is one way to pay for them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The cheapest way. MR. FERNANDEZ: But I have made the statement myself before groups that if we put things on the list, no matter how valid the need is, if they're not popular to the public, nothing is going to get approved. Nothing on that list is going to be approved. And that's something we need to think about as we go through this process, because it's going to have to be popular. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I just think we need to be careful, though, when you see "this is the best way to pay," when I just asked 30 minutes ago that we look at what all the other options are, because we haven't done that so far. Page 35 April 13, 1999 And we looked at TAG's plan, we look at other plans, and we may find that a combination of several is the best way to pay, or something completely different is the best way to pay. I think we just need to be careful giving the impression that it doesn't matter what we come up with in the coming weeks and months, we're going to go with the sales tax because that's the best way. I think we need to look at everything. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Combination. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it may be a combo, it may be something different. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that there probably aren't any alternatives of pure revenue source that you haven't put to us already, Mr. McNees, because you've put those to us. I think if I understand Commissioner Constantine's point, it's that a combination of the increase in the impact fees, taking some of the things off the list. You know, there may be some creative look at this that we can still make, even though we know what the limit is on our revenue streams. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have a discussion, you said we ought to sit down and look at the work plan again? I would hope we would have this other information available too at that same time with the drainage and with those various things. Because what often happens is we have the discussion and someone comes in and pleads in front of us how important their building is or their floor is. And in the moment it seems like, well, yeah, it is, but we're not looking at the big picture. And so if we're going to have that discussion, and people will come and plead with us for whatever their long-term desire for their department or their building or whatever it is, we ought to still be able to keep in perspective what other expenses we have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree with that. And the other thing that -- just to strengthen my agreement with Commissioner Norris on this point, I think that the government building's portion of our capital projects have -- it has to be things that we need so desperately that we're willing to pay for them with ad valorem taxes. And, you know, that holds our feet as hard to the fire as they can be over limiting that capital expenditures so that, you know, we're paying for stormwater and roads with sales tax, but we just squeeze every penny because it's property tax. When it comes down to a government building, I'd just as soon leave that off and bite that bullet with a property tax myself. But I think we need to give staff some direction about where to go from here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask one question before we go any farther on that. This original little sheet, comparison sheet that you gave us at the start, did you do this on a half cent as well or is this just the one cent is the only one you did? Mike Smykowski is saying yeah, he's got it there. If you could furnish us with that, too, we'd like to see that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you do it on a half-cent, Mike? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Say you did it on the full penny, he didn't do it on the half-cent. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You did not do it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you could do one on the half-cent so we could use it as a basis of comparison, I think that's what we ought to do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Cut it in half, huh? Page 36 April 13, 1999 MR. McNEES: The simple answer is it's just cut in half. The impact would be $20 in instead of $40. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, so just -- all right. MR. McNEES: I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Go down to the last section, D, then. You would take off all the cost of the gas tax, because that would disappear. But only half of the cost of the millage reduction then? I don't think you can go down there through and just cut everything in half. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not as simple. MR. McNEES: No, but the only thing that's cut in half is the $145, the impact, the sales tax. You still have the millage reduction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying you would reduce the full -- you would still use the full millage reduction in the transportation system there of $81.197 MR. McNEES: That assumes that you leverage the half-cent to pay for all the projects. Yes. Now, if that's not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Bonding? MR. McNEES: You bond the half-cent. Now, if that's not the case, then yes, some of this would change, so we'll have to -- that's going to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So in reality, it would be a net savings to the general taxpayer if you went a half-cent. Is that what you're going to say? MR. FERNANDEZ: If we leave the impact of millage reduction the same, it reduces the amount of income available from the sales tax to less than half of the one penny, because we're covering that amount of millage savings. Under the first scenario, it was just the same amount that we were generating in revenue; is that correct? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is complicated enough that I'd like a whole separate piece of paper with the half penny, okay? MR. McNEES: I can answer your question. Assuming that the project list is cut enough that it can be fully funded by bonding a half-cent revenue stream, yes, it would actually save them money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So give us a piece of paper. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, make that analysis first to see if it's feasible, please, and then we'd have a basis of comparison. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Going forward, Commissioner Norris and I have been pretty clear about the government building's portion of this coming out of the sales tax equation. You know, the staff needs some direction if there's a third vote in that direction. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not real comfortable with that, and I'll tell you why. I don't -- government services are not just provided to those who pay property taxes. Government services are provided to the whole community. So consequently I think a percentage of the government facility should be paid for through a sales tax. So I'm not ready to throw that one out. And I think we've got to rework that facility plan and go through and figure out what we're going to do in the next five and 10 years and see what are the absolute necessary items that would have to stay in there. And a part of that may have to be incorporated into this whole process. You've got to tell the truth to the public. If you want these services and you want the buildings that deliver the services, Page 37 April 13, 1999 you've got to pay for it. You're going to pay for it one way or the other. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already asked them that question already and they said no, they don't think so. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I'm not ready to go there -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- myself. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we're going to leave it on for now. Commissioner Berry, you've got -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No thoughts. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Too late in the day. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I support the tax definitely for the roads and the drainage area. And I have to agree in part with what Jim has said in regard to the buildings. I think -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe it's a combination. You know, I don't know. I'm looking for solutions. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think people aren't realistic. You know, I hear this -- I've heard Taj Mahal for 14 years that I've been in -- well, 13 years that I've been involved in government. Every building is a Taj Mahal. And I can not go too far from here and see some people housed in some areas that are working for government that don't have the greatest conditions in the world, so -- and yet they still are expected to get the job done, do it efficiently, and do all those kinds of things. There's a point in time -- government's great to beat on and hammer on and say all kinds of unkind things about. And obviously, they all wish we'd go away, and sometimes we all wish we'd go away, but we're here and we've got to have a place to have employees work. We've got to house them, and we've got to do it well. How do you want to go about building those and how you want to finance that, that is the debate. But as far as scrapping the plan, the current plan, for -- the space plan, absolutely not. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think that's what she meant. I think she's just saying not apply it to the sales tax. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was saying that it shouldn't be paid for by sales tax. COMMISSIONER BERRY: By sales tax. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We should bite the bullet on property taxes to pay for government buildings. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Carter has got the correct argument. From a realistic point of view, that's the correct argument. But unfortunately we're getting out of the area of realism and we are going into a political campaign. This is to be put to the voters and, therefore, it's a political campaign. And they have told us several times in the last eight years -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What part of no don't you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then we'll have to go to ad valorem taxes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's what I've said earlier. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, if they -- either way. If it were connected and it went down, then it's going to have to be ad valorem taxes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps that hasn't been explained well enough in the past. I don't know. But I think we've really got to Page 38 April 13, 1999 lay this out. It becomes a campaign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But maybe that's what they need to hear, Jim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They need to hear -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: You know, that hey, if things aren't going to work here, if you're not going to support this, then here's what's going to happen. It's not a threat, but this is what we have to do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a reality. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have to provide. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't like the numbers either. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, Mike, one of the things that you might do for us is give us an analysis on just the government buildings, the facilities portion of property tax, impact versus sales tax impact. And also, I think you're hearing from a couple of us at least that we want some trimming back on that facilities plan. And, you know, I'm not dying to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's definitely a prioritization. But I think we have that. I think you kind of did that when you went and presented the plan. This building needs to come on line at this time and so on. It wasn't everything that was going to happen at one time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's still what they're showing us today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right, well -- MR. McNEES: We hear you telling us that you need to understand that better. You need to know what those drivers are, where those assumptions are, where did all these number come from. And we hear that loud and clear. The one thing I want to say, because I want to correct this and maybe it's a little past time for me to stop talking, but I'm going to say one more thing, anyway. We keep talking about that the voters have told us no already time after time after time. Well, we haven't asked the voters the question we're talking about now. We asked the voters, do you want a three-month -- nine-month sales tax to build the Gordon River Bridge, we asked them, do you want a sales tax -- perhaps this is the nine-month one, I'm getting them confused -- to build a jail and a work release center that was somewhat controversial and that we're not even talking about it anymore. And we asked them, did they want to pass a sales tax to build parks, libraries, roads, green space preservation, stormwater -- and two or three other kind of generic things that were very non-specific. So I think we're helping to perpetuate this idea that the voters have said no now already on this. We haven't asked the voters this type of a question. So this is a new day and a new question. Now, do I think that means that they're going to love this question because it's new. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that the voters have not said no repeatedly to this question because we haven't asked them this one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think you're right. It's the way we scope this thing, the way we take it out there as a package. And we need to have all of these -- the debate that we're having, we need to get resolved among ourselves so that we can present it well to the voters and give them the options. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Mike, do you have some idea of where we go from here, or are you going to think about that and come back with some recommendations? No pressure. MR. McNEES: I think we need to develop the information regarding Page 39 April 13, 1999 some bonding scenarios for you, how that falls out. I think we need to bring you the space plan. And the big hurdles we're at I think at this moment is, do we or do we not include some of these government buildings in the conversation about a sales tax? I think maybe we need to bring back to you that discussion and let you understand the need, and is it need, that you think is important enough. And Commissioner Norris is making the great point which is, you know, we have to be able to sell it and then no matter how much we need it, if we can't sell it, you know, that's certainly something we have to discuss. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you have some ideas of some scenarios you may bring back to us for more information so we'll be seeing more of this on a future agenda. And do we even want to -- is it too early to make a decision about mail ballot versus March? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's too early. I think we're still -- we've got to get this whole thing formulated, I think. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think what we should be looking at as our first choice would be the presidential primary. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, me too. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree with Commissioner Norris. I think that's an opportune time to take that to the voter. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They'll be sick of traffic by then, for one thing. MR. McNEES: Where it sounds like we're headed, and I'm trying to think ahead a little bit, as you saw, there are some shortfalls in the year 2000, particularly in transportation, that we'll probably be talking about bonding some of your constitutional gas taxes to fund if we don't get a gas tax in the year 2000. But on the flip side, that does give us the ability if you talk about waiting until the presidential primary that does give us the ability to have you deal with the impact fee issue, which, as you said, raised them to the maximum level that you can, which is what people are asking for, and have a real coherent plan. So the time is a luxury, and if we have it, great. The flip side of that is that we may have to do some bonding in fiscal 2000 because we don't have this revenue source. So that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's a tougher bullet for us to bite. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think, too, you know, if you look at the three items, you look at roads, you look at drainage, and even if you looked at, quote, certain government buildings, however you want to say this, there may be some things on there I don't care about. But I'll tell you, if I'm looking -- if I know that this tax is going to pass, I'm going to have a better road to drive on than -- that's what I need to consider. And I hope that certainly we have people out there that are -- have a little broader scope than picking out one item and say, I don't like that, so therefore, I'm voting no. In that case, you are going to be driving on a very congested roadway system. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we through? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: One more factor I need to throw in here. And I know that we've mentioned probably this real early on our very first workshop when we were out at the park, that there's another six cents of local option gas tax that sunsets at the end of this year that you can, by your action, by board motion, perpetuate and that -- Mr. Smykowski is preparing the action for that, that you'll see over the Page 40 April 13, 1999 summer. That's also out there, and that -- we'll have a chance to put that in place, also. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That if we think that we have a problem now -- all of your numbers are assuming that we continue that tax. MR. McNEES: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because we have the option to do that without a referendum. Okay. Anything further? All the fun we can stand. We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:55 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER IT~.CONTROL , ELA S. MAC~MAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These.minutes. approved by the Board on ~(~/FF2 , as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 41