Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/27/2003 B (Budget Workshop)June 27, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 03/04 BUDGET WORKSHOP Naples, Florida, June 27, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET WORKSHOP AGENDA June 26-27, 2003 9:00 a.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LE'"AST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 June 26-27, 2003 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2004 BUDGET WORKSHOP THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003 ® 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. GENERAL OVERVIEW COURTS & RELATED AGENCIES (STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER) ADMINISTRATIVE sERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DEBT SERVICE MANAGEMENT OFFICES (PELICAN BAY) COUNTY ATTORNEY BCC AIRPORT AUTHORITY FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2003 Add On: · PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CHILDREN'S LEMONADE STANDS AS A PART OF AMERICAN TRADITION -ADOPTED 4/0 (Commissioner Coyle absent) CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 2. 3. 4. PROPERTY APPRAISER SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS CLERK OF COURTS SHERIFF MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003 WRAP-UP (if required) 2 June 26-27, 2003 June 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County budget workshop. Would you-all rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: We have so much fun in our-- in our duties here at the Board of Commissioners. We -- we'd like to share a proclamation with the community, so I will read this proclamation. "Whereas Collier County, a beautiful part of the county located in the sun-blessed state of Florida, on -- being recognized as a wonderful place to live, work, and recreate; whereas the residents and visitors of Collier County, including the parents and their children, have an int -- interest in traditional summer pastimes and they are (sic) essential enjoyment nationwide; and whereas the traditional child entrepreneur endeavor to have lemonade stands is consistent with the value and traditions that all recognize as the American way; and whereas the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognizes and endures the -- the American right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to include the ability of-- for all children to set up and operate lemonade stands on resi -- residential property. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, and the government recognizes children's lemonade stands as part of the American tradition, American -- as American as apple pie and that it's the intent of Collier County government to -- not to regulate in -- into the -- and traditional uses of residential property by children for lemonade stands' operations, that such lemonade stands are encouraged and promoted in the unincorporated Collier County and the community and visitors of Southwest Florida to be so assured." I'll entertain a motion to approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I so move. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion by Commissioner Fiala, Page 2 June 27, 2003 second by Commissioner Coletta. by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: All in favor of the motion signify Aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Opposed? The motion carries four to zero. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'd like to thank you for coming up with this idea. I think that that's really important, and so I think we owe you a special thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I -- I want to support the -- the mayor of the City of Naples and-- and the city council. They feel the same way, and-- and I'm very proud of them and -- and very respectful to the -- the council and the mayor. So, Commissioners, I would like for you to join me down where the budget director is, and let's get some lemonade. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll bring my own glass. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have any money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll lend you some, but I've got to have you sign for it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all join me? (Recess held.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, I'm -- I'm told by the parents of the -- of the children that they would like to take this money and give it to the Humane Society. MR. MUDD: Okay. Wonderful. Commissioner, if-- if as we -- as we start today -- you guys are doing great, okay? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Free enterprise. Page 3 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Ab -- absolutely. Yesterday we -- we pretty much finished where we wanted to go, and today we'll do the constitutional officers and the -- and the -- starting with the property appraiser, the board of-- the supervisor of elections, clerk of courts, and the sheriff. But what I wanted to do -- there was -- there was an item that was brought up last night, and it was news to me. And we went back, and -- and we wanted to make sure that we had everything down on the sheet the best that we can. As -- as you know, this has been a -- a complete change on how we did budgeting, and so this morning in your -- in your books you have a new page 1-A revised, okay? And I'd like to take you through that so that you know -- Mike, if you could help me up there, that would be great. And -- and kind of take a look at it versus the original one that was in the book. And what -- what was stated by Mr. Smykowski is the salaries -- because of a -- a -- a staff issue, they kept the salary increases as a reserve line item, okay, in every fund, all 130 of them, and the 2 funds that were left over. 00 -- 001 and 111 were at -- were -- were kept in the general fund line that -- it's the bottom of your page that's highlighted. And yesterday that amount was $118,249,700, and it looked like a 19.3 increase. Well, we took out the salary increases in that general fund amount, and it's now down to $117,203,900, and it's at 18.7. And what we did is we put those salary pieces into the personnel services, okay, out of that reserve amount for 001 and 111, and those were the only two funds that were involved. Everybody else was okay. And those highlighted areas on the new sheet show you where they went and the differences thereto, and I'd like to start at the top line. Board of County Commissioners' operation. Yesterday the current budget was 941,700, and it was a 6.3 percent change. When those general fund monies for salary increases are applied, it's Page 4 June 27, 2003 954,100, and it's a 7.7 percent change. The total amount changes at the bottom, and it increased it by one-tenth of a percent to $12,328,000 where yesterday it was twelve million three hundred and fifteen doll -- three hundred fifteen thousand six hundred dollars. It brings us down to the county manager's agency, and I'll go over the percentages a bit. The management office operation was at 5.2 percent yesterday. It's now at 5.8 percent. The total amount is $11,681,200 where it was eleven -- $11,616,300 yesterday. It goes down to the next line. That's admin services operation. The percentage yesterday was 12.3, and they had $64,176,800. It is now $64,469,100, and it's a 12.8 percent increase, which is a .5 percent increase over the amount that was on the sheet yesterday. We go to the third line, which is public services operation. Public services operation yesterday was at $50,897,000 or a 5.7 percent increase. It's now at $51,398,000, and it's a 6.8 percent increase, which is an increase of 1.1 percent. And as Mr. Dunnuck would say he had the largest -- the most number of employees of any upper operation, some 500, so you -- you would expect that to have the biggest impact to his division. Transportation services operations, which is -- which is rather minimal because there's only seven people that are on the 111 fund; everything else is -- is funded by -- by gas tax and whatnot. Yesterday transportation was at 5.3 percent at $36,630,700. It is now at $36,675,600. And -- and, again, it's a 5.5 percent, and that's basically a .2 percent difference. It brings us to community development environmental services. Yesterday community development's environmental services was $52,331,700 or a 13.1 percent increase, and the adjusted value is $52,462,000, or a 13.3 percent increase, again a difference of .2 percent. That brings us to the total amount at the bottom. Yesterday that was $334,324,700 or a 7.7 percent. The adjusted value now is Page 5 June 27, 2003 $335,358,100 or an 8 percent. And that's pretty much the changes. You can see they're -- they're minor. They're minor percentages. Again, this has been a complete conversion, okay, and we -- and we had one outlier, and it was there because staff found it in the past. This was -- this was -- you know, this was a Dorrill issue some eight years ago, and I'm going, "Why did we do it this way?" And -- and -- and it came to -- it came to pass that at one time there was -- there was some promise to employees about a six percent pay increase about six years ago, and-- and everybody had it in their budgets, and then when it finally got to the board the board got it down to about 2.8 or 2.9. They had to completely redo all the budgets again within a week time frame, and it was -- and it was a mess. So they basically pulled those dollars out so if anything changed they could change them and then insert them into the budget. So what We will do by the 29th of July -- Commissioner, I just went over blow by blow -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah, I heard that. MR. MUDD: -- so that-- so that everybody knew so that we're-- we've got all apples on one sheet, okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: And -- and what we'll do by 29 July is those operational pieces. We'll leave the operational line the way it is now in case any of you have got that page memorized in your -- in -- in your brain, and it -- and -- and that percent's there, but underneath we'll have the pay-increase piece right underneath, and then we'll have a subtotal so that you won't lose fidelity on the information you have. We'll just give you some more information, two new lines there on each one, so that you'll have that information, and we'll put that in the budget for next year. And I'm sorry that -- that -- but it's okay. It's a-- it's a-- it's a work in progress, and we're trying to get as much visibility on the process as we can. Page 6 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: It makes us human. MR. MUDD: But we needed to make sure that you got that information today so that you had it all for your -- and, oh, by the way, your bottom line is still the same. I mean, it -- there is no change to the budget. It's still the same. It's just where those dollars were, and I wanted to make sure that you had visibility. But the only thing we could do last night was get the -- the master sheet, and we'll work on the other cut sheets over the next couple of weeks so that you get that -- those changes in your books for the 29th of July. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: And, Mr. Chairman, that -- that brings us to constitutional officer presentations, and the property appraiser is first. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm going to cover that. The property appraiser's budget as well as the tax collector's budget is ultimately approved by the state department of revenue rather than the Board of County Commissioners. For the record, I'm Mike -- Michael Smykowski, budget director. Excuse me. On page J-4 the property -- is the detail page of the property appraiser's budget. He has a net budget decrease of 4.3 percent. He has no new expanded positions requested. Essentially, the -- there were -- he's completed initial GIS system development cost, and as a result his operating expenses and capital outlay in terms of capital equipment have decreased, so overall his budget decrease is 4.3 percent. Ultimately that will be approved by the state department of revenue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Page 7 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: That brings us to the supervisor of elections budget. MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. MS. EDWARDS: For the record, my name's Jennifer Edwards, supervisor of elections. And in the supervisor's office we have no requests for new positions. And if you will walk with me to J-6 -- MR. MUDD: Under the constitutional officer staff. MS. EDWARDS: -- you'll see in our administration budget that we have a 2.6 percent increase, and then in our elections budget there's an increase of 21.5 percent, and that's a result of next year is election year. Beginning this November we have -- we will conduct six elections in the next fiscal year, and, of course, the November 2 election, the general election next year, will be in the following fiscal year, but most of the expenses come out of the budget that we're looking at today. And included in those increases, of course, are mostly staffing costs, and that's temporary staff. We have learned with the new voting system and with election reform that elections cost more. I was reading a legislative summary yesterday, and in that summary it was stated that in 2001 statewide election costs estimated between 4 and 5 million for 2002 -- those costs have increased to between 10 and 13 million, so it's something that all the counties across the state are facing. We have increased -- as a result of the new voting system and the reform, we have increased to about 1.5 poll workers per precinct. We also have about 50 technical staff that we hire to work with us. And Page 8 June 27, 2003 we train them a few days prior to the election, and they're out in the field all day on election day troubleshooting with the machines. We also are now -- we now have the opportunity to provide early voting, so for two weeks prior to the elections we will be providing early voting at hopefully five sites across the county, and we're going to need 25 to 30 staff-- temporary staff members to do that. So those are some of the examples of why our -- our budget has increased. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. EDWARDS: Yes. Any questions? Thank you, Miss Edwards. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Put in a plug for the thing you're doing tomorrow at the park for all of the children, why don't you. MS. EDWARDS: We're-- we're involved with the East Naples Community Park. And we're -- we have developed a ballot, and the -- the participants in the program at the park, the young people, are going to be able to vote on their favorite food and some other things like that. And it's a -- it's a real good program, and that's similar to something we did, too, in our schools. In the spring we used the voting system to conduct reading program elections in nine of our elementary schools. It was a statewide Sunshine Readers' program, and we had over a thousand elementary-aged students between three -- third grade and fifth grade vote. And we actually conduct those elections like we conduct real elections, and -- and the excitement of the young people to be able to participate in something that their parents participate in was -- was really something to see. But that's an additional use that we make of the voting system. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next presenter is the clerk of courts, and his Page 9 June 27, 2003 fund starts on page J-12. MR. BROCK: Comtnissioners, I'm -- for the record, my name is Dwight Brock. I'm the clerk of courts. And I -- I'm going to take a few moments to explain. In communications with some of the commissioners through my staff, there seems to be maybe not a complete understanding of the way the clerk's office budget is funded, but if you think it's bad now you wait until the implementation of the legislation dealing with Article V hits. We may never figure out how the clerk of court is funded, but let me explain to you the basic premise upon which the funding mechanism of the clerk of court comes about. The clerk's funding comes from two sources: those associated with clerk-to-the-board functions -- that's the finance and accounting functions -- and those services associated with county courts. Now, I'm not talking circuit courts. We have two levels of courts in Collier County. We have the county court and the circuit court. Those monies are funded by the Board of County Commissioners in a transfer to the board -- or a transfer to the clerk. The rest of the clerk's funding is accomplished through fees that the clerk charges for services. At the end of the year, those monies from those fees that have not been spent as the statutes read today come back to the Board of County Commissioners and go into the general fund for general governmental operations, so that's the breakdown of how the clerk's office is funded. With the implementation of Article V legislation, the court system in its entirety will be funded by fees, and those monies that we have taken out of Collier County taxpayers' pockets for the providing of those fees in the past and in the future that have come back to Collier County to be spent in Collier County will now be taken by the State of Florida and spent somewhere else in the state of Florida. Now, the budget mechanism that the legislature has created to Page 10 June 27, 2003 accomplish this is what I consider to be a bureaucratic mess. If you-- you talk about poor budgeting practices and you talk about the traditional governmental budgeting philosophy that the more you spend the more you get, that is exactly what our legislature has created for us. My budget in the future years for the services in the clerk's office will be budgeted based upon what we spent another year, years preceding. So the philosophy that the more you spend the more you get has been codified in the state of Florida as it relates to expenditures from the clerk's office. And I happen to have the philosophy that I think more of the people of Collier County than I do of the people in North Florida, and as a consequence I would prefer to spend the money here in Collier County to the benefit of those who it's come out of their pockets. And this is a base year. Now, the budget that we have prepared is adopted by the clerk of the circuit court. The funding mechanism comes through a transfer of funds from you. So your discretion comes in how much money you're going to transfer to the clerk; that's the role that you play in this process. But when I prepare my budget, as I have done ever since I have been clerk, I've presented the entire package to the Board of County Commissioners and the people of Collier County so that they would be able to look at it and see it, because what we do in the clerk's office is an open book. I will tell you that the clerk of the circuit court in Collier County is one of two clerks' offices in the state that have received the GFOA annual budget recognition award for the budget that we prepared. The -- the budget that we have prepared this year conformed to the policies that we have been given by your staff that came from you. There are a lot of expenditures in the budget that we have here today that are budget -- are expenditures totally beyond my control. I understand after talking to the court administrator's office yesterday Page 11 June 27, 2003 that it was brought to light that I would be assuming the role of domestic-violence functions pertaining to the clerk's responsibility. The statutes in the state of Florida have always made that the responsibility of the clerk of the circuit court, but the courts have decided here in Collier County that they wanted to assume that responsibility, but because of the budget mechanism that has now been put in place where what I get in terms of budget in future years depends upon what I spend in this base year the clerk of the circuit court has said, "We will now assume our statutory responsibility today as opposed to sometime in the future," which will impact us from a budget perspective because we won't be able to live with that because it -- the statute as it relates to the budgeting process in the future is very, very inflexible. So I had to bring everything on line that I had the potential for having to provide services for in the future in this base period, and that's why we have done what we have done. We have asked for, I think, between 15 and 16 -- MR. MITCHELL: Sixteen. MR. BROCK: -- 16 additional employees. The overwhelming majority of those employees come in that portion of my budget that is funded through fees. Now, a large majority of those, I think between five and six of those employees are full-time equivalents, come in the recording section of my office. The recording section is the section of my office that records documents. The legislature has mandated that we put those documents online in image format in the future, and we're in the process of doing that, and as a consequence of that it is requiring additional personnel to do that because we're going to have to go back in time and record a lot of documents that have -- or image a lot of documents that have never been imaged in the past. In addition to that, in that particular department we have a group of employees that have been there between 15 and 25 years, and those Page 12 June 27, 2003 employees are beginning to reach retirement age, and as a consequence of them retiring with that type of experience -- and, remember, all employees basically that come into -- with few exceptions that come into the employ of the clerk's office come in at base level. We do not have that institutional knowledge and experience in those new employees, but in addition to that the economy has been such -- and I will present this to give you an example of what we are dealing with. Since the year 2000 we have almost doubled the number of pages that we have recorded in that particular department. We thought last year was an anomaly. After looking at the numbers this year, we came to the realization that this maybe isn't an anomaly but, rather, this is the future trend. And as a consequence of interest rates continuing to go down people are continuing to refinance. And the feds just reduced again the other day. We're having to deal with all of the recordings that are coming through that department, which is requiring additional personnel. In the courts system, one of the things that we have been doing for the last few years is we've not had space to add chairs. Now, you may think I'm kidding, but I'm not. We have not had the space to add people, and we have struggled through that process. We are now in the process of gaining that sprace (sic) as a consequence of cooperation from Mr. Mudd, and we will have that space, so we are prying -- trying to play a little catch-up. In addition, we're trying to deal with what we are confronting with Article V and the increased caseloads. I provided you-all with an analysis, historical analysis, of the operation of the clerk's office and some of the standards we use for measurements. I'll be glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board? Commissioner Coyle. Page 13 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- I need to understand how things will look under Article V. You know, none of us understands really what that's going to do to us, and -- and my concern is we've got a budget here to cover your operations. We approve that budget. What happens when Article V -- I think it's Amendment VII to Article V really, isn't it, that -- that -- that's causing us the problem? But -- MR. BROCK: It's actually the legislation that they passed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay. They-- they cause us lots of problems, yeah. But the -- what happens when this thing starts going into effect? What do we do with respect to adjusting the -- the -- the budget and deciding what we should be paying for and the state should be paying for and what expenses should go where and -- and how do we do that? MR. BROCK: I suspect that everyone in this state is sitting in the same position that you are sitting in right now in that we have no idea. We do know that come May of this year we have to submit a new budget to the state for review, but other than that, I mean -- you know, we have a tremendous amount of reporting requirements that are being imposed upon us that we've never had in the past. There is an inordinate amount of capturing of data that we're going to have to go in and build models that we dofft have today to try to get ready for this, but we have no idea what's going to happen at the end of the year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so what would happen, then, is that we would review this. At the time you sent your budget in to the state on -- in May, I guess we take a look at-- MR. BROCK: This -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what we're going to do for the next fiscal year and then make some adjustments. MR. BROCK: The overwhelming majority of the legislation does not take effect until January of nineteen -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh six. Page 14 June 27, 2003 MR. BROCK: -- ninety-four -- oh, in nineteen oh si -- oh four. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five. MR. MUDD: Two thousand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Two thousand. MR. BROCK: 2004. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, if I could add just a little bit. Now, we -- we just received a 16-pager that came from -- from FAC, and part of the things that they're going to do is they're going to reduce your -- your cost share that you get from the sales tax coming from Tallahassee, so you're going to take a cut in your -- in your percentage on that, and so they're going to pull some of that money out in order to do it. When I look at all the things that are -- and there's only one piece to this whole thing that I really have questions on, and it has to do with fines and who's going to keep them, because if you look at fines in his budget, I mean, we're talking about four to five million dollars. Okay. If those fine -- those fines, sheriffs tickets, okay, code endorsement violation tickets, and if those are going to Tallahassee in this -- in this court trust fund -- and -- and it's something I have to talk to Dwight and Jim Mitchell about at -- at great length. If-- if we can find some resolution to that, I -- I would say that we will probably come out about three to four million dollars ahead, money to the good for Collier County versus the process. If that is counter to what I think, then we're going to lose money on this Article V, and it will cost Collier County more money for the court system than it did before when we were funding it with Dwight pulling the fees and -- and-- MR. BROCK: Take -- take my word for it, it will cost you more than you can imagine. The fines and forfeitures that historically have come to the county no longer come here. They are income to the clerk of the circuit court, and what I don't spend goes to the State of Florida. Page 15 June 27, 2003 The fines are gone. Let me give you another example of a problem that you're going to have to deal with. In order for you to enforce your municipal and county ordinances, every time you bring one of those to the court system to file it will cost you a $200 filing fee. So it essentially relegates you in a posture where the only way you're going to be able to enforce your ordinances is through your code enforcement board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. Yeah. We'll -- we'll hire on enforcers or something like that -- MR. BROCK: I -- I mean, I think -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- based on that. MR. BROCK: Honestly I believe that that was what it was designed to do was to force you to use the alternative method of enforcing ordinances. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. BROCK: And, you know, all of that is gone. All of the money that we used to distribute at the end of the year back to Collier County -- because, you know, believe it or not Collier County used to be a money maker, not a money spender in terms of the clerk's office. All of that is going now to leave Collier County to be spent somewhere else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one -- one of my -- my concerns -- and I guess it should be my concern only for the next year or so, but that -- and that is the difference between the cost for support of the -- the court system and the revenue you get from doing that enforcement, like, the -- the -- I -- I presume the -- the fines for misdemeanors and county civil and small claims and traffic -- there's a big discrepancy between what it costs to do that and what the reve -- and the revenue that you get back to cover your costs. Is there any control that we or you can have over the level of that revenue? MR. BROCK: Nothing other than through lobbying the legislature, and I did that hard. And what I got was a lot of this Page 16 June 27, 2003 (indicating), and what I ended up with was a lot of this (indicating). COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. My final question has to do with domestic violence. I need to understand that -- that problem. We've got some people who are saying that you ought to -- ought to be handling it all and -- and there shouldn't -- shouldn't be anything necessary for the -- the court system itself to do. Can you -- you give us some background on this issue? MR. BROCK: Well, I'm-- you know, I don't know exactly what domestic violence does because when the court took it over I sort of took a stand-away position, but I can tell you what I will be doing in the furore. I will be doing those things that I am stamtorily required to do. And ! am absorbing that department, that function, into my civil department, which domestic violence is. It's a civil injunction. And we will be doing that from there. What they do in addition to or on top of what we do, I -- I don't know the answer to that, but I know that we will be performing those traditional and statutory roles in domestic violence that have been done by court administration in the past but have always been stamtorily the responsibility of the clerk. And the way that I did that was I cross-scored the individuals because Judge Blackwell and some of the other judges had asked me to do that. I will no longer be doing that. I will be responsible for that function in its totality. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- but that's not likely to happen until the end of this particular budget year, so we shouldn't start fiddling around with -- with trying to transfer money out of one to another-- MR. BROCK: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is that correct? MR. BROCK: That -- that will, in fact, happen September of this year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This coming September? Page 17 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we do have to -- have the need to do something about adjusting some -- MR. MUDD: Mark Middlebrook wrote you a -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- memo last night. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: And-- and it's on the second page, second paragraph. "My understanding" -- and Dwight's dead on. I mean, it confirms what -- what Mark put in there. "My understanding is Dwight is going to assume the responsibility of domestic-violence fun -- domestic-violence functions sometime between October and December 2003. Should this, in fact, occur as we anticipate we will be seeking to decrease our personnel strength from 54 to 51, and this would result in a cost savings of about $150,000 per year." So we will adjust that budget accordingly as that thing moves on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And-- and the question, though, is, is Dwight able to deal with it at that level of revenue? MR. BROCK: We certainly hope so. If not, it's not something the board funds. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MR. BROCK: It's something that's funded out of fees that are generated from my office, and we'll have to deal with it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MR. MITCHELL: Can I make one comment in regard to Article V? Jim Mitchell, director of finance. We have created an Article V task force in Dwight's office, and what we'd like to do is invite somebody from your shop to join us to see what the impacts -- how those impacts are shared. What we'll do with your blessing and somebody probably out of Mike's office -- invite them to those meetings. MR. BROCK: Okay. Page 18 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: It'll be Mike. MR. BROCK: I mean, you know, this has implications to the Board of County Commissioners that I think when you look back from a historical perspective and see that $350,000 that was spent to market the passage of Amendment VII you-all are going to rue the day that that was passed, but so be it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My final question is, do -- and-- and the county attorney is working on this for me, and I -- I think the staff had -- might have an answer that I just -- just haven't had time to sit down with them and talk about it. But if we can find a way to establish certain county fines for county ordinances where does that money go? Do we get to keep it? MR. MITCHELL: A piece of it. MR. BROCK: A piece of it. But wait -- remember -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which piece? The small piece or the big piece? MR. BROCK: The small piece. But, remember, it's going to cost you $200 just to file it if you go through the court system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. BROCK: So my suggestion to you is very simple. You begin gearing up today to deal with your county ordinance violations through your code enforcement board exclusively -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. BROCK: -- because when I sit and develop my models for determining the income of my office I'm working upon the assumption that those are going away -- because that's the only way it makes sense in my mind -- and that those will now be handled through code enforcement, the code enforcement board, and won't come through the judicial sys -- system except upon rare occasions. It's there for you if you want, but, you know, I think from an economics -- a fiscal standpoint it makes more sense to be doing it through the code enforcement board and keeping it away from the Page 19 June 27, 2003 court system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: what I intended. MR. BROCK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that-- that -- that's sort of I -- I didn't -- didn't want to run it through the -- the courts and have them take our money. MR. BROCK: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. All right. yotl. Thank CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Mr. Halas, you stated that ordinances -- and what I got out of that is all ordinances there'll be a $200 filing fee, so we need to gear up and make sure that the beneficiary is -- is the one that-- who pays that filing fee. The other thing -- getting back to your budget in your recording, you're -- you're saying you're ramping it up because you have a lot of employees that are going to retire in the future, and you -- and -- MR. BROCK: Well, that's only one piece of the puzzle, but, yes, that's part of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And it clearly shows that your -- your workload has increased, too, but I guess the question is part of those -- when those employees retire, is -- are they going to be replaced with other employees? MR. BROCK: That's correct, but they will be replaced with employees not at the pay stale up here (indicating) at which these employees are leaving nor with the experience, so as I bring them in at the entry-level positions I can't in good conscience assume that they will have the ability or the productivity of these people that have -- are retiring out of the system. But there -- there's a multitude of reasons that this is happening to me in my recording department. One is the retirement of a lot of these ladies who have been here forever that have institutional knowledge. Another one is the requirements that we have to change the process Page 20 June 27, 2003 that we used for recording in the past in putting it out there to the public. Another reason is the increase in the workload associated with the recording of these documents. So, I mean, there's a multitude of reasons as to why we're having to ramp up the staff associated with that particular department, and one of the things that you've got to remember is that department is not funded through any influx of ad valorem taxes. That department is funded in -- in its entirety off of fees generated from the operations of my office. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I was just trying to look out in the future where -- where you're going so ... MR. BROCK: Well, I mean, hopefully when we get the system in place it will be sort of like SAP. Once we get the system in place and we get it running and operational, the operational costs that have been escalating in the implementation phase will then begin to produce its benefits, and our costs will begin going down. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. BROCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Brock, do you foresee in the future where not only Collier County but other counties that are not as fortunate to have a good base for providing a budget -- do you foresee that there'll be enough backlash from these counties to force Tallahassee to readdress Article V to be more favorable to the counties? MR. BROCK: Well, no. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, I -- you don't think so -- MR. BROCK: I mean, I -- I think that they're -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because I can't believe that this -- there's counties that are very poor in Florida, and I -- I think this is going to be a burden that's going to be placed upon them in such a way that I don't think they really see. Page 21 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And no real benefit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, no real benefit. MR. BROCK: I -- I think it's just the other way around. You've got the -- the large counties that are crying that we're having to spend so much, you've got the little counties -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Counties that -- MR. BROCK: -- that are crying that "We don't have it to spend," and then you've got those that we fit into the category of, those that have affluence and a good base and efficiency, that are generating the money, and you've got them coming from the top and the bottom trying to eat into -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. BROCK: -- the monies that we produce. That's my philosophy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner. MR. BROCK: I thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, one -- one question before you go, Dwight. MR. BROCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think I know the answer already, but from-- this is from the history of expenditures by division. From 2000 to 2004 there's almost been a 100 percent increase. Is this because of your outreach program going out into the MR. BROCK: In the what area? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is -- this has to do -- everything from administrations, internal audits -- it's on page 20 of your annual budget. MR. MUDD: Dwight, I got it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's in your book, Dwight. MR. BROCK: It's in my book? Page 22 June 27, 2003 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. MR. BROCK: Page 20, okay. That's correct. Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Is it due -- due because of the fact that you've been expanding your operations out to the -- the farer reaches of the county to try to -- MR. BROCK: That -- that is correct. I have tried to take my office to the public as opposed to requiring the public to come to us. We have employees now in City Hall, in each of the satellites that Guy Carlton has an office in, and the desire is to decentralize the clerk's office for those functions that people are forced to participate in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's good. And can you tell me, have -- do you have future expansion plans to go out farther, or do you think you've about leveled off for a while? Will this budget probably remain stable, I mean, for the most part forgetting Article V for the -- but would this budget remain stable in future years, do you think, or is more expansion planned? MR. BROCK: That all depends. You. know, one of the things that we're confronted with right now is because of Article V, you know, a large portion of my budget is dependent upon those roles and functions that are imposed upon us, not upon -- not by ourselves, but by others. So if people impose responsibilities upon us that we do not have today we've got to provide those resources necessary to accomplish that. So it all depends. There's very little that I do that I control. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh. MR. BROCK: The overwhelming portion of what the clerk's office does is defined by someone else, either the legislature, the judiciary. So, you know, I can't speak to that. You know, I'm sort of in a -- a mode of reaction as opposed to anything else. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. BROCK: Not a problem. Page 23 June 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any other questions for the clerk of courts administration? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers on the clerk of courts budget? MR. MUDD: No, sir. And one of-- one of the good things in this budget -- absolutely great things in his budget is that he gets his salaries compatible with the county manager's organization so we don't have the slip-sliding slope of-- of his folks coming over and -- and then having him to -- for a while there he was our training agency. Okay. He trained them, and we'd take them. Okay. We really need to get that resolved because that's not a good way to do business. It put -- adds a lot of friction. And the other thing is he's implementing SAP, okay, and we've got to have that. The county's on board. He's on board. He's the financial officer. That's got to happen, and that's in his budget, and we can't wait for that to -- to -- to happen. And they've been with us as we've been doing the SAP, but then they go fully online here this year, and that's in his budget too. We've got to have that, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. BROCK: Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next -- the next presenter is the sheriff. MS. KINZEL: Well, actually, the sheriffs office. Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, financial director for the sheriffs office. And I have with me today Jean Myers, who is our senior budget analyst, and Michelle Diaz, who is also with the finance division at the sheriffs office. We have some go~)d news to report. Just to give you a little bit of an overview and start out for members of the public that are viewing today, the crime rate is down for the sixth consecutive year in Collier County and to an all-time 31-year low, so we think we've done a Page 24 June 27, 2003 pretty good job with crime. In addition to that, because that's a relative rate according to population, the actual incidence of Part 1 crimes in Collier County has been reduced again, so we're looking at both incidents and the rate of crime. We see those as positive aspects of what we're doing here in Collier. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it sounds like you don't need as much taxes then. MS. KINZEL: Well, I'll get to that, Commissioner. Hold on just a second. The gang activity is down through our aggressive enforcement, so we also see that down, but our arrests are up. We have increased career-criminal sentencing, which is one of our primary focus areas, which I'll talk about in a minute, and we wrote over 40,000 citations in year 2002. That was a 17 percent increase on the prior year. We responded to over 400,000 calls for service in Collier County, which exceeds the actual population, as you're aware. And we continue to be successful in obtaining some grant funds. We're expecting in 2004 and included in this budget about $4 million in contracts and grants to fund 100 of the positions you see in our budget. For 2003 and 2004 Sheriff Hunter has outlined in what he refers to as the state-of-the-agency statement five target or focus areas, and we're going to continue with the career criminal in apprehension and prosecution. We feel that by targeting the worst of the worst we're going to keep Collier County safe. We're going to target those individuals with outstanding warrants through our aggressive posting of wanted persons throughout Collier County. We're going to make sure that they're apprehended, and we're going to continue with our gang enforcement, which has been very successful in Collier County. We want to also enhance and continue what we've been doing for Page 25 June 27, 2003 drug enforcement. We see that as an up-and-coming unfortunate aspect in Collier County that we want to get a further handle on. And we're looking at human smuggling and the illegal activities associated with that venture that we've seen in Collier County recently. We also -- of course, we know that one of the primary concerns of the citizens is the traffic enforcement, and we have a strategic plan to continue that. We have focused traffic groups at intersections. We're doing speed enforcement. We're using it with our flexible operation units throughout Collier County. So we believe that the budget you have before you -- we have not asked for additional staffing other than the 14 people that are coming off of grants that were awarded in prior years, and now it's our responsibility under those grant agreements to absorb them into the sheriff's office budget. So we're not asking for additional people beyond that, but we are asking for the sufficient funds to continue with what we see as a very focused and strategic plan that's been successful in Collier County. So with that little overview -- our budget begins on J-26, and we're available to answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Crystal, what is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Crystal, do you have employees budgeted for deputies and that that the positions are not filled historically? MS. KINZEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- what is that historic goal? You know, is it 1007 Is it 200? Is it-- MS. K1NZEL: Routinely we -- we do run about 80 percent of vacancies. And, remember, Commissioners, that the budget that you see before you is already net a four percent of salaries to account for Page 26 June 27, 2003 that vacancy factor, so the budget that we bring to you, even though we have 1,100 positions authorized, the funding is net four percent of those positions to factor in that routine vacancy. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you have 1,100 budgeted? MS. KINZEL: Eleven hundred and seventy eight point five to be exact, but, yes, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. K1NZEL: But those are not fully funded by the budget that you see before you. And also, remember, that in the sheriff's office we operate a little bit differently in business. For example, my job, if I take a day off, unfortunately my desk is just piled twice as high the next day, but for about 80 percent of the functions within the sheriff's office, including our jail, which is a 24-hour operation -- our dispatch center's a 24-hour operation, and, of course, road patrol. We can't not fill those posts, so when we operate with a vacancy in any of those positions we still have to cover that post, and that's at premium dollars at time and a half. So our goal is always to fill our vacancies, but you don't get a total net reduction in our budget for those vacancies because we have to fill a majority of them with overtime dollars. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Getting back to my question. So you have 1,178 budgeted for. MS. KINZEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many don't you have? MS. KINZEL: Right now we have a vacancy of about 85. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eighty-five positions. MS. KINZEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. four -- four percent -- MS. KINZEL: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's where you get the -- on that? Because I -- I thought it was 85 percent. Page 27 June 27, 2003 MS. KINZEL: CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. KINZEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. No. No. I'm sorry. Eighty-five positions. Eighty-five positions. Okay. You know, it's the -- the wishes of the board not to -- is -- is to get the school board to pick up some of those deputies in the school system. MS. KINZEL: I understand, Commissioner, and I -- and we did receive a copy of your letter to the school board on that grant that we had proposed of several weeks ago to -- for the 60/40 split. Those positions are not in this budget at this time because that's the grant that you will accept at a later date. We just came before you to get the authority to go and apply for those positions, but those eight that we brought before you aren't included in this budget. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh. Okay. Is it the wish of the board that -- to ask the school system to pick up 40 percent of that whole program? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. MR. MUDD: I've sent -- I -- Commissioner, with --just so you know, that letter that she's talking about, it was under my signature, okay? And I basically asked Ben Marlin to fund the county share for the first three years at 50-50, and then when it becomes a total county burden in two thousand and -- or two thousand -- 2008 that they would pick up 60 percent, and the county would pick up 40 percent. And I've sent that proposal to him with the dollar amounts, and I'm waiting for his reply. He has to bring it up with the school board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. How many deputies do you have in the COPS program? MS. KINZEL: The COPS -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean -- I'm sorry. MS. KINZEL: -- or in school? CHAIRMAN HENNING: In school. Thank you. MS. KINZEL: Do you have that? We'll get that for you. Page 28 June 27, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I -- and I think what we asked the school board is -- is about those gram positions and not the total program. MS. KINZEL: Correct. I think we have about 52 youth relations and prevention services members, but that particular grant was for 7 to spread in the additional high schools and middle schools for drug interdiction specifically. MR. MUDD: And I specifically asked him about those seven positions, Commissioner. I didn't ask him for all 53. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. So I -- I'm just trying to clarify that for the board. Is it the -- the grant positions that we're asking the school board to participate in, or is it the program in total? That's a question to my commissioners -- fellow commissioners. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would it mean if we were to go in total? What would that be in dollars that would come from the school board based upon this? Is there any kind of numbers? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the problem is, too, that all you're doing is just shifting the cost. We're looking at what it -- you know, when you start shifting the cost, it's still costing the taxpayers the same amount of money. It's just coming out of another fund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's right. All we're doing is giving the school board more money to spend on -- on -- on other things, and they're -- they're getting the benefit from this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You're just shifting the cost, so it would -- it basically ends up that the citizens of Collier County are still going to shoulder the burden of this cost here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think anybody's disputing that. I think what we're looking at is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're trying to make somebody accountable. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah. They have a benefit. The school system has a benefit. And are they willing to pick up that Page 29 June 27, 2003 benefit? What is the total amount of the program? MS. KINZEL: I can get back -- that back to you, Commissioner, for YRD broken out for all of them. We're at about $6 million in total for the youth relations division. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I guess we won't answer that question. Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Were you first? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You know, I -- as I look at the -- the -- the sheriff's adopted budget over the years, it's amazing that we started off in 1991 at $36.1 million, and now the proposed budget for 2004 -- we're looking at $104.9 million. And when I look at the cost per capita of unincorporated areas this is getting pretty -- to be pretty high when you compare it with other counties that we have along the -- the coastline here of Florida. Can you justify or tell us why the costs are so high? MS. KINZEL: I -- I think we can, Commissioner. As you know, in -- in going back into 10 years, I think if you look at any of Collier County's budgets you're going to see similar types of increase, particularly in direct community services. I know I've lived here 15 years, and this county has grown incredibly in that period of time. We had some significant increases in the last four or five years due to the pay plan and the market-value studies for deputies' pay raises. All of those issues attribute to the increases in the sheriff's budget annually, and I did try to provide each commissioner yesterday with at least the last three or four years and the items over that to give you some sort of a history. And each year had an identifiable purpose or reason. We either added positions for a growth program -- as with the court -- clerk of courts and his mandates, we received a lot of those along the way. Domestic violence, some of the legislature that occurred Page 30 June 27, 2003 mandated certain notifications of-- of victims of crime, and we've had to grow our programs according to both those mandates and the growth in Collier County. I think when you look particularly at the counties -- and you may be referencing a survey that Sarasota did -- you have to look particularly -- Collier County has the highest cost of living of most of those counties along that same area. When you look at our per-capita cost, you have to also look at the operations of the agency itself. Now, we get a strategic group, and we look at comparative budgets between many of the sheriffs' offices to make sure, A, that we're handling what we need to handle in Collier but that we're also utilizing the best practices across the board. You'll see, for example, when you go to Lee County they have more municipalities that cover more square miles, and they're smaller in square miles. Collier County, obviously, is over 2,000 square miles, so we have a -- different in square miles. You have a difference in municipal coverage and municipal police forces, and when you take the costs of all of those agencies or entities when Collier County has two municipalities, Marco and Naples Police Department, I think you'll see that law enforcement within Collier County is actually relatively comparative considering our very high cost of living in Collier. But you can't really take a surface number, simply population. You have to deal with unincorporated versus incorporated, municipalities, and how many supplemental forces a sheriffs office might have. For example, even though the population in Lee County is greater, the Collier County Sheriffs Office has a greater number of calls for service than the Lee County Sheriffs Office, so you have to look at a lot of operational detail. The jail operations, jails are constructed differently. They have different operational costs. Some sheriffs' offices run their jails differently. We try to contract out, outsource, best practice, again, in Page 31 June 27, 2003 all of our operations, but to take a simple survey it's very; very difficult. What we try to do within our agency is to look at very specific comparative agencies and ferret out the differences, and -- and I just gave you some of the examples of those, which would be the municipalities. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let me give you an example. We're looking at Sarasota Coll -- or Sarasota County. MS. KINZEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The unincorporated population is about-- 245,246 is my figures here. They're unincorporated per-capita spending per officer is about $299 per -- per cap -- excuse me -- per-- unincorporated per capita of the citizens is $299. Then we go to Lee County, and we're looking at a population of 272,465, and we're looking at 355. We go to Collier County, we're looking at $408. Why -- why the big differences here? MS. KINZEL: Again, the municipalities and the municipalities support. In order to use the-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking unincorporated area. They have to -- they have to also provide services in those unincorporated areas. MS. KINZEL: Right. But -- but you're still going to have different service levels; for example, what I just explained. In Collier County for calls for service we exceed the Lee County Sheriffs Office Department calls for service, so that's a workload requirement that requires deputies to respond. We do also have a higher pay structure currently than Lee County because of the cost of living in Collier according to the pay plan studies that we -- we've implemented. We operate our jails a little bit differently from what Lee County has at present. So each -- each entity that you would like to compare us to I can certainly come back with additional details, but there are a variety of Page 32 June 27, 2003 reasons. When you try to do one sheriffs office to another sheriffs office, you really have to ferret it down to the operational elements of each of those agencies. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm concerned about the -- the escalation of costs, and I think that I would like to propose that you go back and start looking at and seeing if you can come up with another -- something different that would end up -- that would only cost us -- let's say start off at a three-year plan where maybe you can -- you can adjust your cost instead of being $408 per capita that we end up with something around $390 per capita. MS. KINZEL: Well, I think, Commissioner-- remember, 80 percent of the sheriffs office budget is driven by personnel cost. Okay. Because we are a growing community and because we continue to need law enforcement officers in support of that, we have to be able to recruit and retain qualified officers. We have a very stringent protocol to go through to even hire members, so when you're looking at 80 percent of our costs are personnel related, once we establish a salary, which was under the county's verified pay plan of-- and phased in over several years to bring us up to an adequate market level, then associated with that are mandated elements. Our FICA's mandated. Our retirement rates -- we suffered significant retirement rate increases from the State of Florida this year. Those are mandates we can't control. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't think that was voted in yet. I didn't think the government -- the governor signed that yet. MS. KINZEL: He hasn't, but the rate that they're negotiating back and forth between the governor's rate and the rate that Florida Retirement requested is still above last year's rate significantly in -- in both of those -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: -- numbers that they're debating. But you're right. Page 33 June 27, 2003 They haven't voted on the two debate numbers, but either one is larger. Okay. So when you look at those associated costs that we're mandated to cover and the rising costs, for example, of health insurance in Collier County -- we work to reduce all those costs. We're working in a five-employer consortium that includes Collier County to look at how we can control those elements. So we do that each and every year just as a practice to produce and prepare our budget. But to say that, you know, we'll be able to bring down those costs by one dollar or two dollars -- we strive for that each and every year. We want to come in to you with the tightest budget we can with the lowest increase that we can request to continue our operations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is whenever you go out for these grants they're -- they end up lasting one or two years, and then all the sudden that falls upon us. You go out and get some more grants, and it ends up falling upon us. And I -- and I really can't see where it's justified that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck in this county. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Well, let me explain our philosophy with grants a little bit, Commissioner. Number 1, we don't apply for grants just because those grants are there. What we do is have a strategic application, and by that I mean we look at the needs of Collier County and the needs of the Collier County Sheriff's Office. If we have a focus problem; for example, traffic; for example, mandated domestic violence, we see those requirements on our horizon. We go and seek alternative funding for that requirement. We don't just add the positions because the grant money's available. We look at what are we going to need over the next three to five years, and then we go seek outside sources. So every dollar that we're bringing back to Collier County is our taxpayer money that's gone to either the federal or state level. We're leveraging the local tax money on at least a -- we're making two times what we are spending locally Page 34 June 27, 2003 by bringing these grants down. Most of them have, you know, a 25 percent match or even a 50-50 percent match. So we're able to bring three to four million dollars in to supplement what we would need, not to supplement some other position that we just created because the grant was there. So we see every grant dollar as a positive impact to Collier County. And the more grants that we can get -- now, you're exactly right on the stipulation that at the end of a lot of these grants the federal government expects you to retain that, but also remember that that's over the course of three or four years. And the county's been growing significantly in those three or four years, so to assume that at the end of that those positions could go away at the rate we've been growing -- you know, we want to retain those positions because the services are needed at that point, and we do phase those in. Most of the COPS grants, in particular, go from a -- for a three-year period, and then the grant expects you to pick them up after that. So we're getting a funding source to offset our costs that would have been required because of growth. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you know what your -- the sheriff's budget per employee is roughly? MS. KINZEL: I'm looking at the Sarasota survey. I, quite frankly, didn't do it that way because I don't think that the budget per employee works when you're looking at the jail cost, jail expansion, and doing a county comparative. Other counties may have totally different population jail beds, and those costs would be escalated depending on your jail-bed cost. For example, in Collier where we have a 754 capacity but a -- over a thousand inmate population, obviously the cost of our total budget is significant, and to divide that by the numbers of employees we have probably isn't, again, an apples-to-apples comparison of-- of relative efficiency at least. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm -- I'm looking at about Page 35 June 27, 2003 $86,000, and the next closest county is about $78,000. MS. KINZEL: Or seventy-nine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, somewheres in that area. MS. KINZEL: Hillsborough, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's Lee County. So I -- I would hope that we could contain those costs and maybe address that at maybe trying to bring that down to around $80,000 per employee. MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, we -- we look at our budget by detail, and what we provide you, I think -- you know, you see the line-item detail. We do that with each and every budget item, but we also have to look at escalating costs for jail medical, jail operations, mandated benefit cost increases. And while we certainly try to bring down -- as I said, no one likes to come over here any less to beg for additional dollars for the They're necessary. And exactly that, a necessary sheriffs office, but they're needed dollars. we don't come to you with anything that isn't element of funding for the sheriffs office. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I -- MS. K1NZEL: But we will look at it, certainly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What -- what really upsets me is when I look at this curve and it's almost going up at an exponential rate here at the end, and that's what kind of bothers me. I realize that we're a growing county, but I also think that the sheriff's department has a responsibility to the citizens of the -- of the community to make sure that we try to hold costs down. As you can see, the county manager made recommendations that everybody else in the county try to hold down the costs, and everybody else did, and yet we're looking at an 11 percent cost increase. And then I look at what we -- what was mandated last year and the year before and the year before that, and that's starting to bother me about the costs. MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, it -- it is unfortunate. And this is your first year, and we'll be glad to sit down with you further on Page 36 June 27, 2003 those historical costs. But, for example, what the sheriffs office did in the year of the pay-plan study -- we were so far behind market for the prior years that we agreed to phase in over two years our necessary market adjustments, so we've very specifically cooperated with the county government to try to level off those costs and the impact to the sheriffs budget. We follow your pay-plan policy. We follow those elements that the board has dictated in budget policy. The rest are costs that are associated with everything from increased fuel cost -- costs, which you've seen in your own county departments, and those just apply to the sheriffs office budget accordingly. But I don't think that -- I think if you do look at other related budgets you're going to see those same types of increases. If you look at anything from parks and recs and libraries and other amenities in Collier County, you're going to see similar increases because we're a growing community that enjoys the services. And you're also looking at one of the lowest crime rates in the state of Florida, so I think that that's an exceptional mark for what we're trying to maintain, the quality of life in Collier, so we certainly take into consideration the citizens' requests and needs. One of the things that we see from our citizens' survey -- they want more visibility. The only way to add additional visibility is to get more people out on the streets. It is a big deterrent to the traffic. It's a-- you know, it-- in every avenue of burglaries and any kind of crime, visibility is your number-one protector, and that's what we look toward. But we've tried to minimize the impact of our budget by not adding a significant number of people. We've gone to flexible operations, set units, set groups, and targeting our resources. So I think we are attempting to be very efficient, and -- and we'll try to get you more comfortable with that historically. We do af-- offer a sheriffs citizens academy that goes over all of Page 37 June 27, 2003 the operations of the sheriffs office, so we welcome you to come and do that with us -- the next one will be in October -- and, you know, give you a better overview of what we're trying to do at the agency. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm not telling you how to run your operation. I'm just saying we just want to have it -- run it more efficiently. And I think that visibility is one of the big, prime concerns, especially with the amount of people that are speeding and run red -- red-light running, but that's where you're out -- figure out your best way to do the operation. What -- I'm trying to impress upon you that we have to look at how we're going to save money out of this budget, so I'm addressing to you to go back and look at your budget and come up with something instead of having -- where it's -- where was -- what did we talk-- $408 per person here in-- in Collier County that we look at something closer to maybe 390-- MS. KINZEL: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to start with, okay? MS. KINZEL: -- we cert -- we certainly will go back and look at our budget again. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: But I can tell you we take a sharp pencil when we come to the board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Crystal, I think it's fair to look at Lee and Sarasota Counties' call volume and compare that and provide it to the board. MS. KINZEL: Okay. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hal -- Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, but Lee and Sarasota don't get calls for lemonade stands; right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if the sheriff does. Page 38 June 27, 2003 Hopefully he won't anymore. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I hope not. Crystal, the -- the -- the sheriffs budget poses unique problems for the Board of County Commissioners. First -- first of all, none of us would -- would argue that you're not doing a good job. I mean -- MS. KINZEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it's obv -- obvious in the -- in the crime rates. But -- but the method of budgeting for the sheriffs department is substantially different than the way we are now approaching budgeting for some of our other departments, and -- and that -- that puts the Board of County Commissioners in a difficult position. Based upon the -- the discussion you've been having with -- with Commissioner Halas, we -- we really get to the position of either, No. 1, rubber stamping your bal -- your -- your -- your budget because you do a good job and you're assuring us that you've -- you've cleaned out all the excess and there's no other alternative or to -- to -- to have the board just say, "Okay. We can afford to spend X a month -- X -- X millions of dollars this year, and here it is. You find a way to work within it." And I -- I don't think either of those is really a good way to go. And then the last thing we want to do is try to get involved in telling you where you assign your people and how you do your job. We're not qualified to do that. So -- so a lot of things are coming together. We don't have the qualifications to tell you what you should be doing. We -- we are -- are faced with an ever-increasing percentage of our -- our general fund ad valorem property taxes going to the sheriffs department. We're -- we're -- we're right about, what, low 40 -- 40 percent, somewhere below 50 percent of all of the ad valorem property taxes goes to the sheriffs budget. Now, we have no way of really predicting how that -- how that goes. I think it's 42 or 43 percent, but -- but if-- Page 39 June 27, 2003 if-- I don't -- we don't have any way of predicting where that's going to go, and if-- if we have a downturn or a slow-down in property value increases we're going to start bumping up against a ceiling, and -- and we've got to be careful about how we deal with that. So -- so I would -- would hope that we can reach agreement to go to a budget process which is a -- a little more similar to what we do with other departments in the county. We do have levels of services for -- for parks and -- and all the other services we provide. For -- for libraries and -- and everything, we have levels of service. It might be a good idea if-- if you were to approach this from a level-of-service standpoint, and I can't tell you how to do that. You know, I have no idea. But -- but it gets close to what -- what Mr. -- or Commissioner Halas has been talking about, and if-- if-- if there was a way of-- of establishing an appropriate ratio for numbers of police officers per capita popu -- population, cost per capita -- the -- the -- the crime rate thing, as we discussed before, is a by-product of the good job you're doing. So I think it would be a -- a -- a fruitless attempt to tie the expenditures to crime rates because you've made crime rates go down, but getting them down another five percent might take another hundred million dollars, and -- and we don't want to -- want to have to do that. So at -- at some point we reach a level which is considered acceptable for our community, but -- but I -- I would just urge you -- urge that you start looking at that because I -- I see the time coming when -- when the Board of County Commissioners is just going to have to say, "Here's $100 million. MS. KINZEL: Well -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: that's going to happen. Find a way to do it." And -- and -- and I really think that MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner Coyle, maybe I can help you a little bit. Number 1, we do the sheriff's budget according to all the budget standards for the commission. Now, we provide you also Page 40 June 27, 2003 with that additional book that gives you a line-item breakdown of where the sheriff is spending his money. That book is a little bit different from what you see before you, but we work with the county staff to convert that. On a level-of-service issue, the sheriffs office is participating and has three times in my 15 years here on an impact-fee study. That study includes a very elaborate formula for availability and manpower and establishing a level of service for manpower. In 1992 when we came before the board, there was a 28 percent availability of a deputy's time to do preventative patrol, and the board established then that that level of service was agreeable to them. They felt the quality of life in Collier County was pretty good, and that's what we work from. So we do have some standard and level of service, and that's to come up with a deputy's amount of time available for preventative patrol at 28 percent. Some entities you'll see as much as 75 percent availability in someone like -- or an agency like highway patrol, but with the sheriffs office we obviously adopted a much lower rate because we respond to many, many calls for service. We are routinely and annually seeing that availability, particularly on the primary shifts, reducing based on our available manpower, so we do monitor those. You brought up a ratio of officers to population. We don't like to use that because we do have significant numbers of calls for service that exceed our population, but even using that ratio we are declining in our total members of the agency and our officers within Collier County per thousand population, so we monitor all of those benchmarks and those monitoring factors within our budget process. Now, maybe we haven't done as good a job as we should have in communicating that to you so that you do realize that we do that. And while a slowing down in the economy -- and you're going to run into some issues here in Collier, perhaps, with a lesser growth in property. Remember that in times of a slowing economy or a bad Page 41 June 27, 2003 economy the need for law enforcement increases. It does not decrease or go away. And law enforcement is one of the significant and primary responsibilities of government. So through the tough years you may, in fact, see additional manpower requests because we'll be focusing on crimes that will tend to occur; increasing burglaries, increasing volatility in home situations as debts increase, but we do monitor all of those. And when you talk -- we mentioned about the level of crime and reducing the crime rate any further and what that might cost. We still have 8,000 incidents of Part 1 crimes in Collier County, and certainly to the victims of those crimes that was one too many in each of those situations. So we're never satisfied that our crime is gone, and it will probably never be gone, but we certainly appreciate what you're saying with -- with resources devoted to it. I think, though, that you have to recognize that law enforcement is one of the primary pla -- places to focus your resources. If you're putting money in parks and museums for the community to enjoy, those areas have to remain safe, and that's the job of the sheriff's office, and that's our goal, and that's what we attempt to do throughout the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I think Commissioner Henning's attempt to fix it with pixie dust did not work. But, Crystal, I -- I-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe magic beans will work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I assure you that everyone here appreciates what the sheriff's department does; however, we are elected officials, and we're part of the checks and balances to make sure that the money that's being spent is being spent wisely. So at no point in time are these questions meant to be offensive, but we did not really get the answer that we were looking for in simple terms, and I don't think you can give it to us. You can go back and probably put it Page 42 June 27, 2003 together on paper on a cross-comparison, and that cross-comparison can take in such factors that Collier County has one of the highest standards of living that -- well, let me put it this way: It's an expensive place to live in Collier County. And we did give you direction a number of years ago to get the level of pay up to a point where we weren't training officers but we were retaining officers, and you've done that, all part of our directive. So I would like to see a cross-comparison that would take in the incor -- unincorporated are -- areas of-- of a couple of counties, Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte County, that would show us how many people that they serve in the unincorporated area and then a cross-balance as to how much these deputies get paid to what we get paid. And I hope to God our deputies get paid a lot more. MS. KINZEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If they don't then this whole thing is flawed. MS. KINZEL: We'll be glad to get you that summary of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we can see that, then we've got justification of what we're doing with the taxpayers' money. MS. KINZEL: And I think you'll see that, Commissioner. We'll bring that back so that you are more comfortable with those comparisons, and I think that will help. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: budget? MR. MUDD: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. KINZEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: homework. Any further questions? Any public speakers on the sheriffs Okay. It looks like you have some We'll look forward to seeing you again. We're going to Page 43 June 27, 2003 take a 1 O-minute break. (Recess held from 10:30 a.m. until 10:47 a.m.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are back in session. Would everybody take their seats, please. County Manager, where are we at? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- that brings us back to the -- ladies and gentlemen, could you please hold it down and get in your seats, please. Thank you. The -- that brings us to -- basically, we've done everyone as far as the budget is concerned. Some folks have some -- some things that they need to change, and I'll meet with my budgeting staff this afternoon to get at the issues that you have that you want answered. One of the questions yesterday that you asked, Commissioner Henning, was what's the break-out on -- on -- on population of our employees based on who's above the 75 percent, and I broke it down in four-- four quartiles. From -- from men to -- to -- the first 25 percent of the pay scale. These two -- these two numbers right here (indicating), the percentages are below our market value, and that gets at the 72 percent that I keep talking about all the time, and then these two numbers are above the market. And I mentioned to Commissioner Halas yesterday that -- that our goal was to try to get the population more in the second and third quartiles of-- of the salary range, okay, based on that discussion, but you wanted to know who was in the top quartile. There's 177 employees, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. Which equates to 11.7 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's about norm. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before -- before we continue on, Commissioner Fiala wants to comment on the sheriff's budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I -- I don't -- I -- I was so tiny Page 44 June 27, 2003 here he couldn't see me raising my hand, and they completely missed me altogether, but I just -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And she kept -- and she kept on hitting me. I couldn't figure out what it was. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say Crystal had said that they don't ever come to us for unneeded expenditures, but I'm saying that we need to come to them with -- with some of our budget concerns because we've asked everybody to pull back, and so we need them to help us a little bit too. And -- and she was saying this is a primary concern, but it is the greatest expenditure that we have, and that's where we put most of our money. So my concern was and-- and my question is, if we have 85 employees that -- that are -- you know, that you're down, 85 employees down, but we know that 4 percent, 44 employees, are automatically there to -- as the 10 percent, and -- and we -- we seem to consistently have about 80 employees down except for a couple of years back when we voted extra money in -- you were down about 120 employees then, and we -- and we felt that if we gave you enough money to be able to lure some new employees -- and they did. They came on line. But other than that we remain about 80 employees down, but if we put them into our budget maybe that would be a way for you in -- to take just the four percent and -- and it would be able to pull your budget down that much. I -- I'm just -- I'm trying to work out a way where we can all work together and you can help us by pulling your budget down. So I -- I was just going to offer that. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And I have a copy of that for each one of the commissioners, and I'll get it to you by -- by the -- by the end of the meeting. The next piece that we asked -- and this is -- this is going to be Page 45 June 27, 2003 tough. I think we're just going to talk this -- well, I'll try to get it. Everybody in the back, this is an eye test. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't see it here either. There's no point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no point. MR. MUDD: You can't see it there either. I think there's no point to this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: You basically had -- and -- and I asked each one of the commissioners last night to go forward and -- and take a look at the unfinanced requirements based on amounts that were there. There was one correction to your sheet, and Mike is passing that out. And it was under Commissioner Henning's particular column, and he had -- on the printed one before, it said $50,000. It was really zero on his -- on his summary, and it was $50,000 for the wildlife rehabilitation center under the conservancy. And I made that correction to my sheet, and you're receiving a new one right now based on -- based on that -- based on the survey, and I -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there -- there's another error because I had some for that one too. MR. MUDD: Do you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We love animals, don't we, Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- when they're injured in that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Commissioner Coyle had $100,000 under -- under the conservancy, and it was his fifth priority. And-- and they, again, had -- had a bit of dyslexia, and that's basically the number that's on the top line on housing development corp. So if Page 46 June 27, 2003 you would strike that out on housing for Commissioner Coyle at five at 100,000 and put his fifth priority $100,000 on conservancy that will correct that particular item. Now, let's make sure Commissioner Halas didn't do the same thing since we've got dyslexia on that line. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I didn't, I don't think. MR. MUDD: I'm going to make sure, sir. No, you didn't. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. MR. MUDD: So we're -- so we're all right with those two changes. Under sheriff roads -- record management, there is -- there is no votes, and -- and I -- I am taking that this -- that particular item is dead for financing in this budget cycle, so I will add zero to that particular column. Then we get to economic development. And we -- by the way, Commissioners, we do have speakers, but not on the sheriffs management budget. We have speakers under economic development, a total of 9 or 10, and we have 3 that are under landscaping under transportation when we get to 111. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I was going to say to try to help move this along a little bit and judging by our support for the economic development for the first one, it seems like we're in agreement-- at least I know I am-- for the full 1,500. MR. MUDD: Million, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A million. Excuse me, a million five hundred. God, I have a hard time with those numbers. I mean, my wife makes me bring my lunch, and I have to deal with millions here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the decimal point that's causing the problem. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it is. But in any case Page 47 June 27, 2003 possibly we can agree that we want to go with the million five hundred. Move down to the next one. We -- in the commercial incentive from the June workshop, this indicates we got three commissioners, and if that's so that would be a -- an item that would be a go. We get down to the third one, which is the pending decision on economic incentives, 96,900. We've got three commissioners for that, too, by this particular sheet. Now, the reason I'm doing this is to see if maybe we can come to some sort of understanding here and maybe have to cut down on -- cut down a little bit on the number of speakers that are going to come up here and convince you that every one of these are needed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Unless they want to talk us out of the money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Anybody who comes up after we've voted talked -- gets it refused; right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I assure you your numbers are intimidating. Thank you for coming. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, please proceed. MR. MUDD: That's -- well, economic development -- there's -- there's five votes for some dollars on -- on -- under the $1.5 million unfinanced requirement, then the commercial incentives for Immokalee that would add to that based on the June workshop that was brought to us by Fred Thomas there's three votes for -- for 500,000. The economic development person at one FTE, if you are going to do economic development, we need to budget that staffer in order to -- to work that process with the EDC in order to make that go, so those three -- those three items are kind of connected together. Page 48 June 27, 2003 We have -- we have unanimous support for the streetlights on U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: And -- and I -- and -- and at -- and at this juncture I would -- I would say it's -- it's unanimous without a -- a discussion to put $225,000 into the streetlights on U.S. 41, and we'll do so. Then we get to housing development corp., and we only have one vote for fund -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, two. I don't know why mine's not in there. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it-- that's still short. MR. MUDD: Okay. A hundred thousand, Commissioner, and I'll put that in there for Commissioner Coletta. You have two votes for $100,000. Do you want me to put -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, you've got three. MR. MUDD: We have three? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Mr. Coyle's is really down to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle's drops off. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. Oh. Oh. I'm sorry. MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle's dropped off. It was one of the changes, Commissioner Halas, that I was checking. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. MR. MUDD: Wild-- wildlife -- where's everybody going? Okay. Good. I got it. The wildlife rehabilitation center, I have two votes to fund that. Then we get to network core redundancy, zero votes, zero -- zero allocated. Reroofing projects, building/jail repairs, zero votes, zero funding. Then it -- then I get to beach and boating access, Boat Haven, Marco -- Marco Beach access parcels, Wiggins Pass Marina, Vanderbilt Inn. I have -- I have -- I -- I really don't have any dollars allocated, but I -- but I will bring to your attention, if you turn to the Page 49 June 27, 2003 second page, that that asterisk for Commissioner Halas -- he requests that these amounts be paid by a franchise fee including burying power lines west of 951, and I wanted to bring that to your attention. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that -- I think that this is a -- an opportune time. This is -- I believe this is a window of opportunity for us that -- this is something that's been lacking in planning in this community by prior commissioners, and I think it's time that we set up -- basically get to the plate and figure out if we can do this. And with a franchise fee from FPL I think that this would be more than adequate to bond all this, not only beach and boating access, but it would also take care of our priorities for the landscaping and also take care of the -- the $34 million that would -- but it would be needed for the Lely stormwater situation that's been going on for years and years and years, and I think it would be a great relief for everybody. And we could put this thing aside and -- and move on for everybody in Collier County. So I really think that we need to look at this and take a serious look at a franchise fee whereby we could take care of some of the problems that we have as far as beach and boating access, and as -- as you can see it would be Boat Haven. There would be Marco Beach access parcels, possibly Wiggins Pass Marina, and possibly Vanderbilt Inn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to have a discussion on that now? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. One of the things that was pointed out to us yesterday about the Lely stormwater was that they have been in a 12-year permitting process, and now that they're finally there they could lose those 12 years if we didn't appropriate money. With Commissioner Halas' suggestion of franchi Page 50 June 27,2003 -- franchise fees, could that be something we could use to -- to preserve those permits after all these years, I mean -- I mean, immediately so we don't lose them? MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala, yes, you can use -- you can use the franchise fees to do those kind of-- to do those kind of purposes. The -- basically, it-- the fee is, basically, allocated on the premise that it does right-of-way -- right-of-way maintenance and those kind of things. Without the stormwater project, your right-of-way gets to be real problems for any kind of utility or anything else. So, yes, they could be covered, and -- and there are -- there are some things that we don't have funding sources for that I think we're starting to wrestle with a little bit and -- and rightfully so because they've been homes that have been just getting pushed from -- from -- from -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- commission to commission. But, yes, you can, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I love his suggestion. I think that would be a great idea for the county to use the fee in some form or another. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these are all -- his suggestion about using that same franchise fee for beach access, what a wonderful idea, but we -- we have now today to buy this. In another year probably they'll be gone, and we won't have that opportunity again to have that beach or boating access. And-- and -- and I have that little note on the back, "The vote today affects your life, your home, your community." Well, that's exactly it. If we don't preserve these access pOints now, we'll never get them back again. Look at all the ones that are already lost to us forever all along Park Shore and-- and-- and Marco and so forth that Page 51 June 27, 2003 we'll never get back. I -- I -- I love the idea if we can possibly do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's -- let's go down the line. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- my perspective -- if you're going to tax the residents in Collier County, do it right and -- and show them that you're going to increase their taxes, and don't try to hide it-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- through other sources. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's not what's being suggested. That's the way I look at it, and I -- not to offend Commissioner Halas is -- it's -- it's a hidden fee, which really the citizens should be shown that on their -- on their tax bill and not their electric bill. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I think it's -- it's an interesting idea, and, in fact, I think it's a good idea. But -- but I'm-- I'm also troubled with -- with how we go about doing it. I think there's got to be some disclosure with respect to this. I know the City of Naples has been charging a fan -- a franchise fee for -- for many, many years, and I -- I -- I think it would be a good thing to do, and I -- I do think it should be -- it should be fully disclosed to the public and have a public hearing concerning it. I don't think we should -- would -- should try to do it in an unadvertised manner such as we are here. I mean, nobody knows we're talking about this thing right now, so I -- I guess what I'd like to do is workshop this thing, see what we can fund it -- fund with it, but we -- we do have to move pretty quickly, but we're not going to move any faster than September anyway, so that should give us enough time to advertise the issue and -- and have it available for discussion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. Page 52 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. I-- I also have a concern about added tax on utility bills. One of the things -- you know, I -- I've been an advocate for beach and boat access for a long time, and I'll continue to be for -- in the distant future. I do have a problem with some of these -- what do you want to call them? Boat barns? Boat storage areas? -- where you have a limited number of people and the -- that -- that use it. It's almost like an exclusive country club. They're -- once they're there I can't come in the next week and use it. They're there for probably just about forever. If they could pay the cost of what it actually is -- and I computed it out once. I think it comes to something like about six to eight thousand dollars per year just based upon what I believe they might have plus the overhead that you would have to absorb with it to be able to amortize the 20 million some dollars over a reasonable period of time. But it's -- it's well worth considering, well worth talking about. I'd like to hear what all the benefits are, and I'd also like to know exactly what we're talking about on this tax. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think -- I'm not sure that -- correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't it be about a five percent surcharge on your electric bill if it was an FPL -- MR. MUDD: Well, if it -- if it was FPL or if you're talking about some other -- if you're talking about some other utility, but in that particular case you have -- you have the gamut of percentages that you could run -- that you could run through. But five percent's kind of the going rate, yes, and that number and that -- and that particular line item on that bill is separately placed, so the -- the -- the person that uses the electricity -- and this is what I've been told by FP&L -- that -- that franchise fee amount would be on that electric bill as a separate line that is basically allocated by the amount of electricity that particular person uses. Page 53 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing is, I think, that we have to really look at planning for the future. And we've got this stormwater problem that's been down there in Lely for many, many years, and there really hasn't been any real source of funding for this, and to ask the citizens down there to come up with $34 million or whatever it is is -- we discussed this briefly yesterday, and -- and -- and that's -- that's an unbelievable amount of money for a small group of people to take on something of that nature, and I think it falls under safety and welfare of the county. And we look at landscaping. That's another big issue. Everybody's looking at the landscaping of all the roads. And I think-- if I'm correct I think we could take the -- the -- the monies that would come in from the franchise fees and use that as a bonding issue so that we could bond that for -- on revenues so that we could finish up the landscaping, the stormwater, and everything else, and some of these areas that would be of major concern for beach and boating access we could also address that. In getting back to Commissioner Coletta's deal about this is a country club, not necessarily. There's people that store their boat in the -- in the wintertime. They have it hauled down here from up North. They'll store it in the wintertime, and then in summertime they have the -- the vessels hauled back up to wherever they're at, and that opens that spot up for people in the summertime if they want to store bo -- store their boats there. So I think there's also a -- a turnover of-- of personnel through all these areas, and I think this is another way of providing access to our-- one of our precious resources, and that's the waterways, and not only presently but for future generations to come. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I think there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed; that's why I suggested we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Page 54 June 27, 2003 it-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- workshop it rather than try to do CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just briefly keep in mind that it's -- it's more than just buying property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's operating it. And-- and we have to make some decisions about what we're willing to do, and -- and that's best done in -- during a workshop where we can have people come in and talk to us about their opinions and give us some guidance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Good. MR. MUDD: I'll get that workshop set up for the fall so we can get that -- we can get that to you and let you know. If you -- if you did decide to do a franchise fee, I just want to make sure that you understand that it would require an ordinance. There would be public hearings prior to that process, too, so there would be a full ability of-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it would be a two-part workshop. One would be on the franchise fee, and the other part would be on the boat access, the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be together. MR. MUDD: We can -- we can talk about that, or, you know, some of the things that you might want to discuss with -- with detail during the workshop is a dedication of what that fee would be used for, okay, so that it is -- doesn't become just another darn general revenue someplace, that you specifically designate where it's going to go and how it's going to be used, and it's something that you need to think about. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very important. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't think you can talk about that separately. I think when you go to workshop you've got to talk about the use of the fee at the same time. Page 55 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And that was to bury the power lines also. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we'll -- and we'll come back in the fall with that workshop. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we throw in trading our plane to get a jet too? MR. MUDD: The who, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. No. No. No. MR. MUDD: We're going to sell that plane so that we can do a study for a five-year plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item. MR. MUDD: Sir, you think I'm kidding. The -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That magic bean is going to grow into a jet. MR. MUDD: No, sir. The -- the -- the next item-- everything else pretty much zeroes out till you get down to beach parking, and you have four votes for $480,000 in the general fund to -- to put in there instead of charging a beach sticker fee, and that's what that dollar amount was going to be. And -- and I'm -- Mike's putting it in the columns right now and doing -- doing adding as we're going along. The next one is -- is stormwater improvement, mini triangle. Commissioner Fiala, second choice put $2 million, but no other commissioners put any money in that particular item. Gordon River master plan, really not a priority, and I put the NPs down there for you last night. I -- and I -- I'd expect nothing more than zeroes in those columns based on -- based on that guidance that I provided or at least the information that I provided. The next one is Halderman Creek improvements, and that's $1.1 million. Commissioner Poyle -- Coyle, that was his number-one choice, and he put $1.1 million in that particular item. The four other commissioners didn't put anything in there, and so there's where we sit Page 56 June 27, 2003 there. Now, there's some other totals in that process. But, Mike, based on the majority votes on particular items as they come across, what have we got for a tally? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Two million seven oh five. That's the beach parking, streetlights, and the economic incentives. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that leaves -- leaves some additional money, and -- and I'm sure some of the other commissioners might have some of their projects that they'd like to talk about, but -- but let -- let me address the stormwater issues. The -- the Halderman Creek improvements and the gateway mini triangle improvements, I think, are important issues. We've been trying to improve those areas for a long time. If we don't address the stormwater issues, then we're not going to solve the problem. If we don't address the Halderman Creek problem, there's no place for the water to go because that's the drainage for the entire area. We've got some money left from most of the -- of the commissioners who have allocated the -- the -- the -- the money, and -- and we could allocate a little to each of those -- those prob -- projects to get them moving ahead, but if-- if we do not -- if-- if we do not act on the Halderman Creek improvement process, that -- or soon that -- the opportunities are going to be gone, and the opportunities are for contributions by -- by property owners, contributions by a developer, contributions hopefully by -- by Big Cypress Basin. And -- and what we need to do is -- is determine whether or not we're going to let that program die or whether we're going to agree to fund it to some level to get it moving ahead so we can solve stormwater problems. I mean, we can -- we can go down there on just about any day where it has really been raining and wade through almost knee-deep water in some people's yards, and -- and we -- we have an obligation to do something with it. We've been working on it. If we don't provide funding, it's going to stop. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before we continue on, Page 57 June 27, 2003 Commissioners, I -- I would like to get through the general fund MSTU -- MSTD because I feel that there are some things on these UFRs that could go into the mix of-- into the general fund on that, so I -- it's only going to get, in my opinion, bigger. MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, in-- in the first item on the CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is any -- wait a minute. MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that okay with everybody else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I -- I -- could I -- well, I can -- my question is about economic development. Do you want me to wait to answer that as -- or ask that question until after? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. Are we okay with the economic development? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just had some questions there. My question is, No. 1, are -- are we the major source of funding for the EDC right now? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir-- ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is -- do -- are they -- MR. MUDD: Four hundred and thirty thousand dollars a year is what you take out of the general fund for EDC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four hundred and thirty thousand dollars a year we already give them? We already give them? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and -- and so we're the major source of funding for them. Although they don't work for us or anything and they give us two reports a year, we are their major source of funding. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do they have any matching grants, any matching money from them? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. They have -- it's approximately half funded from the county, and the rest are private donations within Page 58 June 27, 2003 the community. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's an equal matching of another 430,000? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's -- let's -- come on up to the podium and state your name for the record, and we'll go through this exercise. MR. MUDD: The budget document says four thirty. MS. CASELTINE: Part of that is the state part of that. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. CASELTINE: Good morning, Commissioners. Helene Caseltine, for the record, economic development manager with your planning and services department. I'd just like to clarify that $430,000 amount -- the four hundred is allocated to the EDC for promotion and marketing. The 30,000 is what we have budgeted and monies that have already been committed as the county's match for a state program, the qualified targeted industry program that was used as an incentive to bring companies into Collier County. I think there's about seven companies that have gone into this program thus far, and those are monies that have already been committed up through probably about 2012. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But I'm still going on. So what I was thinking is -- now, we're talking about adding two million -- well, two million nine -- say two million a hundred thousand dollars to the EDC for them to do this. I was thinking there are a couple of other things here that are, like Commissioner Coyle was just saying, almost essential to do or we're going to lose a lot of money here. I was thinking that possibly the EDC, because they are more or less a private organization even though we do the major source of funding for them, could possibly become creative and operate at $1.5 million so that we can use that other 600,000 toward preserving a program or two so we don't lose all of that money. And I understand Page 59 June 27, 2003 what you're trying to do bringing things in, but I don't know if $2 million in -- in one short year can do it. I would think that maybe you could use $1.5 million, get the thing jump started, but let us use that other $600,000 to -- for a program so we don't lose any dollars like Commissioner Coyle was just saying. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, the programs that you see on Line 1, $1.5 million, that is -- we'll get a chance in -- in July to discuss that, but those program dollars is not operating dollars of the EDC. Those are for programming for economic incentive. The second one is commercial incentive. That was the Immokalee piece, and those -- those are not for employees. That's for the program. The next one is the only added position in -- in the last -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I didn't mean it was for employees. I'm sorry if I -- I said they could get creative about tightening up their budget. I mean, I think that when people budget they ask for whatever -- what -- what their dream is -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what we can do if we had this, but $2 million in one year might not be everything. You know, maybe they can't operate that quickly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe they could only use the one point five to get really going at it, and we can use something before we lose ~-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- other money. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe Joe Schmitt could answer that, and I know Commissioner Coletta wants to have a few comments. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development environmental services. On the UFR list, the monies that are shown there, in -- in essence, Page 60 June 27, 2003 all it is is a loan. It's the seed money that will serve as the -- the generator of income, and that will then -- the hopes are -- and you'll see the ordinance when it comes in in July they'll -- the -- that this then will be a self-paying program, so the intent is to eventually pay this $1.5 million back to the county once the -- the industry's begun the -- the -- the process, and-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you can't phase it in? MR. SCHMITT: -- that -- that's the way it'll be set up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm talking about is phasing in so that we don't lose the opportunity for a 12-year-- for instance, the 12 years it took them to get the permitting for this -- for this stormwater management improvement. And -- and we don't have any money to preserve it. We could lose it. Or the same with the money that we're going to get for the Halderman Creek. We can lose that money if-- if-- but if we could phase in this, the EDC -- everybody agrees that we want to do this, but maybe if we could phase it in in a two-year project so that -- you know, so that we can reap the benefit of coup -- of a couple of other items as well. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I -- I think we need to -- when we come back in July to explain the ordinance now that at least we have an indication that there's a potential for funding, and you'll get an understanding as to how the program's going to work because it was a series of, if I recall, Tammy and Helene, six -- MS. NEMECEK: Six, uh-huh. MR. SCHMITT: -- different programs, and the -- the 1.5 million was the -- at least the seed money for that. Now, the other question you had asked -- and I'm going to have to turn that over to Tammy because it was the $400,000 or $430,000 that comes out of my budget, and you asked are there matching funds. I would have to defer to the EDC coordinator, Tammy. MS. NEMECEK: Right. How the EDC does the budget each year is that the $400,000 through the public/private partnership is Page 61 June 27, 2003 matched, actually, over and above by private-sector funding, so we raise about four hundred and fifty to five hundred thousand dollars on the private-sector side and then match that with the four hundred thousand dollars from the public-sector side. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are those actual dollars, or are those income -- MS. NEMECEK: Those are actual dollars that-- that -- that come into the EDC, correct, through membership and-- and events that we put on to raise funds. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five hundred thousand dollars a year you raise? MS. NEMECEK: Yes, we do. We are also actively pursuing grants for next year that will help fund some additional outreach in the Immokalee area. We've applied for a $400,000 grant through the federal government. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm just trying to figure out ways we can be creative with this so we don't-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- lose the money or opportunity and -- and yet not -- not -- you know, not hurt you in any way but still at the same time keep our programs working. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Super. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you. This is -- this is where we get to the real hard part. I mean, we've got such a limited number of dollars and -- to work with and so much unfunded parts through the whole thing, and I -- I can understand where -- Commissioner Fiala's comments. She sees something that's actually critical to her community, but on the same-- in the same instance, I see something that's actually critical to Collier County. And trying Page 62 June 27, 2003 making these decisions and these calls are always going to be a personal nature. I see where this whole thing is one package, and it has to be included. I mean, if we start to break it down, we're going to increase the cost per year of the labor in dealing with the whole situation with half the funds and probably not as much purpose to be able to work with. We had an excellent presentation made. We -- everything was explained to great -- in great detail. I mean, if we're going to question the funding of something that's as important as this, then let's go back and question streetlights and everything else. Donna, there's got to be some give and take. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're -- we're not going there, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No. No. No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're okay. We're okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know. It's just that what I'm saying is I'm seeing this thing, and I'm getting as nervous as anything. We just released a whole bunch of people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's no -- there's no sense in getting nervous, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's staying there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just let it-- I'll let it go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could-- does anybody have any objections to moving on to the 111 fund? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle does. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I -- only because I want to -- I want to deal with that stormwater fund before we get -- leave here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it -- it -- we've got the Page 63 June 27, 2003 general fund issues on that page. I'd like to finish it up before we get to that page. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I would like to come back to the general fund stuff myself. I -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we're talking with the budget director and -- and the county manager. There's some things that I think that we can do and maybe create what you -- where you want to go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If we can come back and consider it, I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just don't want to -- want to leave it-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because it's an important issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's another -- that's another one. That's a small portion if we -- if we can bond money from a franchise fee to take care of those stormwater issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: That brings us to MSTD general fund, and -- and if you take a look at landscaping we have three speakers on landscaping. Landscaping is -- is a 2.9 need. We have three commissioners that are allocating some dollars, and -- and all three commissioners rank this as their number-two priority. Now, what I've had Norman do -- and I -- and I think this is where Commissioner Henning was going. If you look at the Naplescape plan arterials and corridors, there -- there is some -- there is a way, even though in our budget policy the budget policy specifically stated landscaping is 111, so I want to make sure that you know that because it was in your policy directive. So we're -- we're -- we're taking-- if you decide to go this way, Page 64 June 27, 2003 we're going a little bit different than your policy direction, so I just want to make sure that you know that piece first. There is -- there -- in -- in impact fees the way Norman -- the -- the way Norman does the impact fees he can use impact fees from a area in a adjacent area. Okay. Is -- is -- so if-- if it's a City of Naples impact fee, he can do it to adjacent areas that go into the City of Naples, may it be from the north part -- part of the county or coming in from-- from the east going to west. If-- if you take a look at that logic, okay, with impact fees or if you do it by Naplescape, you can get up to 50 percent or more of those dollars that are -- that are listed as $2.9 million for landscaping. You can move some of those dollars into a requirement into the general fund. And we've got to be very careful about that, okay, because of the way -- the way the tax is collected. If you do -- if you do the Naplescape process in which the City of Naples affirm, then it's about half. It's a 50-50 break. Half-- half of that 2.9 stays, so it would be 1.45 stays in 111, and then the other half would go to the general fund. If you did it based on the way we do impact fees -- and I'm trying to draw a nexus to those dollars and who it benefits. If you do it that way, you could move $2.1 million of that 2.9 into the general fund as a requirement, an unfinanced requirement, and you'll have to maintain around $800,000 in the 111 account. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I don't understand hardly anything you just told me. MR. FEDER: Commissioner Coyle, if I could, though, I would -- if I could elaborate, what -- what has been raised is -- traditionally landscaping is on a Fund 111 because it's a countywide item and outside of the incorporated areas and their taxing status, so it's a Fund 111 unincorporated tax item. What was raised is -- as we look at, for instance, roadway fund-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what was -- what was a 111 ? Page 65 June 27, 2003 MR. FEDER: Fund 111 is outside of the incorporated area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah. I -- I-- MR. FEDER: So when we look at general landscaping throughout the county it is typically out of Fund 111 because it is outside of the incorporated areas, the municipalities of Naples and Marco Island. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the $2.9 million is -- MR. FEDER: Is what we need in -- in -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fund 111 ? MR. FEDER: Yes, is 111 proposed because that's typically the way we fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. FEDER: What weVre raising for your consideration is two different separate items that may give you some basis to consider an approach out of 111 solely. First of all, the Naplescape plan had established that- a provision that gateway projects, those projects that were the entryway into the community, could be funded not only out of 111 but out of gas taxes collected countywide or out of general revenue. Basically, those facilities are the ones that are leading into the county like U.S. 41, Livingston Road, and those from the interstate; Immokalee, Pine Ridge, Davis, and the like. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- but that money is, I presume, already budgeted for something. If-- if we're not going to take it out of this -- MR. FEDER: Well, this is unfunded right now. You've got 2.9 million unfunded. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unfunded. Okay. MR. FEDER: And what is being asked is could any of that 2.9 million possibly be funded out of general fund. And what I'm giving you for your consideration is in two areas a possible locker, if the board agrees, that would allow you to fund some of that out of general Page 66 June 27, 2003 fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, does that mean that we take it out of the first page that we've talked about; in other words, the 4.28 million doll-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. FEDER: At least about possibly half of it or more than half possibly depending on your feeling of what I'm presenting to you, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so that means there's less money to go to the projects that we just voted on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't -- I don't believe so. We're looking at Commissioner Halas and myself having a re -- a -- a reserves and -- and Commissioner Coyle having a reserves. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually Commissioner Coletta does -- has some reserves too. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, based on what-- based on what you have voted on-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: -- so far on the front that it -- I have a majority vote, you have $1.4 million left to allocate -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: MR. FEDER: MR. MUDD: COMMISSIONER COYLE: you put it into -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: have it for the first page. MR. MUDD: Yes, COMMISSIONER my concern, of course. -- on the fund account. In the general fund. On the general fund account. And if you take some of that and Landscaping. -- landscaping that means you don't sir, that's right. COYLE: Okay. Now, that -- that -- that's Page 67 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. FEDER: And -- and I've got two competing interests here. I've got two major things, stormwater and landscaping, that I'm trying to address. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You -- you have two available pots of money. You have roughly 1.5 million unspent from your UFR list in the general fund, and you have 1,337,800 available in the unincorporated area. So you have roughly $2.8 million of available funds between general and 111. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so we're -- we are determining, I mean -- well, no. Let -- let me rephrase that. What you're suggesting is that we could take money from projects like stormwater improvements and allocate it to landscaping. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or vice versa. MR. FEDER: Actually, what I'm suggesting -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I am not suggesting that. That's for this board to determine. What I am providing to you for your consideration is -- while typically Fund 111 is the way we seek to fund the landscaping, we have two precedents that you can consider if -- if you chose that you wanted to fund some of that out of general fund. The first is gateway projects out of the Naplescape plan that was developed some years ago to get landscaping moving in this county identified certain facilities, and in this case they would be that Pine Ridge Road and the Livingston Road projects that you have on the unfunded list. I believe it's six facilities for the catch-up that you -- that in that master landscaping plan that we presented to you and wanted to seek to fund. Those two are gateway projects that together are about 1.4 million. Page 68 June 27, 2003 Additionally -- and -- and I wouldn't probably bring it up as strongly, but for your consideration as well -- if you wanted to consider this is that in impact fees -- you're allowed to use impact fees within the district they're collected or an adjacent with the idea that that brings benefit to that other impact fee district by using an adjacent district as well and so, therefore, you could look at it. And, actually, in that case, other than Golden Gate Boulevard and the -- a section of Airport because it's so far to the north, the other four projects would be adjacent to either the Naples or the Marco Island impact fee districts, if you will. But I think the first is probably the one that is the strongest statement. It's the one that came out of our Naplescape plan and basically said that you have certain gateway facilities that are eligible for general funding as opposed to others that should only come out of the 11 1 or then eventually out of MSTU. So it was just to give you a opportunity to consider, not necessarily a statement of-- of what you should do, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll-- I'll be honest with you. I for one -- if I'm going to place a -- an importance on what's taking place -- now, everything that's on this list, mind you, our county manager has already gone through with the help of staff and -- and -- and boiled it down to what they consider the lowest priorities. So here we are. We're fighting over an extremely limited number of dollars. We're not fighting. We're trying to come to agreement. I for one do not see the landscaping as critical as drainage. I really don't. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Neither do I. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I had to -- I'd just as soon you took every dollar that you've got in the landscaping and put it into the drainage projects. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we just take all the dollars Page 69 June 27, 2003 and put them in the landscape -- in the drainage? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could do that, and we could use a little more pixie dust. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, all I wanted -- all I wanted to do was to get the point across that when we talked about the unincorporated 1 1 1 for -- for median beautification -- I just wanted you to know that in the guidance it was 111. So that's why you got the $2.9 million that are sitting on this sheet at 11 1. We followed the guidance. We looked at the UFR, and we put it there. The only thing I'm trying -- there was a question asked this morning and last night is -- is some of the money -- should -- is it all 111, or could some of it come from the general fund, and -- and -- and -- and I said I would take a look at it to see if there -- if we could find the rational nexus where you could make part of that link, and I think we can. Okay. And all I'm -- all I'm doing is giving that as an option in case as we get through this particular discussion you're sitting there and you find out you would have liked to put something more into something but you couldn't, and -- and -- and I'm trying to give you some flexibility in that particular case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: If we -- if we go from landscaping on your-- on your sheet, sir-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. MUDD: -- if you take a look, you have -- you have three votes to put a dollar amount into landscaping from-- from 1.1 -- the lowest is at six thirty-seven, and that Commissioner Fiala put in there as a number-two priority, and the high is -- is your particular vote, sir, at 1.2 million, and Commissioner Coyle went at 1.1. We'll put it down there as three votes for some kind of funding, and we'll come back and discuss what that amount should be as we proceed. The next item is TDRs. Commissioner Coletta, a number-two Page 70 June 27, 2003 priority, put a million dollars against that TDR amount. And there's four votes -- or there -- and -- and the four other commissioners put nothing in there. I will -- I will say to the board we owe you some things from the TDR workshop, one of which was to determine brokering. Do we want to be a broker, or do we want to be a banker? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Banker, yep. MR. MUDD: The next thing is Joe was going to come back with -- we have the ability to set the floor, okay, for what a TDR is worth. They were going to go meet back with the -- with the professor from Maryland or wherever he came from, okay, that's supposed to be the subject-matter expert in all of the United States to figure out the calculations on how he came up with his figures. And -- and -- and-- and-- and I believe based on the discussion from the workshop from what I heard is that the value of the floor should be something between 22 and 25 or maybe higher. So we owe the board that particular amount, so we can give you that information back, and Joe owes those particular figures to you. So there is the ability for the board to set the floor to what a TDR is worth in -- in that process, and I think that allays some of the fears that Commissioner Coletta has. He just doesn't want to get people ripped off out there, okay, where -- and he wants to make sure that we protect their property rights. And I think that professor rightfully said that if you don't have some kind of TDR process that works then there was some kind of incidental taking because of the problem or -- or the program and the rural fringe. So what I will tell you is we need to come back to the board with those particular items. And, Joe, do you have some time line when those particular things are coming back to -- MR. SCHMITT: I don't. I'll -- we'll -- we owe that to you. MR. MUDD: Can you get to them in this -- during this September workshop? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. Page 71 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that the TDR program, looking at that -- there's a true rational nexus. It's not the property that's being compensated that is in the rural fringe or in District 5. It's the property owner. And I think that property owners don't stop on -- within the unincorporated area. They're all over the county. You know, one of the doctors that had-- that has a lot of land out there -- so in my opinion the rational nexus could be general funds or should be general funds. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I-- I appreciate it. I'm-- I'm sure that we're going to come to a solution. Meanwhile, I do appreciate your comments, Commissioner Henning, and Mr. Schmitt CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, don't put all that in the stormwater drainage. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and Mr. Mudd. Let's go back to stormwater. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: The Immokalee housing initiative, four positions, and these would be four new positions for Joe because they're not in his budget. Commissioner Coletta's number-one priority is for two seventy-two, and that's thousands. Commissioner Coyle, third priority to put a hundred thousand dollars, and Commissioner Halas second priority to put $272,000. I will also tell the board as we do this particular item it isn't all or nothing in this particular case. Joe could have two people working on this project, okay, to -- to help work it out with a substantial reduction to that amount. Okay. So I just want to make sure that you -- that -- for instance, when we talk a Lely project, it's all or nothing. I mean, we're pretty much -- when we get there, he's only talking about M-1, 1 portion of 12, in order to get done in -- in order to do that process. It's very difficult for him to cut a contract and try to get at the problems in Page 72 June 27, 2003 that one sector for anything less than that. That brings us to the next one, the Golden Gate community character plan. I have three votes, three priority number ones for $60,000, and I'd -- and I'd like to -- to put $60,000 in that column right now because I don't think we have a -- a question on the dollar amount, and we have three votes for that particular case. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was that? One -- which one was that? MR. MUDD: That's the Golden Gate community character plan. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: The next item -- now we get into the stormwater category. The next one is for the Lely Aley-- yeah-- the Lely -- the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, LASIP, and-- and the fee out of-- 34 million is the total project cost of which to do M-1 for next year would be $2.7 million. I have one vote, Priority No. 1, Commissioner Fiala for $700,000, and I have an asterisk from Commissioner Halas saying this would be a good project for franchise fees. I have the next three items zero amounts, and I'll record them accordingly. And the -- and the four vehicles for code enforcement, I'm a firm believer that Mr. Schmitt can take operational matters and change a couple of employees on when they come to work so that those vehicles are available for when the shift starts in order to gab -- grab those efficiencies without having an expenditure of general funds, and Joe's shaking his head up and down. And, Commissioners, if you put any money against that project, I would say -- and I would argue with you, and I don't argue with the board when they're sitting as a diocese, but I would say that we -- there's ways to get to this without spending dollars, and Joe is going to do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you need some more pixie dust? Page 73 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: Sir, not pixie dust on this one. This is going to happen without spending money. MR. SCHMITT: It's already happening now. Okay. I mean, we're already -- we're already doing it. This was just a measure to make -- create some efficiencies, but, also, it would have been an -- at an expense. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Efficiencies and time. MR. MUDD: Okay. And that -- that-- that brings us -- and we have -- and we have a number of speakers. And, Commissioners, we can go any which way you want on this one. We can go back to the general fund, or we could play -- we could hammer out on this particular fund. But we've done a review, and now we just need to decide what dollar amounts need to go to the categories. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to go to the speakers, but I don't know how my -- I see -- Commissioner Coyle, what do you think? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, I will tell you that a lot of people that were here for economic development skedaddled, okay, but -- because when they heard that there was a lot of people in the commission that- that wanted to do that, they -- they left. That's why I asked, "Where's everybody going?" But the first speaker is Tammy Nemecek followed by Raymond Holland. MS. NEMECEK: We had a group of-- Tammy Nemecek with the ex -- executive director for the Economic Development Council of Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure? MS. NEMECEK: I think so. We did have a number of-- of speakers here today, and due to their time constraints with work they Page 74 June 27, 2003 went ahead and -- and -- and left based on the recommendations for the board. But on behalf of the Economic Development Council members and the community I would like to thank you for supporting the incentive program, and I -- I truly believe this will be a great opportunity for Collier County to attract quality industry countywide and-- and especially in the Immokalee area, but I would like to stress that these -- these incentive programs need to be looked at as a countywide program because there are areas within the county that still need to attract good quality industry. We have some new technology parks that are going to be comirfg on line that will be a viable location for these high-wage employers to be located. So, again, I would briefly like to thank you for your support, and we look forward to working with you in the future with these ordinances as they come before you on July 29th and the companies that will come to Collier County as a result of this program. Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next speaker is Raymond Holland, and he might have been in that group. The next speaker is Dick Butthof-- Botthof?. And he left with that group. And he was going to talk -- first of all, everybody I'm talking about right now had the economic development incentives in it. Bill Klohn, economic development; Keith Hanshall, economic development; Alan Reynolds; Anthony Man -- Manso -- Mansolille -- I hope I -- I butchered that one. I know I did. Too many L's. He was for economic development. Bruce Pierce -- Prebble? Pierce or Prebble, economic development. Robert Guididas -- MS. NEMECEK: Guididas. MR. MUDD: Guididas. -- economic development, and Michael Werner for economic development. That was part of that group that left. So that brings us to -- so that's the economic development group Page 75 June 27, 2003 that wanted to speak, and that brings us to folks that wanted to talk about transportation services and landscaping. Robert Sle -- Slebodnik. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Slebodnik? MR. SLEBODNIK: Correct. MR. MUDD: Oh. Probably the hardest one. Followed by Gail Boorman. MR. SLEBODNIK: Good morning. Prior to my retirement life, believe it or not, I went through these same meetings that you folks are going through, so I can appreciate what you're up against. If you remember last winter the county staff brought forth or were working on a plan -- a master plan for the landscaping of the major arteries in the Naples area. They brought this plan before the commissioners in April. We all agreed at that time that it was an excellent plan, and it -- it was passed by a 5-0 vote, and everybody was happy. Now this is in jeopardy. There's a lot of research to show that if you want to improve the appearance of a place or the impact that it has that you get the most bang for the buck by spending money on landscaping. You get a maximum return on your investment, and there's research to back that up. I would hope that your commitment to the landscaping master plan is funded fully, not only this year but in every year that it comes up before you. I can appreciate your concerns about the drainage. I've been listening about drainage -- I live in Lely, so I've been dealing with that situation for 20 years, and that thing has been on the back burner for a long time, and that certainly is important too. I've heard Mr. Wiley speak at many presentations. Finally it's coming to a point where it's in your lap, and I would hope that you folks become creative and find a way to fund the -- to fund both of these projects. I thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. MUDD: The next speaker is Gail Boorman followed by Page 76 June 27, 2003 Chad Elkins. MS. BOORMAN: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be with you again. Not long ago this county commission approved the landscape master plan, and I wanted to reiterate my congratulations to you on that action. Now we're at the hard part. We're trying to implement it. I've been sitting here in an adjacent office this morning listening to your deliberations on all these issues, and I understand that your job and the time that you spend in not only sitting here but in the research of these -- these issues is -- is a huge responsibility. It's a huge job, and I'd like to convey my thanks as a citizen for your efforts in that regard. I'd like to point out a couple of things with regards to how landscaping fits into the overall picture that you-all are trying to juggle. As the previous speaker alluded to, landscaping is in a way -- in a very important way a part of our economic development. We were at -- facing a list of projects here that are not currently able to be -- are not currently funded through roadway because sometime in the past the county made the decision that we'd do it later, and those kinds of decisions are the ones that are always the hard ones for the future commissions like you-all to deal with. The value of these landscape improvements is for people who are here today countywide. I don't live adjacent to any of these road segments, but when I drive on them I -- I appreciate the -- the impact that landscaping has on traffic calming and my overall experience of the quality of this community. And I firmly believe that it's a true statement that it positively impacts all of our property values, so we need consider landscaping as not a superfluous, nice thing we could do if we have any ex -- left -- money left over. It needs to be considered as part of our infrastructure and give it the serious consideration as such in accordance with--just as serious as economic development and stormwater improvements, law enforcement, and everything else that we do as part of county business. I encourage you to find a way to implement and fund this Page 77 June 27, 2003 particular program that's been proposed. I heard a very interesting proposal for franchise fees as a source of new revenue, and as a citizen of the county I think that's a very intriguing idea and would like to hear more about that poss -- for not only this particular program but other programs it could possibly provide funds for. But please give this serious consideration in that this is part of the everyday and necessary life and growth and prosperity of Collier County, and I urge you once again to implement and fund this in its fullest. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You made -- you alluded to a good point. It's also a benefit to economic development because once an area is enhanced businesses will seem to draw there just because people will prefer to shop in a place that-- that looks better than-- rather than something that looks -- that's all boarded up and barricaded and so forth. So I think, you know, it-- it-- it does help with the EDC as well, or economic development. MS. BOORMAN: Precisely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, in my opinion, it helps more of the assessed values -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- than-- than anything else, the properties on the side of the enhancement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Miss Boorman. MS. BOORMAN: And it's a real redevelopment incentive as well. I'm sorry. Mister-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Halas. MS. BOORMAN: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Believe me I think landscaping is a great asset for the community, but when we sit down Page 78 June 27, 2003 and try to look at when we have a pot -- pool of money, trying to figure out what best to take care of what we feel is the highest priority. It's not saying that we don't believe in landscaping. It's just the idea that we have a pot of money, and we have to figure out exactly how we're going to shell all this money out. So we appreciate your comments, and it-- it-- I understand where you're coming from, and we want to address landscaping. I -- I think you found that out when all the commissioners voted 5-0. In fact, we didn't even vote for the lowest level of landscaping. We voted for an enhanced landscaping. And all we're trying to do is find out one way -- or a vehicle to gather the money so that we can do this, and it would be beneficial very much for our community. Thank you. MS. BOORMAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker. MR. MUDD: The next speaker is Chad Elkins followed by Dex Groose. MR. ELKINS: Hey, how are you-all? I'm the treasurer of the American Society of Landscape Architects for the Naples and Fort Myers area, so I'm here to represent them. I'm also a member of the Palm River homeowners' association, and I'm also president of the Wedgemont, which is a condominium association within Palm River, and I'm a practicing landscape architect here in Collier and Lee County. So basically when I first moved to Collier County one of the reasons I chose to leave my home state of West Virginia and come to Collier County was for the visual impact that I saw when I got here, and it's a wonderful, wonderful place to be. And I just sort of want to applaud you for approving that county -- that comprehensive plan and hopefully that you'll be able to approve the dollars spent for those mile -- miles of roadways coming up. I don't live adjacent to one of those roads at the moment, but the ones proposed in 2004, '5, and so forth they're just -- they would just Page 79 June 27, 2003 be pushed back. And so I can understand all of the priorities that you have to prioritize, but I'm also here to speak for those groups on behalf of them. And without the landscaping for Bayshore it would not be where it's at, and I do believe that the holistic approach to landscaping thoroughfares through gateways and arterials is a very important thing, and it does slow the -- it's a traffic-calming concept that does slow traffic down. It is proven to work. And I don't know if that would take some dollars off of-- off of the sheriff's request for more policing. But, anyway, I tmderstand how all this works and would just like on their behalf to speak for them that you try to approve this somehow. So thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Dex Groose followed by ... MR. MUDD: Dex Groose, he's the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. MR. GROOSE: Good morning, Commissioners. As I've told you in the past, I really supported your -- thank you for your support on landscaping, especially on that enhanced program as we agreed to on April 22nd, the B plus the C-1 concept. In my opinion, landscaping is our best economic development. The best way we can spend money for economic development is through our landscaping through -- to catch up on the ambiance. That's what we decided we needed back in April. We built the roads. We've essentially fixed the worst of our traffic problems, but we -- we didn't beautify them as we were building them. Now we have some catch-up to do. I urge you to -- to spend as much money as we can on -- on the landscaping. It benefits all. Stormwater money will benefit a few, and maybe that's the best reason to do the franchise fee for the bene -- when some -- when a project benefits a few. All right. Let them see if they want to come to Page 80 June 27, 2003 the table and pay for it as well. Maybe that's the way to share the expense with-- with the Lely stormwater plan. But, in my opinion, the way to benefit everyone is -- is to improve the ambience of our roadways, the ones that we have recently built. And I appreciate the tough decisions you people have to make today and -- and in the next couple of months on the budget. And I'm just a lone voice out here to keep the -- keep the ambience going. Let's catch up the ambience. Let's -- let's commit the 2.7 million for the catch-up on our roadway landscaping. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Is there three commissioners at this time that -- that wish to put some of that burden on -- on to the general fund? I know Commissioner Coyle is -- is not in favor of that. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Shook head.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could go to MST -- I'm sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- the -- the next thing -- can we at a future meeting determine that rational nexus even though we're not going to fund it? MR. MUDD: Sir, I think you need to have that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- rational nexus for at least next year's budget so that you have it because I'm going to -- I'm going to tell you when we bring on the regional park for Collier County and you talk about 40 people having to man that park to keep the wet park open and all the other pieces to it that's going to come out of 111, and it's going to be a significant burden to that process. So you might not have any money for landscaping once that hits, Page 81 June 27, 2003 so it's something that we really need to consider. And we'll come back with a policy because we're -- we'll change the -- we'll -- we'll come back for your recommendation for policy guidance so that we can get that to you. I really think it's important. I'm -- I'm just trying to look out. And one of the things we started this budget thing is to look out in the future just a tad so that we just didn't get stuck on one year and we forgot about the one after that, we -- we closed a blind eye to it. The MSTD general fund-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I wouldn't want any -- anybody to reach the conclusion that we're not funding landscaping. We -- we have three commissioners who have agreed to fund landscaping. It's just that we're not funding it to the full level because we don't have the money. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it-- we can start on the higher priority landscaping projects, and then as the year goes by and we see how some of the other money begins to -- to shape up we might be able to convert it. So I don't -- I don't see any reason to suspect that the landscaping isn't going to get done. We're certainly funding it for a start-up. MR. MUDD: Yes. Yes, sir. If-- and-- and the-- I'm-- I'm trying to -- to go to the MSTD general fund and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: -- and try to get to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's taking you so long? MR. MUDD: I would-- I would like to make a recommendation. There's three items that we have a majority vote on for items. The first one is landscaping. May I make a recommendation that -- that you fund $1.1 million into that recommendation? Page 82 June 27, 2003 The next item that you have, the Immokalee initiative, four positions, may I make a recommendation that you fund that for $150,0007 And then when you do the -- the Golden Gate community center at $60,000 it comes up with one millio -- $1,310,000, and whatever the change is left we move it into landscaping, okay, the $27,000 that's different. Do I have -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. MUDD: Do I have three nods on that particular item? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. MUDD: I think I got five nods. That brings us to the first page and you have based on -- based on what you've already approved -- and I've got you down approved for $1.5 million for economic incentive. We can change that. I've got you down for $500,000 with commercial incentives. I've got you down for the ninety-six nine for the pending decision, 1 FTE. I've got you down for $225,500 for the remaining streetlights on U.S. 41. I have you down for $480,000 for beach parking, which brings you to $2.8 million. And you have $1.4 million left that's -- that's still there. That's where I'm at right now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I want Commissioner Coyle to beg and -- and explain this Halderman Creek project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Plead and beg and -- I -- I -- I -- I would be -- be happy to -- to -- to take that money and split it between the mini triangle and the Halderman Creek improvements, and-- and then if-- if-- it -- it gets better from that point on. If we're successful in getting some of the money from other sources -- and I think we will be able to, but we need to be able to start the projects. And if we're able to -- to get the money from other projects or from other sources -- and -- and right now in Halderman Creek I've got the City of Naples that could -- will -- I think might Page 83 June 27, 2003 contribute some money. We've got an MSTU that we want to create that I think will contribute some money. Big Cypress Basin might contribute some money, but the -- with -- in view of the fight we're going to get into pretty quick -- pretty soon I don't think that's likely. And -- and we've got a developer who will contribute some money for that purpose. So it -- it could very well be we don't need all that money, and we can then reallocate it if you wish to do that. But because of the time schedule if we can begin this Halderman Creek project with a funding of one-half of what is left we've got -- we've got -- or less than one-half. We had 2.8, did you say? MR. MUDD: Two -- 1.4; it's about $700,000 each. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Seven hundred thousand dollars in each one, and get us started on both of them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions. The -- is that the total project for Halderman Creek, 1.1 ? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not. The total -- total amount -- MR. MUDD: The total -- the total project -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes. MR. MUDD: -- for Halderman Creek-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Total, yes. MR. MUDD: -- is $1.2 million. We've allocated $100,000 to continue staff and design in that project. The time line that we have, Mr. Chairman, is that it will go to construction if-- if-- if the funding is there, it will go to construction February 1st, February 15th time frame of-- of 2004. And -- and that way when it goes in February we've got a private donor that said he would give us $350,000 to that project, so I'm pushing this in order to get that cost share from that private -- from that private individual. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question. The -- well, I guess I'm in favor of it, but the benefit to all the county I -- I don't -- I don't see it Page 84 June 27, 2003 there, but I -- I -- I do see that the majority -- where the benefit is, the people who are along that basin there. So, you know, if we could set up an MSTU to -- where they pay for most of that I think I'm in -- in support of that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I -- I think the problem is most of it. You know, it -- it's just like the Lely thing. You have a relatively small group of very -- that -- not wealthy residents in the area, and the property values aren't all that great. And I -- I have -- have been very, very clear in telling all of those owners who want to have any dredging accomplished on a private property they're going to have to pay for, end of story, and.-- and so they understand that. So they're willing to do that. The problem is that won't be the total amount of the project, and -- and there's so -- so much more of the project that is associated just with -- with cleaning out drainage ditches going to and from the -- the Halderman Creek area and dredging Halderman Creek, quite frankly. So -- but -- but it seems to me that the $700,000 allocation -- or is it six five, 650,000? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seven hundred. MR. MUDD: Sir, the -- if-- there's a remaining 1.48. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seven hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven hundred thousand dollars roughly. Seven hundred thousand dollars, I -- I think will get us where we want to go. And we can get money from the residents, we can get money from businesses, we could get money from the City of Naples, and we can get money, hopefully, from -- from Big Cypress Basin. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What I see is 700,000 from the general fund, 300,000 from a private donation, so you're only talking Page 85 June 27, 2003 about a thousand -- or $100,000 back -- back to the residents or the City of Naples. And I just don't believe that's a -- a good allocation. Now, the benefit there is not going to go away, so if we set up an MSTU it could be a better fair-share pay-back for that item, but it can continue to go along. Hang on just a minute. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I didn't realize. I thought you were done. I just wanted to make sure I'm next. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I'm next. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, he is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's -- who's next? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You are. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am next? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm trying to beat you up -- beat you up to make your citizens responsible for the benefit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I will -- I will do that. Are -- are we doing that with the Golden Gate master plan? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let -- let's go back to that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We weren't going to go there, remember? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let -- let's go back to that. That's a different -- different topic of the community character plan. The Board of Commissioners decided to start out with Naples Park who's allocating money for those communities that was identified as Naples Park, Golden Gate, and then East Naples. So that -- I mean, this is -- this is something different. Now, let me tell you something more about Golden Gate, Commissioner. We are the only community in the county that has a taxing unit to tax ourselves for a community center. Okay. We are the first ones -- one of the first ones in the community that has paid -- taxed ourselves for the landscaping through an MSTU. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well -- but -- but you're not the Page 86 June 27, 2003 only one because Bayshore redevelopment district did the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, one of the first ones. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah. But-- so -- so the people in this area really have already gone through that process, and they -- they have an MSTU. It has been allocated street improvements and-- and-- and landscaping, of course, initially. And we're dealing with a drainage basin that is much larger than just that particular area, and if-- if-- if you don't think that $700,000 is -- is the right amount what is the right amount? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm just asking you and -- to help us out later on to show the benefit to the residents over there so they can see where taxing themselves over a long period of time -- what a pay-back they're getting. And we're going to step up and -- and assist them in that too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. They've already agreed to do that. They've already taken their surveys. They've gotten -- in fact, they did this two -- two or three years ago. It's just that the -- the county didn't move on it -- or five years ago Donna says. So -- so the -- the problem is the county didn't do anything. The -- the people did what they said they wanted to do, and they proved to the county that they would be willing to pay for part of this, but the county didn't do anything. And -- and what I'm trying to do is to get the county to contribute a little bit of money so that we can get this thing rolling and then they create their MSTU -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and we can stay on track with this development. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This is -- my last thing is I just want you to recognize the fair share in this; that's all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to add just a component. I think it has something to do with stormwater management too. Doesn't it take all that stuff out of-- somehow the Page 87 June 27, 2003 Glades and then comes down through and underneath the streets there? I think there's -- there's more to it than -- you know, it's not just like a little boating pleasure. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it wouldn't be under stormwater if it didn't have to do with drainage. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: Okay. It-- it isn't boating access we're doing. We're doing stormwater projects. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But I don't think that that was made clear. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: An ancillary -- an ancillary benefit to the project is, yes, people get better access, and -- and -- and they don't have to run into sandbars as they go out. But the real key here is getting the water so that we prevent flooding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If-- if Commissioner Coyle and I are done with our conversation-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm all set. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- can we go to the other commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let somebody else talk for a while. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I -- I just want to throw in another handful of rocks in the gear train here. I sat down here and I put down 1.8 mill as reserves, and I -- and I look at this, and I'm saying if we allocate all the money today to projects and something comes up as an emergency or we think that something is -- has a higher priority later on in the year than what we're discussing then we don't have any funds left; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what you did yesterday was you put $6 million-- Page 88 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- of this money in reserves in order to pay for a project that's -- that's in the horizons. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. MR. MUDD: So -- so I want to make sure that you know that, hey, this was $10 million. You lumped off 6 million right off the top yesterday and said, "It's going into reserves in order to work that issue out." And even when I talked about taking the top and smoothing it out -- remember, it came in at 9.7 and I said that reserve fund has got 10.2, so you've got a half a million still there that you can get at so -- and next year as -- as things ferret out the -- the dollars that you'll have to do this kind of thing next -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love to hear the two of you spar; that's good. MR. MUDD: The dollars -- the dollars that you'll have next year to do this kind of thing will have increased because you won't have to take so much off the top into the transportation piece, so you're going to get a benefit next year from doing what you did yesterday for that $6 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that's why we need to keep a little bit in the kitty for this year in this thing, I think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We're okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, are we? Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I -- I think so. We've got a substantial reserve, more than we did last year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: talking percentages? COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. MUDD: No. No. No. Are--were we The six million is going to be -- Oh. -- put to transportation costs. We talked about $1.4 million. Commissioner Page 89 June 27, 2003 Coyle has come up with a-- with a -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- proposal on what to do with the re -- remaining dollars after you put six million in the reserve already and you've applied the dollars based on the UFR list. And -- and I just need some people to tell me what you -- do you agree with them or you don't agree with them-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. MR. MUDD: -- or give me another proposal. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure they do. There are three -- there are three nods. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It looked like more of a shake than a nod. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a good point of letting me talk. I do appreciate it. I -- I was just going to say I -- I think that we're going with the right direction. I -- I listened to Commissioner Coyle. I listened to Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Fiala has been a little bit quiet at the moment, but I'm going to help her out a little bit. When you look at this here, we're talking about coming up with some money to try to get something jump started. I only -- think the only fair way to do it, instead of trying to split it in half-- the amounts aren't equal. It should be proportionate to what's needed. Then you go back to the communities to try to come up with MSTU funds to be able to help make up the difference or possibly from water management or whatever. But there's -- there's a -- there's quite a discrepancy between the two. One requires $1.1 million, and gateway requires 2.4. I -- I think. using those numbers and -- and dividing it up proportionately might give you that headstart you need to be able to move it forward. MR. MUDD: That would be four -- four hundred -- $450,000 for Halderman Creek and $900,000 against the gateway mini triangle Page 90 June 27, 2003 improvements is what Commissioner Coletta just -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And to me that would sound like it would be a little bit fairer because we're talking about a dollar situation that's going to impact a given number of people. And this would give them the jump start to give you some basis to work with. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That might give -- that might work. One of the gnawing fears that I've had as we're sitting here talking today is that we were talking about the City of Naples who, I guess, has an interest in this, that they might come up shooting. And then Commissioner Coyle hinted at something going on with the Big Basin, but then he said there were -- I don't know what he was talking about, some kind of infighting or whatever. But if we fund it completely they would have no reason to want to throw some money into it; whereas, if we put some mon -- some dollars into this so at least it shows that we're participating that will also maybe get some dollars from -- that -- the major funder, and yet there will be more of an initiative for Big Cypress to donate some dollars as well as the City of Naples, and yet we can still start tackling that -- the flooding problems that are over there in the triangle. Would that work? MR. MUDD: And I just fine tuned -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: It works for me. MR. MUDD: I just fine tuned the numbers. It's -- it's nine fifty against the mini triangle and five hundred against Halderman, and you have $30,000 left over. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See what happens when you leave the room? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I lost $170,000. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You're lucky you didn't lose everything when you left. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boy, that was an expensive break. Page 91 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're lucky you got the shirt on your back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there an MSTU within the triangle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's a CRA. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It's a redevelopment area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A CRA is those assessed values that are skimmed off the top when it was set up. Those are our dollars. If you look at other -- other communities or other projects, whether it be MSTU -- those assessed values are still going and-- and coming back into the county coffers where that -- those other ones just stay there. So my opinion is those CRAs is a double dip, and I'd -- I'd much rather fully fund Halderman Creek and gold plate the -- the seawalls than have somebody double dipping in my opinion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's the assumption you're going to go with the CRA. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You could also go with an MSTU then. Put an MSTU in place. It doesn't mean you can't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think that's the fair way to do it to be fair with all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can I try to get my $170,000 back? CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Under the previous scenario, I'll give it to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you didn't hear my comment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and you can comment on this, and I'd love to have you do this. Because you stepped out of the room, we didn't -- you didn't hear this fine comment, and that was one of my concerns that's been gnawing at me right now is if we fund the whole Halderman Creek -- and you know I'm in favor of that, by the Page 92 June 27, 2003 way, but if-- if we fund the whole Halderman Creek initiative will there be any -- any desire on the part of either Big Cypress or the City of Naples to throw some funding in so that we can use that money toward that instead? Why -- why would they want to if it's already funded; that's my only concern. And-- and I'd love to hear comments. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it's -- it's not already funded. The amount of money I'm asking for is not enough to fund the project. The -- the -- the -- the amount of money I'm asking for is enough to give us a reasonable degree of certainty that we can fund the project if we get money from other sources, so -- so basically that's -- that's what I'm saying. This -- this project -- I think you're talking about starting construction in February. That's not very far away. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so they've got to start doing things, and it's going to take money to do these things, and if-- if they don't start doing things pretty quickly it's not going to get done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you think there'll still be an incentive for Big Basin and the City of Naples to - to help out in this situation? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I am confident there will be a -- there will be a -- an incentive for the City of Naples to participate. I know that the citizens will participate. They've already said that they will. We are updating the survey, by the way, so that we -- we can get current sentiment. But the -- the -- the amount of funding we're asking for here is really in-- in the whole scope of things, it's relatively minor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're asking seven -- COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER of it -- COYLE: FIALA: COYLE: FIALA: Yes. -- hundred thousand? Yeah. And then you're saying that the rest Page 93 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: The rest goes in -- goes to the mini triangle. And -- and, yes, we -- we -- we try to get money from the CRA. We -- or -- but -- but the problem, you see, is the -- the concept Commissioner Henning lays out is -- is absolutely correct. The -- the problem is that when it is a depressed area there's not enough money there for the people to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to -- to contribute anything. So the -- the -- the -- the tax increment financing thing is -- is really seed money. Rather than us giving it, let's say, to -- to Tanuny Nemecek and -- as a -- using it as an economic incentive for somebody to do something, we're actually letting them keep their own taxes in the hope that we will improve the area and thereby increase their value, and one of these days we'll start getting that money back in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And-- and we have control over that by -- by governing the number of years we let those tax -- tax increment financing programs stay in place. So it -- it -- I think it's a good tool to encourage redevelopment of an area, but you're -- you-- you've got to get the benefit of that money sooner or later, and -- and we will. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a last question then if I may, and that is, how much were you going to -- were you proposing to put into that and mini triangle stormwater flooding problem? I -- I don't -- MR. MUDD: Based on Commissioner Coyle's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- request? He's putting $700,000 against Halderman Creek, and he's putting around seven -- 750,000, 760,000 against the mini triangle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That -- that sounds like it would work. That sounds like -- and that would at least help with -- with Page 94 June 27, 2003 some of the flooding or at least initial some -- initial tackling of that problem; right? MR. FEDER: Yeah. And the gateway triangle we would start on some -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? MR. FEDER: -- of the right-of-way acquisition for retention. We wouldn't be able to build the project, obviously, but we'd be able to start on the right-of-way retention -- right-of-way acquisition for retention. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And once you have these things in motion usually they'll continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Yeah. Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So I see -- MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, I'm also going to tell you I wrote a note down. So we need to come back to you with a stormwater policy on cost sharing -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: -- as fast as we can, okay, and get the board to agree how much is going to come out of the -- out of the -- out of the -- the private sector versus the general fund tax money that's already done so we can figure out these cost-sharing arrangements on the larger projects. And I -- I -- I think that's very important because that's what you're wrestling with right now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh. MR. MUDD: And-- and-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially when you got -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I'm wrestling with. It's my problem, not yours. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially when you've got an area like Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala were talking about. MR. MUDD: Your problem is my problem, Commissioner. Page 95 June 27, 2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's if you've got a depressed area and to have those people step up to the plate sometimes that might be a real tax burden on them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Especially if that's all that's -- the only -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wish I had some of that depressed area. That is commercial on two arterial roads. It's great. I wish I had some of that. I -- I would trade my own property for this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you've got some of that out there in Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I tell you, you wouldn't want those boarded-up things for-- they don't look real good. They -- they don't really make us proud over there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give -- give it to us in Immokalee. We'll -- we'll put it to good use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The boarded-up stuff?. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got -- we've got two in favor of going with Coyle's recommendations. Do we have a third? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll have a -- I'll go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a majority. MR. MUDD: Okay. Seven hundred thousand dollars to Halderman Creek and the rest going to the mini triangle; is that what I just heard? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I will give you my personal commitment I will badger people to the -- to the death to get money from other sources so we don't have to use it all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's great. MR. MUDD: And if that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll take that. Page 96 June 27, 2003 MR. MUDD: And if that money -- and I -- I -- I -- I believe that you'll be successful, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think I will too. MR. MUDD: But let me ask you a question. When do you -- what do you want me to do with the dollars that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put it in reserve, and then the -- the commission can make a decision about what they want to do with it. It can go into landscaping or something like that if you'd like to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. MR. MUDD: And we'll -- we'll keep you appraised of that so we can get some interim guidance from you on any dollars that are there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that's all I have unless you have something for me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't -- you don't need any more guidance to -- MR. MUDD: No, sir. I have more guidance than I could actually want. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody else? MR. MUDD: Can I introduce Mike -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. MR. MUDD: Mike's staff really busted their hump on this thing. And -- and some of you don't know all of those people that are there, so if I could get Mike's staff to stand up when he calls your name so that they can recognize you and know who you are as you're walking the hallway, Commissioner, if I could just indulge for a -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Susan Usher, Randy Greenwald, Robin Johnson. Gary Vincent's at a meeting with -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're getting blessed with pixie dust here. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And last but not least Pat puts together the Page 97 June 27, 2003 books for us and does all the things and suffers through many, "Oh, we have just one more little change for you, Pat" throughout the budget process so ... MR. MUDD: And -- and Gary was that -- that -- that gentleman that -- that was sporting that wonderful hairdo yesterday. He was completely bald, okay, so that you can kind of get a face to it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's give them a big hand, and let's give a big hand to our county manager for such a -- the way that the budget was laid out -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the books, and how clear it was. There was very few questions we had, and I think that the whole staff did a wonderful job. Thanks very much. MR. MUDD: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He made my speech. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER COYLE: COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was going to say that. I beat you to it. Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He had his hand up first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He didn't -- you didn't hold up your hand is what -- the -- yeah, I -- I would like to express my personal appreciation to the county manager and to Mike Smykowski and his staff and -- and -- and all of the managers and administrators who were responsible for this transformation of the budget this year. This has been the most productive budget process I have engaged in here at the county, and I -- I appreciate you responding so rapidly to our concerns after the budget issues last year. You've made remarkable progress. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and it -- it is just so much Page 98 June 27, 2003 better for us and for the taxpayers of-- of Collier County. You're all to be congratulated, and -- and you have my heartfelt thanks for-- it really made things a lot easier. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. We're adjourned. Page 99 June 27, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:19 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL DWIG-HT .E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes ap. proved by the Board on presented / or as corrected q- Zq-0~ , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAREN WHITE Page 100