Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/23/2004 B (Budget) September 23, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 23, 2004 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 district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in BUDGET SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ BUDGET AGENDA September 23, 2004 5:05 p.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 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. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, 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 LEAST 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. 1 September 23, 2004 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 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING A. Discussion of FY 05 Millage Rates and Increases over the Rolled Back Rates B. Discussion of Further Amendments to the Tentative Budget C. Budget Discussion Items 1) UFR Lists D. Public Comments and Questions E. Resolution to Amend the Tentative Budgets F. Public Reading of the Taxing Authority Levying Millage, the Name of the Taxing Authority, the Rolled-Back Rate, the Percentage Increase, and the Millage Rate to be Levied G. Adoption of Resolution Setting Millage Rates H. Resolution of Adopt the Final Budget by Fund 3. ADJOURN 2 September 23, 2004 September 23, 2004 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, would you please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The budget -- the last budget hearing will now be taking place on September 23rd at 5:05 p.m., and I'd like you to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #lA UPDATE ON HURRICANE JEANNE - RECOMMENDATION TO RECONVENE AT 1:30 P.M. FORAN UPDATE OF THE HI.IRRI.CANES.E OGRF,SS CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you for all being here this evenIng. Before we begin, the order in which we'll proceed is we will start with Dan Summers, who wants to give us just a little update, then we'll go into the continuance of the sheriffs budget, and then we'll get on our own budget. Okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Dan? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of the Emergency Services and your emergency management director of record. Once again, I need to bring you a hurricane update, and I think I'll hold off on the editorial comments about Mother Nature right now, and we'll just go straight into the information I have presented for you. If we can go -- this is, once again, HURREV AC, and let me advance for you what we're looking at with Hurricane Jeanne. As you know, Jeanne appeared to look like her residence was going to be in Page 2 September 23, 2004 the Atlantic, made a turn, and has now made its drift towards the Continental United States and is headed towards the peninsula of Florida. This is the Hurricane Center's advisory as of five o'clock today. They are looking at this storm to be gaining a little bit of intensity, brings it up to 125 miles per hour in terms of sustained winds. Earlier this evening, even as late as four o'clock, we saw a slightly southern track. The Hurricane Center now is continuing to predict this slight turn to the north, and I'll just run this on through for you. We did a conference call with most of the east coast counties at five o'clock -- I'm sorry, four o'clock today. And the bulk of the east coast counties, as well as southwest counties, plan to, at a minimum tomorrow, any time between eight and one o'clock tomorrow, on the east coast, will declare a state of emergency in our -- at the current track and forecast intensity look at what they call A zone or evacuations for their immediate coastal area, and any barrier islands, which is currently under discussion right now for those communities. As I advance the storm forward, it would appear that -- again, depending on the storm's track, that it would be prudent on our part to activate, at least partially activate, the Emergency Operations Center on Saturday. And as you see in this storm, it does get 34 mile an hour winds or so into Collier County on Sunday. And as I advance it out, that takes us all the way through Sunday afternoon before the storm is clear. Again, this type of situation where, again, we have to be concerned for any oscillation in the storm's track. If it moves slightly south, it's a greater wind in that for us. The good news in this event is that this is not a coastal evacuation event. It is -- the majority of the county would be perfectly suitable, based on this information, to shelter in place, and our concern will be the mobile home communities, primarily the communities of Page 3 September 23, 2004 Immokalee, et cetera, as they are -- they're closer to the stronger winds. My recommendation to you is that we monitor this very closely. Just to give you the satellite imagery that we're looking at right now, we don't see a lot of turn to the north, as I mentioned, on Jeanne right now. This is the current satellite animation. And the Hurricane Center, their cone, their forecast cone, looks like this. So, again, it's just one of these things. As much as we don't want to do it, as much as we don't want to alarm the community, we've got to be prudent at this point and watch this very, very carefully. Without a doubt, every county in the State of Florida is pretty tired of managing hurricanes. But, again, we want to be careful that we don't drop our guard. If I could make these recommendations to you. I guess you've heard this before, the forecast track remains uncertain. I'd like to recommend that we reconvene tomorrow at about one o'clock and -- to discuss the following: Whether we, in fact, need to declare a state of emergency, and that will be based on the information from the Hurricane Center, the state emergency management office, as well as FEMA. And right now I don't see any issues with any prohibitions or curfews related to that. If we, in fact, declare a state of emergency tomorrow, my concern, again, will be mobile home issues and shelter operations, if any. So, again, our sheltering, we want to be prepared, but it's not my intent to do special needs sheltering because we don't anticipate this being a large power outage type situation or any significant flooding. There are no rainfall precipitation estimates in the current forecast right now. And, again, we want to be able also -- if necessary, we may be back in that host shelter environment again supporting Glades, Hendry, possibly Charlotte, or even Broward and Dade. So some of those issues may, in fact, surface tomorrow, or even Saturday. Page 4 September 23, 2004 So that's my recommendation to you, that we monitor it very closely. We ask the public again, to make sure that their hurricane kits, that they are, in fact, prepared, and to make sure that we have an opportunity to brief tomorrow and let me update you and make the final recommendations at that point. Any questions or comments? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Dan, you -- as you opened up your -- in regards to telling us about this hurricane, you said it was taking a southerly track. Is it correct it's just a temporary adjustment in the course of the storm, or do you think it might be something that bears watching? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, without a doubt it bears watching. The forecast models from the Hurricane Center do have a lot of fluctuation in those models. Again, as you know, there's a high pressure out there in the Atlantic. Several days ago when we were watching Jeanne, the discussion was that \ve would see almost a turn to the north, keep this storm as an Atlantic Ocean storm as opposed to a Continental U.S. storm. That turn did not occur, and I'm sure that's the reason that the forecasters have the level of concern that they have today. So whether we see, you know, this storm approach the gulf stream -- and I can tell you from Atlantic coast experience, that we typically see the gulf stream responsible for making turns and generating movement within the storm. That is not currently forecasted in the models right now. So we will hope that we see a turn to the north that completely misses the U.S., but at this point we're still within a reasonable cone of probability . COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? Page 5 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be okay if we convene at 1 :30? MR. SUMMERS: That's ample time. My goal there is to have the 11 o'clock update from the National Hurricane Center give me time to coordinate some things with adjacent counties, let our office have some decision time, and bring some recommendations to you. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, for the record. It also works well -- I talked to Ray Baker today, the school superintendent. By having it in the afternoon, it gives him time before all his teachers go, if they need to make any preparations for sheltering so they can get that ready to go for Saturday. If this model holds true -- I hope this model doesn't hold true. I hope it goes someplace else, okay? I think the Carolinas need a vacation with Jeanne. And so I hope it doesn't hold true. But based on what you just saw, we get the winds that pick up around two to three a.m. on Sunday, and then by about three p.m. on Sunday afternoon, they're gone, okay, so that -- you know, yeah, we're going to have some bands and some thundershowers and whatnot, and plus, we're on the better -- the better edge of this hurricane because we're on the left side, not the right side. So a little bit different than Frances. Frances hit as a one, I remember, a category one. This is category three, so it's a little bit stronger of a hurricane. I will tell you that this is the same hurricane that hit Haiti, and they're saying they've lost almost 2,000 people, and it might be because of the deplorable conditions in Haiti so -- before this storm hit. But this hurricane has taken some lives. One thirty would give us the best thing, and I'm hoping it's someplace on that northern edge, okay, and it doesn't -- and it doesn't come straight across to go to the Bahamas, that it takes off and goes to Bermuda, you know, and gets away from us, okay. And we'll see that Page 6 September 23, 2004 in the next 24 hours, I'd presume. We'll see if it's coming straight across at the two p.m. Friday node, that you get the second dot past where it is right now. If it's not sliding straight across and it's starting to head up north, then we probably will dodge a major bullet on this one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Dan, my husband and I were taking off for an event on Saturday. We were leaving tomorrow at 1 :30 on a flight out, coming back at noon on Sunday, but if there's going to be some kind of an emergency, we'll cancel our flights. Would you let me know that so that I have the time to cancel the arrangements there and cancel our flights here? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am, be glad to. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, what time are you leaving for the airport? CHAIRMAN FIALA: The plane -- leaving for the airport at 11. MR. MUDD: Okay. We can get her-- Mr. SUMMERS: We can do that, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: That's all I have, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other questions or anything? MR. MUDD: So the emergency meeting is tentatively scheduled for 1 :30 tomorrow in this boardroom. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. Now, if, per chance, we see that it's going by us completely and there's no danger of anything, will you be canceling that meeting? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am, it's my intention. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And how do you announce that you're canceling the meeting? MR. MUDD: We'll get out a press release to everybody that we're canceling the meeting. I will let every commissioner know individually that we're canceling it; I will also call the school superintendent, who I personally called today, that we're canceling it. Page 7 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: And Clarence Tiers, who I talked to today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. So everybody will be aware in advance. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Commissioners? (No response.) Item #lB REQUEST APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BUDGET - APPROVED WITH SIIEIlLAIIONS MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us to the item from Tuesday's board meeting, the 21 st of September, 2004, and it's a continuation of item number 13A. In your packet it says, continuation of discussion of the Board of County Commissioners September 14th, 2004, agenda. It was the September 14th, 2004, agenda. It got postponed though until the 21 st of September 2004, so that's the second line. And this is continuation of item 13A, and Ms. Crystal Kinzel, will present, I believe. MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioners. For the record, Crystal Kinzel, finance director with the sheriffs office, and I believe Sheriff Hunter has telephoned in. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, we heard his beeping in. MS. KINZEL: Okay. MR. MUDD: Sheriff, are you there? Sheriff, can you hear me? (No response.) MS. KINZEL: Maybe not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go. Page 8 -~----_..-._^ September 23, 2004 MR. MUDD: Sheriff, are you on? SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm here, thank you. MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, we're returning today to answer any additional questions that we might have had on insurance. I've had an opportunity to talk with several members of the board, so I'm available for any additional questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you -- can you explain the insurance fund and how that money accrues and -- MS. KINZEL: I hope so, Commissioner. If I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- give us some history on that. MS. KINZEL: -- can get some help with the visualizer, maybe we can use -- can I write on it, and give you -- MR. MUDD: Hang on. MS. KINZEL: Okay, Commissioners. Commissioner Halas, I think, was pointing -- and what we had before us, that some of those citizens at home and other commissioners may not have had in front of them previously was this item. And these are -- this is a page, page 114 out of the financial statements for the fiscal year ending September 30th of2003. And what Commissioner Halas was referring to was the 1.8 that you see right here as an unrestricted net reserve of assets. And he was asking if that was available to help offset what I'm requesting from you in the 2.5 million to cover the vacancies that we filled during the fiscal year. And I wanted to try to go through it one more time to explain how we get from 19.8 unrestricted at the end of year 2003 to present. We take what we have back in this period in time and we project forward using what our total claims are going to be, what out total claim costs are going to be, and we look that this amount of money, what money we have budgeted as a piece of the operating budget to Page 9 September 23, 2004 the general fund, and member contributions. And between those three pieces, we determine what we really do need to put in the budget document for the next year. So at September 30th of2003, we assumed that we would have this amount of money, and we said, what do we then need to put into the 2005 budget, because actually the 2004 budget was done in June of 2003, so we're looking at years as they roll forward. We estimate then what we need to put in each budget cycle under the general fund. So these funds that you see as unrestricted as of September 30th of '03 are not available by now for what we're looking at to help fund the salaries for the people that we have hired onboard to become fully staffed. We look -- during this course of the year, we have that reserve, plus what we billed this year, and then we have to look at our claims through this year. We don't know where we will be exactly for September or through December, which is our planned year for health Insurance. The other thing that I need to point out, Commissioners, is that there's a statute. We don't retain these funds in a bank account at the sheriffs office. These funds are sent to our Florida sheriffs self-insurance Multiple Employer Trust, and that trust is established to retain these funds, pay claims, and handle all of the obligations of the self-insurance fund that we have. So we don't have access to those in a bank account here in Collier County. They are part of the plan element and the plan document with the trust. So I think that might have been a little bit of confusion on Tuesday, that we could use a piece of those to offset where we are with our 2.5 request for salaries, and those funds aren't available. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you show historical information -- MS. KINZEL: Sure. Page 10 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for this account? MS. KINZEL: As I -- I'm trying to go back about eight years. What we've pointed out in this segment, Commissioners, is the sheriffs office, and then down here we've tried to show a little bit about the county self-insurance fund, just to give you an idea of what we do, because again, we're a little bit different in our plan design. We're different in some of the things that we do, but we have to do the exact same thing to proj ect out what our claims are going to be and what funding cycle we're going to need to help offset the plan costs each and every year. At one point we had as much as 3.7 million in reserves for the sheriffs insurance fund. And when you look at that level of funding, based on our claims, that was actually a little more than we needed in reserve. So instead of charging to the general fund budget a flat amount, we took into consideration that we have those in reserves. And you'll see each of these years we have dipped into those total reserves so that the budget that we put forward to you in the general fund took down money from reserves already to give us the amount that we need to budget for this fiscal year, in 2004. And it gets complicated. And I don't know that I'm explaining it very clearly. But because you have to work for multiple years and you're working a whole year in advance to try to project out both your claims and your revenue streams, it really is just a management tool going back and forth to look at the numbers. And for this year, we did have this to start, and then we will have our claims through this year, and we'll see where we end up per the actuarial, per the financial statements as of September 30th. But at this point, we don't have those available to pay the salary. And fully staffed, also -- because we are fully staffed, you see a greater increase in claims because you have that many more people for which you're paying insurance claims. Page 11 September 23,2004 And I just wanted to do that as a clarification, for Commissioner Henning to ask that, but I'm glad to answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- can you show us the different pieces that put together the insurance fund for either 2004 or 2005 -- MS. KINZEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- your contributions, your carry-over, and what the board is asking -- MS. KINZEL: No, not on this one. I don't have that exactly in that detail, Commissioner, on the amounts for each budget year. I can tell you for 2005 we've put into our budget about $12 million for the general fund portion, and for reserves we will -- we are anticipating we will need about $3.2 million in reserves based on the additional claims cost. So the cash that we had at July 31 st was about a million nine. Now, in addition to the cash at July 31st with the financial statement where we were from the Florida Sheriffs Trust, we would have then all the premiums for August and September, and then we'd have to deduct the claims that we have through August and September. And also going then through the calendar year to the end of December, we have to wait and see what those claims or amounts would be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I see here just in -- I guess, Collier County -- the sheriffs office, you're going from '04 for the health. Am I looking at the right line, it says health? MS. KINZEL: Okay. For which year, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, say in '04, $6 million, and the request is 8.4, almost 8.5. Is that what goes into the -- his account? MS. KINZEL: Are you looking at the financial statements? Or what page are you looking at? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking -- Page 12 September 23,2004 MS. KINZEL: Oh, in our budget book, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in your budget book, page 44. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Okay. Page -- in 2004 or 2005? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just saying, am I looking at the right line item, and is that going into this fund? MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. KINZEL: That's exactly what that number is. The health insurance amount that you can see we budget for single coverage, 6,000, and for family coverage 12,008, that's what we determined based on the last year's actuarial that we would need to fund out of the general fund to offset the claims that we anticipate for this year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It appears to be quite a rise in moneys going into that fund. MS. KINZEL: There are health insurance increases, exactly. I think we can -- we know that national trends -- we're trying to keep it a little bit low. And as I mentioned before, we're participating in the countywide consortium with county government, the hospital, and school board, and we're looking at planned design and cost savings measures that we can do through some direct changes in our plan design. We're also -- today, as a matter of fact, we went out and we had presenters from different third-party administrators, so we'll be looking to see if there are any economies or reductions in administrative fees that can be seen through a change in administration. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I guess that going from 6 million to almost 8 and a half million is because of so many new employees? SHERIFF HUNTER: Experience-- MS. KINZEL: And experience in claims, exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- is that -- is that fund Page 13 September 23,2004 account, is that an interest earning bearing account? MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner. As long as the budgeted funds are in our draw, they would earn interest here, and that interest we would turn back to the Board of County Commissioners. But once we do send it to the Florida Multiple Employer Trust on our monthly premiums, those monthly premiums and insurance -- the interest -- I'm sorry -- goes back to the plan itself. SHERIFF HUNTER: To fund the plan. MS. KINZEL: To fund the plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. It stays right within that? MS. KINZEL: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The interest and everything else? MS. KINZEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. KINZEL: But only for the monthly premiums that are sent there. SHERIFF HUNTER: Madam Chair, may I address the commission? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. SHERIFF HUNTER: This is really an odd feeling, by the way, trying to talk to you on a telephone and interject. Don Hunter, sheriff for Collier County, for the record. And I believe that these are very important discussions pertaining to the health care plan. I think, perhaps, Director Kinzel's being overly modest. We have a managed care plan. We've worked very, very closely with local physicians and Naples Community Health Care systems to keep our costs at the least expensive level as possible. I'm very proud of the health plan, and I'd like to be able at some point to have a full presentation, or an expanded presentation, pertaining to the health plan. Sorry. As Director Kinzel had indicated, we -- we do -- is that me? Are you getting feedback? Page 14 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: We sure are. Are you standing near some kind of an electrical facility or something? SHERIFF HUNTER: No. Let me lay my Nextel device here off to the side. Maybe that's it. As Director Kinzel indicated, we work very closely with the insurance consortium as well as your staff and other local government elements on a monthly basis to try to work through health insurance issues that are common to all of government and to do a better job of managing the health plan. But this particular item that you're considering at this moment really has to do with a request for reserve in the current fiscal year's budget. And I think we got a little off mark a couple nights ago when we began talking about the 1.9 million in the -- classified as unrestricted in the financial statements that I believe that Director Kinzel has clarified now for the board. Those funds are an expense of the agency, a legal, lawful expense of the agency, and have been encumbered and reside elsewhere now as a reserve in trust to fund an insurance program, and they are not recoverable by the agency or by the board. That is part of the plan. It's under contract. That's the way it's funded. And you, I'm certain, do similar things as well with moneys that you use to fund your health insurance program. Again, if we may, I'd really like to make a presentation on the health plan to the board to more fully explain it. But to try to separate out these two issues, one is a request of you for $2.5 million, a result of our being able to hire and retain people within the agency to satisfy our vacancies, which has now caused us to ask for this. The moneys were properly budgeted and appropriated by the board by resolution of the board in 2003 and remain available, actually more than the 2.5 million could be available to the agency. We've not requested any reserve beyond that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's happening again, Don. Page 15 September 23, 2004 SHERIFF HUNTER: I don't know what could be causing that, other than a portable phone. Let's see if I can get to a hard line. So I'm asking for the $2.5 million in reserve funds that were authorized by the board as part of the 2003/2004 budget cycle reviewed by the board last year and approved, and we're only asking for a partial drawdown on that amount, and a remainder would constitute a carry forward. Let's try this. Is that better? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Much better. SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. The remainder of that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you start over again? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, there it goes again. SHERIFF HUNTER: It's like a paging system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Try calling back on a regular phone, Don, if you can. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yeah, this -- I'll try. It sounds like a pager system going off, our pager system. Let me call right back. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I have Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle waiting to ask a couple of questions. How about if we ask Commissioner Coyle to proceed while we're waiting for a call back, okay? Go ahead, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I thought you said-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I might have, but I meant you. I was confused. You look so much alike. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the discussion on this whole episode started off with a shortage in the overtime fund of about $2.5 million; is that correct? MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner, it's not. The entire discussion -- and the reason we're asking for 2.5 million, is because we have been able to fully staff. And as of the 2004 budget that was approved by Page 16 September 23, 2004 the board, $3.2 million was we -- was -- excuse me -- was deducted from our full staffing budget -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now-- MS. KINZEL: -- going into this year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- how much -- what did you budget for this fiscal year in overtime? MS. KINZEL: For 2004? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What was the-- MS. KINZEL: About $4 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much have you used up to this date, less what can be reimbursed by FEMA? MS. KINZEL: Oh, less reimbursement by FEMA? I have not even calculated the total impact of FEMA yet. We're working on -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I said less -- yes. MS. KINZEL: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I want to know is what the -- how much overtime have you spent year to date? MS. KINZEL: About $8 million, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you had how much budgeted? MS. KINZEL: Four, about half of that. But remember, Commissioner, when we talk about -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. You had -- wait a minute. Hold on. You budgeted $4 million for overtime and you're $8 million? MS. KINZEL: That's about where we're at for this year end, correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why have we got so much overtime if we're staffed at full -- 100 percent? MS. KINZEL: Because, Commissioner -- we've gone over this a couple times, but let me try one more time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, yeah. Maybe it's something I don't understand here. Page 1 7 September 23,2004 MS. KINZEL: Okay. When we have a vacancy, unlike many jobs, if I don't come in today, I just have twice as much to do tomorrow, but about 80 percent of the sheriffs office has mandated posts, in our jail, in our road patrol response, in our dispatch center, and even in our crime scene. We have to have a total complement available, if there is an incident, to go out and respond. If we are not fully staffed, then we have to rely on overtime to staff those positions. Now, during the period of time that we weren't -- we were not fully staffed, we had overtime, and they were considerable amounts of dollars. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when was it that you finally became completely staffed? What portion of the year did you finally become -- MS. KINZEL: Okay. We started about January, February eating into the attrition amount, eating into the 3.2 million that you had taken away from our salaries. That was about January of '04, okay. Now, also remember, we have an additional issue with law enforcement and dispatch and corrections officers in particular, and that's the training curve. In addition to when we hire them on, which would have been about January of '04, we have a very lengthy training process. And until that training process is done -- for example, academy. Our law enforcement officers all attend an academy, and that academy, I believe, is 16 weeks. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do they get paid overtime for that? MS. KINZEL: Not overtime. That would be their regular time, but they're not filling the post that they were hired to fill. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: We're paying them to go to the academy. Then the post they needed to fill, we still have to fill with overtime until Page 18 September 23, 2004 they're fully trained and educated and prepared to take over in that position. SHERIFF HUNTER: And, Commissioner, you have the same situation with your EMS crews. They aren't permitted simply to start just because you've hired a warm body. They have to go through the training and receive certification in order to perform duties, and then they also must be consistent and understand your own internal policies unique to Collier County, not just some generic set of policies that are taught by an academy. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess what you're telling me then, that because of the budget increase over the -- over the period of years that this has been building up, we're -- from about 1999 till today, we've had about -- your budget has increased by about 140 percent, roughly; so, therefore, we have 140 percent more officers on the road patrolling the roadways, and this 140 percent budget increase, we haven't used all of this as just establishing new desk positions within the sheriffs office? So that we end up with a top heavy command? Is that true? Is that what you're saying, that we have -- instead of having so many officers that may have been patrolling the roads the last four years that may -- the road -- the head count on the officers that patrol the roads has gone up, is that correct, on each shift? SHERIFF HUNTER: Well -- may I? Let me take a crack at that. I'm not sure what the years were that were involved. What was the total increase that you say, 140 percent? COMMISSIONER HALAS: About 140 percent, probably. SHERIFF HUNTER: Since when? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Since about '99. SHERIFF HUNTER: Ninety-nine. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1999 till the current budget. SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's do talk a little bit about what the agency's budget is composed of and how, as you go forward, you are Page 19 "--." September 23, 2004 certainly going to experience more cost the next year than you did the previous, owing to board policy, the increase in fuel and consumables, oil for vehicles, we have shotguns. But remember that as we go forward, we're paying additional salary, we're paying overtime on that higher salary each year. We also have added two road patrol, but we've also added to crime scene investigation, narcotics investigation, homicide investigation, property crime investigation. So it's not just road patrol. There are other features of the agency that we've added to in order both to support the road patrol function, but also to provide primary suppression, crime suppression activities. So I suppose that I'm answering yes, partially, to your question. We did add road patrol, but you cannot -- and you will not be able to say that we added 140 percent to road patrol. It's an across-the-agency increase as we've moved forward, and it has to do with all of those features, plus increased cost for medical care to inmates, increased bombs and health -- high risk health, as well as high risk retirement for high risk members, same as your EMS crews. All of those features would be included and incorporated into the sheriffs office budget. I don't know what the number is. I don't know that it's 140 percent, but whatever that number is from '99 to 2004/2005. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five. SHERIFF HUNTER: That would be what it's attributed to. Again, I'm seeking board approval though for the release of previously approved reserve dollars that were approved in last year's budget to adjust these types of situations where we have -- and I made it a matter of record to the board last year and the year before and the year before that, because this goes back to county manager Neil Dorrill as an established policy of taking four percent attrition out of the agency budget. Page 20 September 23, 2004 Each year I have made a matter of -- as a matter of record a statement to the board that we hope to fill the vacancies that the agency has and, therefore, that four percent attrition will be problematic for us. This is really the first year that's become completely problematic because we filled all positions. So I've had to come back to you in order to seek funding for those -- the filling of the positions that you have already approved. These are positions you approved last year at this time. And that is what is before the board at this moment. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You finished? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one more question, and this is directed to the county attorney. David Weigel, where do we stand on this? Do we have to pay this or can we forego paying this or can we decide that we'll only pay a partial portion of this? I need direct -- the whole board needs direction from you. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't know that I can direct the board, but I can tell you what the law appears to say. And the executive summary that the sheriff has put forward, this 13A, requests for -- makes a request for 2.5 million as a budget amendment. Prior history of part of an appeal that was undertaken back in 1999 with the sheriff and the budget at that time included what appears to be, at this point anyway, a similar element, and the request was for a -- the board to approve the sheriff to have money come from the general contingency reserve fund. And it is correct, as was stated the other day, Tuesday, that there is, in fact, in place what appears to be a uniform policy of the Board of Commissioners -- I'll give you a little background here, a restatement. A uniform policy of the Board of County Commissioners, is that there is, I believe, a five percent reserve in the general fund reserves, and the statutes, under chapter 30, which are statutes pertaining to the sheriff, would indicate that his reserve is to be treated no differently Page 21 September 23, 2004 than the county's process generally relative to reserves. In the hearing that was held by the board with different commissioners back in 1999, part of the discussion at that point was the fact -- was a declaration or determination, a legal affirmation by the sheriffs office, that, in fact, that the reserves had to be released. At that time I was asked an opinion and was able to give part of the opinion before the board picked up and continued with its discussion and ultimate determination. And the opinion that I gave then was that the law has ambiguities. And I was asked if the board were to say no and this appeal that was place at that time were to continue, what were the county's chances of prevailing on the appeal. And I responded, again, before I was, in essence, cut off, but I responded and indicated that as always it's difficult to prognosticate how a case may come out, determine odds. But at that time I said about 50/50, meaning the odds of the board prevailing if it said no to the sheriff s request to access funds from the contingent fund reserves of the general fund. Now, we've looked at it again this year, of course, and I note in a little broader review that section 30.49 of the Florida statutes, particularly subsection six, would appear to be the provision that is brought forward that talks about the sheriff having an opportunity to have the reserves. And if I may -- and I'll be brief -- but it mentions -- it mentions in four, the reserve for contingencies in the budget of the sheriff shall be governed by the same provisions governing the amount and use of the reserve for contingencies appropriated in the county budget, except that the reserve for contingency and the budget of the sheriff shall be appropriated upon written request of the sheriff. Based upon my discussions with Mr. Schreiber and Ms. Kinzel, they believe that that gives them the, you might say, the sheriff unilateral ability to access those funds. Page 22 September 23, 2004 Interestingly though -- and that's statute 30.49 -- statute .3050 (sic), entitled Payment of Salaries and Expenses, provides in its subparagraph four -- and I'll read, if I may -- the sheriff shall keep necessary budget accounts and records and shall charge all paid bills and payrolls to the proper budget accounts. The reserve for contingencies or any part thereof may be transferred to any of the budget appropriations in the discretion of the sheriff. But it goes on to say, with the approval of the Board of County Commissioners or the budget commission, if there is a budget commission in the county, we do not, the budget may be amended as provided for county budgets in section 129.06(2). And as I said five years ago and I say again, there are ambiguities in the law, because the prior law that I mentioned, section 30.49, subsection 6, says in the discretion of the sheriff, and that particular subsection of a rather lengthy statute doesn't provide anything further at that point relative to the board's approving the budget amendment. Now, we're talking here about meeting payroll and a specific statute, which addresses meeting payroll and talks about the -- again, talks about the reserve for contingencies, again says it's in the discretion of the sheriff, but has additional language providing for a budget amendment which may be approved by the board, which would seem to indicate discretion. So a bright line I won't give you, but I will say that there are arguments to be n1ade either way. And I will not tell you that the sheriff has an absolute opportunity for these -- for these funds through the sub -- section 30.49, sub 6, because there's another provision, 30.50, sub 4, which appears to provide some conflict. There's no case law on this that I am aware, and to that extent, it's a little bit uncharted water. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I love uncharted water. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do have you any other questions? Page 23 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two questions. I just want to make sure I understand something correctly. Eight million dollars was spent on overtime last year by the sheriffs office. We -- the sheriffs department became fully staffed during this year, and there is a budget, approved budget, for $6.3 million in overtime next year. What does fully staffed mean and when does it ever get to the point where overtime isn't reaching into the multi millions of dollars every year? MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, I can try to handle that. Unfortunately, or fortunately -- I guess I should start that way -- you need to look at not just the totality of the dollars, because it's also a function of the rate of pay for the members. So as you do have increasing wage rates, you might actually have a reduction in the hours worked, but the dollars are going to stay in similar amounts. Now, as I indicated on Tuesday, we did start to see a reduction in the last couple pay periods of the August and September until we had the impact of the hurricane. And I will tell you having Jeanne out there scares me again, because if that hits, that's still this fiscal year. And if we have to go multiple shifts, we're going to see some increases in overtime. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you should be -- you should get reimbursed from FEMA. MS. KINZEL: But, Commissioner, that doesn't happen till about six months later. I still need this money up front to pay payroll and pay salary. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And will we get it back? MS. KINZEL: Yes. You will get it back as the Board of County Commissioners, because any reimbursement that's received subsequent to September 30 comes directly back to the board. And Page 24 September 23, 2004 that's how it worked through Hurricane Andrew and that's how it worked through Hurricane Georges, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Under those circumstances you're talking about a cash flow problem. You're not talking about a budgeting problem, okay. So if we're going to get the money back, it's not a budgeting issue as far as I'm concerned, because it nets out to zero. My question is, are you going to still incur $6.3 million in overtime next year, even though you are currently now fully staffed? MS. KINZEL: I would hope we would start to see the reduction in overtime as those fully hired individuals become fully trained individuals and are able to take the full capacity of each position that they have. SHERIFF HUNTER: But the answer to the commissioner's question is, yes, that's our prediction. That's what we've budgeted, Commissioner Coyle. The 6.3 I believe you quoted, is what we've budgeted based upon our experience and our information. There's quite a bit of unpredictability; the orange alerts that affect us, a red alert. A level red alert under the domestic security programs would cause us to do things differently, and we would entail overtime. But what we have been suffering from, as has been accurately depicted to the board, is that now we are at full staffing, but we still have members in the academy being prepared to take positions in the agency and fill posts, and until they are available, we'll continue to pay overtime for that post. And that -- some of that will continue to occur regardless of whether we are fully staffed or not, in as much as we can't simply walk away from a crime scene, for instance. If we're at the end of a pay period and we have members out investigating a homicide scene, we don't permit them to relinquish control of that scene and then go home and come back the next day to begin that investigation over again. You can't do that, in fact, as a matter of principle and practice, Page 25 September 23, 2004 otherwise you have destroyed the investigation. So this is based upon the experience of the agency that we've attempted to predict what the overtime budget will be this new ensuing year, and that is our number at this time, our best guess. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, as I understand the reason that the board postponed a decision on this issue on Tuesday is because Commissioner Henning asked for the eight-year comparison of how those reserve budgets, particularly, I think, in the insurance category were calculated. Did somebody get those eight -year proj ections? SHERIFF HUNTER: And that's what Director Kinzel began the meeting with explaining to Commissioner Henning what our experience has been. But I think it requires a -- that's going to require a workshop, I believe, in order for you to see the whole picture. We can do a broad brush, quick discussion on it, but I believe that you need more information. What this issue simply is, is you approved positions in this year's fiscal year, the fiscal year we're currently in, last September. We were able to fill those positions. You also approved a reserve in the event that we fill those positions partially, and for any other budgeted expenses of the agency, and we're simply asking that we draw down on a part of that reserve for -- as a consequence of filling the positions and retaining the members that were already there. And so it doesn't really -- it doesn't spill over into health benefits and the health plan, though we're prepared to talk about that. I see this -- I see it as two separate issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sheriff Hunter, I really was wondering whether or not our staff had seen the information and had the chance to review it and were they, in fact, in agreement with the appropriateness of these calculations. SHERIFF HUNTER: On the health plan? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The self-insurance fund. Page 26 ^'~.......--'_.-- September 23, 2004 MR. MUDD: Sir, I saw the information for the first time on the slide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That was my question. I wanted to know if we had had sufficient time to look at it and analyze it and see if we agreed with it, because at the time we were having the discussion on Tuesday, there appeared to be a substantial disagreement between the staff and the sheriffs office about how those should be calculated and how much reserves should be held there, and that hasn't been resolved yet. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, no. Actually I believe we've spoken to that point. The one point that was made, at last -- at the last meeting, which was that the 1.89 million, the $1.9 million is an encumbered number. It is not unrestricted. It represents a reserve fund -- reserve fund for the health plan, and hopefully we've answered that question. Those were expenses of the agency, legal expenses of the agency, that have been encumbered and are not available to use as some offset or reserve for purposes that we're discussing this evening. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1-- Sheriff Hunter, I think it's more complex than that, but I think you're probably right. But until the staff has a chance to analyze it, I'm going to refrain from making a final decision as far as I'm concerned on this issue. But, you know, if I could, Madam Chair, let me take you back a couple of years, and it was our practice to bring forward every department in government and examine the heads of each of those departments, cross-examine thel11 on their budget and their expenditures. And generally, what happened was, we got nowhere with that, and we changed our policy, and instead we started giving people budget guidelines. And as a result of that, we have substantially reduced the cost increases in government. For the first time in many, many years, we were able to achieve reductions in government without sacrificing Page 27 September 23, 2004 efficiency. As a matter of fact, it seems to have improved it. Since the year 2000, in a period of five years, the sheriffs budget has doubled. We cannot tell the sheriff how to run his department. There's nobody here qualified to do that. I think the sheriffs -- Sheriff Hunter does an excellent job of running his department. I think we have a good sheriffs department in Collier County. And as the sheriff has pointed out to us in correspondence, he has a duty to outline what he thinks is necessary to perform his responsibilities in Collier County. No\v, we have a duty to do what we think is necessary to assure that taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately and that there is budget restraint, there are controls of expenditures, and that expenditures do not increase at an ever increasing rate year after year after year. We established the budget guidance. It applied to all of the constitutional officers and to all of our departments, and it worked quite well for everyone except the sheriffs department. And in effect, if we continue with this, we will have to, as the sheriff has pointed out, establish a millage rate that meets the needs of law enforcement, which means \ve're being requested to increase taxes ultimately. I have a serious concern with this. As I've said, the sheriffs budget has increased from the $59 million in the year 2000 to $119 million for FY -2005. Those are remarkable increases. And I do not see how Collier County government can continue to pay those kinds of increases, bu t I would not be concerned with doing that to this point were I to see any possibility that this escalation of costs wou 1d ever stop, and I don't see any possibility that it will ever happen. We're being asked not only for more money for this fiscal year, we're being asked for more money for next fiscal year, and we're told that the increases are likely to be just as great as they were this year. And I -- I would like to make a motion that we give the sheriff Page 28 "---,-~-~' September 23, 2004 his $2.5 million for the additional salaries that he has for staffing this year and that we take it out of next year's budget. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that will be my motion. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? I registered to speak, and I am an attorney representing the sheriff. And before there's a vote on the motion, I would like to n1ake a few comments because I understand the motion is to take this 2.5 million out of the '05/'06, or '04/'05 budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Out of the next fiscal year. MR. WEIGEL: Would you like Mr. Smykowski to clarify or I will attenlpt to. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. The budget amendn1ent would be approved from fiscal year '04 reserves for $2.5 million, and then, if I understand your motion correctly, Commissioner Coyle, the proposed budget for the sheriff in fiscal year '05 would be reduced during our public hearing discussion by a like a n10unt -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as an offset to that $2 and a half million hit to our FY-'04 reserve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's your second as well, right? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. SENATOR SAUNDERS: And Madam Chair, I would like to address th e board, if I ¡night, in reference to -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Your name for the record, please. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Yes. My name is Burt Saunders. I'm an attorney with the Gray Robinson law firm with offices at 1100 South Fifth Avenue, Fifth Avenue South in Naples. I think that -- I want to kind of get us back to the issue that's at Page 29 September 23, 2004 hand. I think Mr. Weigel was correct in some of his analysis in terms of what the statute says. I kind of disagree in his ulti1nate conclusion. He and I marked the same sections, which I think is kind of interesting. My conclusion is that if you read chapter 39 in its totality, that it's clear that during the fiscal year if the sheriff needs additional operating funds, that he shall come to the county and ask for those reserves and the county shall provide those reserves. There's nothing ambiguous about the word shall in that statute. And so when your attorney says, well, I think we'd give this a 50/50 chance of prevailing, I would disagree. I don't think the county has any chance of prevailing on the issue of whether the sheriffhas the legal authority to come to the county commission and ask for money out of reserves that have been set aside for his operations in order to meet shortfalls in his operation. That, to me, is crystal clear. And I would hope that the county would not want to litigate an issue like that. So we've been here -- the reason I'm here today is because I was retained by the sheriff in years past on the same issue as to the discretion of the county commission to spend those reserves at the written request of the sheriff. And you don't have any discretion. I hate to say that. As a former member of the county con1ffiission, I know how difficult that is for a commissioner to accept. But the reality is that the sheriff needs $2.5 million to fund his personnel expenses in the '03/'04 budget, the current cycle that we're in. And he's come to you with a lawful request pursuant to the statute to ask for that. The only issue that you have this evening is what reserve fund you take those out of. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, the motion's already on the floor, Mr. Saunders -- SENATOR SAUNDERS: I understand the motion's on the floor. Page 30 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to give him the money. SENATOR SAUNDERS: But the motion is to give him that money out of next year's reserve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. We're going to give it to him out of this year -- SENATOR SAUNDERS: Did I misunderstand that-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but we expect him to make it up out of next year's. SENATOR SAUNDERS: If that's the motion, then I apologize, because I misunderstood that. I thought the motion was to take it out of the '04/'05 reserves that you're going to deal with now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is no reserves in '04/'05. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me clarify that, Mr. Saunders. To me the issue seems to be very, very clear. We recognize that the sheriff has hired people and he owes salaries, and that amounts to 2.5 million, and I'm happy to give him the 2.5 million. The sheriffs departITIent has also budgeted $6.3 million in overtime for next year. If next year's budget were reduced by the $2.5 million and that happened to con1e out of overtime, which I certainly hope it would, ultimately, it would still need $3.8 million for overtime for next year. And so I don't see that this should create a hardship for the sheriff doing it this way. It gets everybody where they want to go, and it keeps us out of litigation. Because I can tell you my personal feeling is that I will not increase ad valorem property taxes in Collier County unless somebody in Tallahassee or a judge makes 1TIe do it. I am going to be forced kicking and screaming to that decision. I will not do it. The people in Collier County are taxed enough. And instead of -- and if I q note from the correspondence, the Collier County Board of Commissioners establishing a millage rate Page 31 ~-~"- September 23, 2004 that meets the needs of law enforcement, I would prefer to establish a millage rate that meets the needs of the taxpayers of Collier County, and that's where I'm going. And I have been a very strong supporter of the sheriff. I have sponsored the resolution to support his efforts to coordinate the INS and FBI and federal and state law enforcement agencies. I sponsored the resolution to support the Patriot Act, which helps him do a better job of protecting us. I have been very supportive of the sheriffs department throughout my tenure on this board. Our only disagreement is that I believe that there must be an end to these drastic increases in expenditures, and the sheriff bel ieves that we should increase the taxes to meet his requirements. And there is a fundamental disagreement, and I am not backing down and I don't care if it takes a court case or if it goes to the cabinet and the governor. I an1 going to hold to that position. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: So your answer to the question was, the 2.5 million is coming out of the reserves for now, but then you expect it to be paid back, by \vhatever 111eans, back into the reserves when the 2005 budget comes in; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That was the answer to your question. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted a clarification on the n10tion. I understand now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do we have any other sp -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I explain -- can I explain that a little bit better? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the issue is, we have it in reserve, we're going to give to the sheriff. And just an FYI, oh, by the Page 32 ^,.....""_.__..'".~ September 23, 2004 way, in 2005, we're expecting to decrease it when we get in a discussion under the budget. So it's not a makeup. Just to make that clear, it's not a makeup. We're going to give him the reserves. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Now we have a motion on the floor and a second. Do we have any speakers? MS. STONE: No. That was your only registered speaker. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we have Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas waiting. Did you have something else to add here? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm somewhat befuddled, I guess you'd say. When the sheriff can1e before us and said that he needed to have additional people to ralnp up for the future, I would assume -- anyway, that's how I assumed it would be, it would be ramping up for the future needs. It seems to me as though the sheriff said, I need these many people and all of a sudden, now I'm in a crisis situation. I've got to pay all this overtime. Normally in the corporate world when you look at what your needs are for manpower in the future, you say -- you basically come up with a budget and you look and you say, because of the fact that we have other items coming online or whatever, we're going to need X amount of manpower. But what you do is you live within that budget and you don't go hog-wild on overtime. And it seems to me that as soon as we gave him the ability to start to hire those people, then it became a crisis situation where we spent twice the amount for overtime. So I have a real concern to that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: COlnmissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I share your concerns. And Commissioner Coyle, I think you put it together for us so it really expressed our feelings. Page 33 September 23, 2004 Three of the comlnissioners here that were elected in 2000, when we came aboard, the sheriffs department was having a great amount of difficulty, and we supported them 100 percent. We had tremendous budget increases. It was absolutely necessary to bring the deputies up to parity. We wanted to do it. We wanted to make sure that our deputies were provided for. We wanted to make sure that it was fully staffed. We wanted to make sure that all the equipment that they needed to operate, and wasn't getting in the previous budget, was going to be there. However, this can't continue forever. We're now fully staffed, or close to fully staffed, and it seems like there's no end. And we've got -- we're hearing from the sheriffs department that the budget increases are going to be equally big in years to come. It's like there's no end, there's no controls to it. So I think this is the point in time where everybody has to sit down at the table early on and come up with a reasonable Inethod to be able to come up with how we're going to handle the next budget. I don't want to have to go through this every single year. There's got to be some better nexus to it. I think there's got to be a way to be able to audit this that 'vvill bring it closer to the county's control so that we can start to be able to analyze this thing by our numbers that we get in front of us. Mr. Mudd, have you got any ideas on this point? MR. MUDD: COlnmissioners, what we'll do is we'll sit down early with the -- with the issue. I thought this year when the board said, here's your previous piece of the ad valorem dollars, and then based on the new assessed rates and the new construction rates -- and ours turned out to be about 11.8 percent increase this year. Of that 11.8 perccnt increase, you receive that percentage last year, plus you receive that percentage of the new increase, and that way it pretty much keeps everybody -- it keeps you millage neutral, Page 34 -'-'~" ---,--..,.,.- September 23, 2004 that's for sure, and it lays that out. And we'll go through that with Ray Ferver (phonetic) and work through it with everybody. You'll notice on the 28th of September agenda, which you received today, the -- there's an item in there to basically ask for the budgets to be brought in a n10nth early. And you have a resolution to approve for that. And that will give us additional time, because there was a lot of people that said it didn't have enough -- it didn't have enough vetting in the public -- in the public sector for the budget, even though we had three workshops and \vhatnot, and this will give it about two -- two months before the workshops are there that the budgets will be out, and then folks can take a look at that and we can analyze it. So we're trying to do everything we can to move up the budget process at least a month early, and we can work through that again based on percentages or whatnot that the board wants to do with the budget guidance. But we'll meet with everybody prior to that. SHERIFF HUNTER: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Let me just ask Commissioner Coletta, was that -- is that what you were looking for? Are you through? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's getting closer to it. Yesterday when we were talking about the representative for the clerk's office, he mentioned the fact that he wasn't responsible for the sheriffs budget, for critiquing it, so that must mean that we are; is that correct? MR. MUDD: Sir, you -- you set the sheriffs budget. He submits it and then you approve it or you disapprove it or whatever, and there's a set -- there's a set process that goes out, that's laid out in the statutes that basically says, the sheriff submits it, the board -- the board can approve it, n10dify it. At which time the sheriff, if he disagrees with it, he can say that he's going to appeal that pmiicular case, and then at that time, the Page 35 September 23, 2004 county does a by-item deletion, okay, to justify the cut by the Board of County Commissioners. And that critique then goes up and forms a basis for, let's call it a dispute resolution for lack of better terms, up in the Board of Trustees in Tallahassee, in that debate, and they basically serve as the referee or judge on the budget in the benefits of the arguments that are basically putout. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sheriff Hunter, Commissioner Halas, are you waiting to answer -- ask a question also? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, but I'll wait-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Sheriff? SHERIFF HUNTER: I was just going to make a couple of points that I think may help the board, I hope will help the Board of Commissioners. A number of -- several points I'd like to make first before I do that, because I have a couple of recommendations I'd like the board to consider. But first, Conmlissioner Coyle especially, and Commissioner Coletta, I believe made a point of the year 2000 when you came aboard. Commissioner Halas's point some time back was that we had doubled the budget -- I think 140 percent, Commissioner Halas -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir. SHERIFF HUNTER: -- I believe was the number, and Commissioner Coyle also n1ade reference to the fact that we've at least doubled since 2000. Commissioner Coletta made the very strong and important point that this board, elements of it, and since 2000 all of it, have been very supportive of law enforcement and of the sheriffs office, and I think because of that we've been very successful. Not successful enough. Because as I said before, we have still in excess of 7,000 victims Page 36 ,_...,,~ ....~-,--..,.~._~.. September 23, 2004 in Collier County. We want to do better than that. But the fact is that the budget increases are a -- is a blend of a number of different features that affect the agency, and it has a lot to do with the remarkable salary adjustments that were made to the agency and all constitutional officers, as well as board member-- board member department, back in 2000/2001, phased in over a period of time, in order to bring Collier County into a competitive posture with this region because we -- I can't believe this is happening again. The consultant study -- the consultants retained by the board have demonstrated that Collier County was not competitive. So, again, my point is that \ve are seeing budget increases. It has to do with a lot of different features, and I remind the board that productivity study groups went over to the board of -- over to the sheriffs office on an annual basis to study the sheriffs office budget and to study the overtime budget, and they have always reported back in a positive fashion to the Board of County Commissioners, because they have taken the time to understand what the dynamics are involved within that budget. And I strongly encourage and welcome the county commissioners' involvement in the agency budget, asking questions throughout the course of the year. We have nothing that we're holding back here. This is a publish -- public document. And in that light, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask that the agency have, at your direction, the ability to meet monthly with your staff and -- to discuss budget issues far -- \vell before we submit our budget document for the next ensuing year -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don, because you're going in and out and we're getting this loud buzzing noise, let me just see if I understood what you just said. I understood you to say that you would like to meet with staff once a month to discuss budget so that at the time that the budget is actually applied for, submitted, that you will have been working with Page 37 September 23, 2004 staff all along and have a better handle on it; is that correct? SHERIFF HUNTER: The only -- the only amendment to that was staff and at least one seated commissioner appointed by the chair so that the commission is directly involved in these discussions on a monthly basis, and it could be budget issues. And we may have no issues in a given month, but I'd like to create that feature. CHAIRMAN FIALA: C0111missioners, how do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that would be something we would bring back for discussion on a regular agenda. But I think it's got merit to it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'm not necessarily saying we have to have a workshop each month. But I would definitely like to meet with a cOl11illission member and staff on a monthly basis to discuss any issues that you may have or where you may have some concern. The other element of this is I want you to be reassured, Commissioners, that the productivity study groups that have studied the agency and staff who have been specifically hired to study the agency over the course of the last 20 years that I've been here have consistently reported positively back to the board. As I said, the increase is what it is. I can't change that. We've responded to our environment, we've responded to the board, board concerns, constituent concerns throughout the county, and we have tried to put before the commission each year a responsible and reasonable budget. There are individual nuances and elements within that budget that can be explained. It is a -- it does take time to understand it, however. The second feature that I'd like to propose or make the board aware of, number one, the outside auditors, the independent auditors that are hired by and retained by the board each year, audit the Page 38 September 23, 2004 sheriffs office, and you'll find nothing remarkable or exceptional there in those audits. They always give us a good, clean audit. We do not have exceptions. I'm quite proud of that fact, and I don't believe that some of the representations that have been made over the last several days are quite accurate about the sheriffs office. Weare an open agency subject to the san1e public records laws as you and to your independent auditors that come in and audit us. I've also explored with our Clerk of Courts, Dwight Brock, the possibility and the feasibility of an independent audit from his agency to reassure the board that we are performing as expected and performing as required under best practices, and he has assured me that, with the approval of the board, he would perform that for me. So I'm going to be l11aking that request of him and asking him to perform an audit. Because \vhat I would like to have, Commissioner Coyle, is your absolute, complete confidence, and Con1111issioner Halas, especially, I would like to have your confidence that you understand how we put the budget together, where it's going, the fact that the productivity study groups have had absolutely no heartburn. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sheriff Hunter, I hate to interrupt you, but this is getting to be a rather lengthy discussion about something that we should be discussing under an agenda item. Right now we're just trying to -- we've already got a motion on the floor and a second, we've got two con1missioners waiting to talk -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and time is kind of dragging on. So if you don't mind, 1'111 going to rein it in and have Commissioner Halas ask his question, then Commissioner Coy Ie. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I changed my question. Since I've been so hard on the sheriff, I'd like to be the commissioner that sits on that board. Page 39 September 23,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We'll discuss that at the workshop -- or at the board, board meeting. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've forgotten what my question was. I probably said enough already. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? COJ\1MISSIC)NER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner -- what is your name -- Halas opposed. Four yeses and Commissioner Halas opposed. Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Looks like we'll be bringing that back as an agenda item to discuss t1-:c suggestion from Sheriff Hunter about -- and so far it looks like we a11 think it's a great idea, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No? Okay. MR. MUDD: But I'll bring it back for a discussion item-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. MR. MUDD: -- and I'll do it during discussion at the next meeting, ~1nd then we can get into it. CHAIR1\1AN FIALA: Okay. Very good. That's a good time. Okay. That's it on this one? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Page 40 ...-.-----.'.« September 23,2004 This brings us to the final budget public hearing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what, our court reporter really needs to have her 10 minutes, and before we get into the next segment, let us give her 10 lninutes, okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. (A brief recess was had.) Item #2A DISCUSSION OF FY 05 MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we'll resume our meeting to discuss the budget. MR. MUDD: Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Michael SI11ykowski, budget director. The first iten1 on our advertised public hearing to finalize the fiscal ye3r 2004/'05 budget is a discussion of the FY-'05 millage rates and the inc1"c8se over the rolled back rates, and that is spelled out in statute, th3t the first substantive issue discussed shall be the percent increase ovcr the ll1illage rate -- over the rolled back rate necessary to fund the budget. CHA TRMAN FIALA: That's when you read us all of this stuff, Mike? MR. l\1UDD: No, ma'am. We're going to -- yes, that's what he normally docs, but we're going to try to make this a little bit better for everybody. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Page 41 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to read it together. MR. MUDD: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll just look at it. MR. MUDD: On the slide I have the Collier County, Florida, property tax rates for FY-'05 proposed, and I'm going to blow it up a little bit so that everybody out there can see it. Okay, Michael? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. At the very top is the two principal operating funds that are on a countywide basis. The general fund is a proposed tax rate of 3.8772 n1ills. That is the same tax rate as last year. There is no increase in the millage rate, and that is the same tax rate that has been levied since fiscal year '02 and is an eight percent increase over the rolled back rate. The water pollution control fund, as the general fund, is the same millage rate as that levied in fiscal year '04. It's .0347 mills, an 8.1 percent increase over the rolled back rate for future replacement of expensive lab equipment to avoid millage spikes in the future. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mike, I'll make my normal commercial announcement at this point in time, that the rolled back millage rate is still confusing, and I would advise the viewers to ignore it. The tax rate is not changing. The rolled back rate is what it would be if the property values hadn't increased; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSI(I: That is COlTect. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Property values did increase. We have nothing to do about that. But the adopted millage rate stays exactly the same, zero percent change. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You lmow, maybe instead of saying rolled b3ck, you could say if the l11illage rates stayed the same, or if the taxes stayed the same. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the property valuations -- property va lues stayed the same, it would be. But it is really Page 42 September 23, 2004 confusing, and it is meaningless, because it's dealing with a fictitious figure that doesn't represent reality. But I know you have to do it because of statute. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. The statute forces you to express the percent increase over that arbitrary rolled back millage rate figure, but I also have an overhead that, once we finish going through these, that is a little nlore user friendly that shows what last year's tax rate was, what the proposed tax rate is for the upcolning fiscal year, and what the change in dollar impact per $100,000 of taxable value is. I think from a layperson -- and it will be much more readily understandable, and they can obvious I y apply it to their own situation at home, depending on the taxable value of their individual residence. Continuing on. The next group of -- are largely MSTUs, municip81 service taxing units, that are largely taxes that individual neighborhoods have elected -- where they've come and petitioned the board and requested to levy additional ad valorem taxes for services above and beyond those that are provided by the county on a county\vide basis. These are typically very localized in nature. They're largely drainage Í111proven1ents, beautification districts spread tl:roughout the county, Lely, In1n10kalee, Golden Gate, with varying degrees of increase. The percent increases over the rolled back rate are fairly substantial in SOllle cases on a percentage basis, but that can be somewhat l11isleading too, because in son1e of these MSTUs you're talking 8bout levying $3,500, and you n1ight be levying $5,000 in '05. So you know, where you're talking about a large percentage increase, you may be only talking about an order of magnitude of$1,500. The other thing I'd like to point out within the context of these MSTUs is that a lot of them are governed by citizen advisory committees as well that bring forth a budgetary recommendation each year and nlake millage recomn1endations in conjunction with county staff. So these, again, are scnlbbed at the local level, kind of the most Page 43 ^.~---~.... -...---- September 23, 2004 local of our -- of the taxing districts. For example, you have a Lely Golf Estates Beautification that levies two mills. That is solely a narrow area within Lely district itself. You also have fire districts. There are three: Ochopee, Collier County Fire, and Isles of Capri Fire. They levy a constant millage. The beautification districts largely levy a constant millage as recommended by that advisory committee to continue improvements and/or maintenance within those beautification districts. So, again, while there may be a percent increase over the rolled back rate, those are largely governed by citizen advisory committees that have put their imprimada, or seal of approval on the proposed millage in working with the staff in developing this budget for the upcomIng year. Overall there's an aggregate millage rate of 4.7949 mills, which is a blended rate of a 11 the various taxing districts, and that is an increase of7.9 percent above the rolled back rate. And Mr. Mudd, if you would, you could change this out. And this, I think, will be a little n10re user friendly, with the exception of the size of the type. The MSTUs serve us well in ten11S of allocating dollars and only charging those who specifically benefit from those additional services, but when it comes time to reading the l11illage resolutions and/or discussing the nU111ber of various districts, they make it somewhat cumbersome. But to a large degree, what you see -- what you see in front of you is tl1at the principal taxing districts of the county, which are the general fund, which is levied on a countywide basis and is paid by all residents of Collier County, again, is -- the millage rate is staying the same as that levied in the prior year. That also is true for the unincorporated area of the county. The unincorporated area general fund serves the large group of population Page 44 September 23, 2004 in Collier County that is not in a municipality. Of the 300,000 plus citizens in Collier County, the number of residents within the municipalities is relatively small. The City of Naples is probably 20-, 25,000; Marco, about 15,000; then Everglades City 6- to 800. So Collier County is the principal service provider in the unincorporated area in the county. The only other thing of order of n1agnitude, there is a large dollar increase, the Sabal Palm Road MSTU. That was a new tax levy this year. It's over two rnills, or the equivalent of $215 per $100,000 of value, and that is for some roadvvay n1aintenance. And Ms. Flagg and the transportation staff have worked exclusively and in conjunction with the residents who brought forth that request to maintain that roadway to a better degree in terms of maintenance and necessitating. There was son1e prior year fund balance that was available that is being spent this year for the lin1e rock road maintenance, and I know Commissioner Coletta was involved in that as well. That was the other major increase of note within that section. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE Further amendl11ents to the tentative budget, item 2B. They are relatively few. Page one -- what we've done for the benefit of the board and the public, there is a three to four-page synopsis of all of the changes that have been n1ade since the tentative budget was released in July. The general fund changed slightly for the $4,500 for the guardian ad litem program that was funded fron1 reserves at the first budget hearing. That's in bold. Page 45 --'~ >'-"'---" September 23, 2004 What we've done, we've replicated all the changes so that you see a comprehensive list of all the changes, again, from that July initial release of the budget. Anything in bold is a change from our first public hearing, and those are actually few and far between. The miscellaneous grants funds. There was a grant from the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida to provide homeowner education progran1s in Immokalee for $10,000. The other principal change -- changes on page two involve our road impact fee districts \vhere we're reassessing where we're at with projects and also updating in1pact fee forecasts based on actual receipts. Obviously we're very near the end of the fiscal year. It's much easier to project how n1uch revenue will be received in the -- in the various impact fee districts when you're two weeks -- within two weeks of the close of the fiscal year as opposed to, when the budget was created, \ve're doing these projections in April. And obviously there's been a large impact as well due to the policy decision on PUDs where they have to pay 50 percent of those impact fees up front. So we're seeing the benefit of that change as well in terms of additional revenues -- road impact fee revenues, and we've adjusted the budget accordingly. Item #2C With th1t, that would take us to iten1 2C, budget discussion items. The one item that was on your list was UFR lists, and I'm going to turn to Mr. Mudd for that discussion. We also have a follow-up on the discussion relative to the juvenile assessment center. Bllt first, Mr. Mudd willlead us through a discussion on the UFR lists. MR. MUDD: Comn1issioners, if you -- if you take a look at your Page 46 September 23, 2004 -- it's item 2C, page one, there's available funds at this particular juncture of $86,000 in the general fund. There's a certain list of items that are on that page and that list. And I would -- I would ask with the minimal number of dollars that at least we get SOl11e discussion upon two of those particular items at this particular tin1e, and that's the guardian ad litem number. You heard a petition frol11, at the last hearing, at the last budget hearing that we had, about $12,000 or $11,000. We're state nlandated for about $4,500, and Mr. Smykowski has put that in our budget, and he showed you that line during the changes. What's left of that particular request is $6,600, and I would recommend to the board that you approve that particular item, or that amount ofnl0ney to go into the budget and off of the unfinanced requirement 1 ist. And the other item that I would like to get some discussion on -- because \vc're about ready to get back into the legislative side of the house again -- is the last itenl on that list that talks about lobbyists. We had a lobbyist for one year. We didn't have a lobbyist last year. And I didn't -- and it nlight not be that total amount. I just \vant to get an idea if the board would like to maybe not have s0111ebody that's on penl1anent, but if when the board members go to Tallahassee and we get there to l11ake -- to get -- you know, to go to the, so to speak, the hill, \vhen \ve go to Tallahassee, that that person can be there, help us get into the doors of some people that aren't our -- \ve have no problen1s \vith our local representatives at all. They're ahvays there. Heck, they're always here for us, okay? They're in the offices of this building. It's \vhen you get there and you have to get the chair of the appropriations cOll1mittee or you need to go see the speaker of the house or you need to see the president of the Senate and whatnot, things get a little dicey, and they do have the ability to somehow break through those calendars that you can't touch if you're just an individual Page 47 September 23,2004 calling. So I just wanted to see what the board would like to do on this lobbyist particular item, because I've heard some dialogue between different members on the dais about it, and I just want to know what your direction is, and do you want to move that forward? CHAIRMAN FIALA: COlnn1issioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the guardian ad litem is a request that this board can fund, and I encourage my colleagues to fund this progran1. The lobbyist and hold-handing of the board members up there, the staff of our delegation is more than willing to make appointments in other offices, their colleagues, in Tallahassee. We just need to figure out \vhat our issues are and go for them. And now, there are certain issues that we might need a lobbyist, but we don't knO\V what that is. We don't know if we do have a special issue to go for. So -- but there is a -- sOlnething that I think that ultimately can save the Board of Comnlissioners a lot of money, and that is with the purchasing department, have sOlnebody to oversee the contracts, manage the contracts. In f0ct, in 2001, we saved over $1.7 million in contracts. And I know that -- and vv-e all know what kind of capital improvement mode we're in. And I want to -- we all sai d we want to be responsive -- responsib 1 ~ for these contracts that we let, whether it be a road project, a waste\vater or potable \vater or \vhat. And I think this -- this position will bring us back money, and those arc the things that we should be funding. So I urge n1Y colleagues to fund the position for purchasing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't see it on here. Where is that? MR. MUDD: Ma'an1, it's -- there's two positions under central contract administration section for $108,300, and that's -- and that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll just fund one of them. Pagç 48 ._....--. _._..~."'---~--"-"--' .-._-~" - .---_.--- September 23, 2004 MR. MUDD: And there's a total of two positions there, so it's basically if you just divide it by t\vo. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Conlll1issioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner Henning, I can agree with you on the purchasing agent to be able to oversee the contract. I think that that scrutiny is extremely important as we move forward, cspecial1y as busy as this county is. I would like us to give son1e consideration to a lobbyist. Not so much a lobbyist that \ve give $60,000 to with no clear direction, but $60,000 that \vould be set aside for the board to be able to allot to the right person at the right tin1e if needed. A Iso, too, that could include such things as possibly putting into the pot to help out the M PO with their lobbying efforts, their national lobbying efforts, or the Florida Association of Counties where they may need some slnall additional funds. With that set to one side, we could dnl\v from that or \vhatever else is necessary on an as-need basis. CHAIRMAN FIALA: COlnnlissioner Coyle? C01VIMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we only have $86,000, right? CO~1MISSIONER I-IALAS: Yeah, 86,000. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What I \vould -- what I would recommend is you have this discussion. And you know, if I did the numbers right now, that Ineans you'd be setting about 20,000 aside for the lobbyist or for a lobbying effort or whenever you need it on that . . 1 partIClJ 1 a r -- CO~/IMISSIONER COLETTA: And I -- and to me, that would probably be more than adequate. l'n1 not looking at something where we have to have somebody on the payroll. MR. MUDD: C0111nlissioners, I will also tell you that you are-- we are going to get turn back, okay? We get it every year, okay? We kind of h1ve an idea of \vhat it's going to be. We don't know what it's Pac,-c 49 ::::; September 23, 2004 going to be exactly, and \ve won't know that for a month when you finally get your checks back fron1 the different constitutional officers when you get there. Nonnally the turn back is a little bit more than what we had projected. It just happens to be that way. It's a rare occasion when it's less. Vie can -- we can hope -- we can basically allocate the 86,000 or thereabollts in here, and then when that turn back comes back, I'll have Mr. Smyko\vski tell you \vhat the differences are, and then if there's dollars in there that would, you know, come up to this, then we can go back at this list again outside of those three items, if that would be okay with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't want to stop the discus~ion yet on this issue. But I -- I've always been opposed to spending nloney on lobbyists until I -- we went up there for govemnlent day and I sa\v how effective they were getting us in to see people and Inaking sure we had enough time to spend talking with the appropriate legislators about the issues. Sn I agree, we should have SOlne money allocated to lobbying activities, because it does n1ake our time up there a lot more efficient and it ~ets us \vhere we \vant to go a lot faster. And so I would support sonle money for lobbying activities, but I agree we need to control it a I ittle better than, perhaps, has been the case in the past. I \vould like to ask one final question. It sounds good to say we're going to centralize contract adn1inistration. I'm not sure I underst1nd exactly what that means, but it was sort of my underst..nding that we had people \vho managed these contracts. IV' !~. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMl\1ISSIONER COYLE: And I don't quite understand the difference here. MR. MUDD: When we did the implementation plan for contr8ctin~ to make it better, we ll1ade several changes in the way we Pa ue 50 ~ .-.-.----., September 23, 2004 do contracts, the way you do the RFPs, the way you check them, the verbiage and everything else. In Mr. Carnell's shop, Mr. Carnell is woefully understaffed. And I will tell you -- and I believe the clerk had added Mr. Abbott and Dr. Carter at one time to look at the contracts in his particular shop, and I think Mr. Abbott still does that. Tn~y have also found that it's very -- the contracts are large, large documents. And \ve would like to be able to have in our agency people th~1t are totally dedicated to those particular contracts in the contracting agency that are totally fan1iliar with the contracts and so that they basical1y shepherd those from cradle to grave and they know every nuance that's in there so that the contractors, or people that we do business for services, that nothing falls through the crack and we catch every nU:lnce in the particular contract. \'1 e do our best to nlake sure that that doesn't happen. For instanc", Mr. Brock did an audit of Project Integration and found that they harl subnlitted bills and found $107,000 that they had overbilled us, okay, and \vas able to get that. Well, that's one -- that's one instance. He's not -- he's not staffed to do tl;~:t for every contract -- every contractor. This way we get eyes on everv one of those -- C('MMISSIONERHALAS: Yep. MR. MUDD: -- and to n1ake sure that nobody's trying to put the wool over 0111' eyes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand that. But are you tell i'lg 111e that \ve don't have son1ebody in charge of every one of these contracts no\'/? ]ViR. MLOD: Sir, you have a project manager, okay, out in the transpoliation and -- or in public lltilities or in facilities. But you don't have the kind of scrutiny you need to look at those contracts from a legal snst1inable nlanner like \ve should. You just don't have it. I JllCan, I can look up what ]\1r. Carnell's staffing is right now, but Page 51 September 23, 2004 I will tell you, my last organization that I worked -- and I had 26 people in contracting, okay, working these particular issues, and my capital budget was nothing like the capital budget that you have in the county right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we do have some people looking at these contracts. The problem is, there are so many of them out there that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we've got a lot of them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you can't -- you can't watch everything. And I just think that we can do a better job. MR. MUDD: Plus, Commissioner, you want to do better specs, okay? I will tell you, when you're doing -- when you're doing large projects -- you know, we have this -- we have these generic contracts that were done for us by Mr. Necterline (phonetic), an attorney office, an outside attorney office that we've employed from time to time. He's taking a look at some of those, we call them boiler plate contracts. They don't necessarily fit everything though. And in some particular cases, they're woefully -- they're woefully short. And I -- when I first got to public utilities, I watched project managers make contracts, actually build a contract document. And I go, you're doing what? He says, I'm building the contract for this contract that we're going to put out for bid. I go, you're doing it? I mean, you should be giving it to a contract specialist that does this for a living, but you're doing it off a boilerplate, and they said, yes. That's the way we do it here. I scratched my head a lot and asked a lot of questions, and I go, that's a novel approach, but with the larger projects that you have, you run into some issues. And if we're going to, for instance, in transportation -- you know, we've come under lots of criticism from the public because we cut a contract with a boilerplate and we give them a certain period of time Page 52 September 23, 2004 in order to do the contract, and it just so happens that the contractor's busy for eight months of the two-year period that he's got to build the road, and the rest of the time he's sitting around doing nothing. Well, he's busy for the first two months, he's doing nothing for a year and a half, and then he finally gets going at the end of the contract so he doesn't get himself in liquidated damages. If you want to do some things like -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. MUDD: -- put deliverables in those particular contracts at certain times to make sure that you can lessen the amount of -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Downtime. MR. MUDD: -- well, downtime, disadvantage, to the taxpayers of Collier County, you've got to get away from that boilerplate. And I'll quit talking. I don't want to get this award. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, me, too. And I'm not going to belabor it, because we'll get together and talk about this some more. Just to explain my concern so you can be thinking about it. The only person who really knows how many tons of rock were delivered, how many truckloads of asphalt were delivered, how many feet of pipe, how many rain day delays were legitimate in the contract is the guy that's on the grounds there. And I am missing the connection between the person who is responsible for managing that contract on the ground and this contract administrator who, I presume, is sitting at a desk somewhere here in the government center. That's what I'm losing here. And you just need to connect the dots for me. MR. MUDD: Okay. Guyon the ground-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, not now. I don't want to take the time to do it. Just talk to me afterwards, okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other questions, Page 53 September 23, 2004 Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, are we just taking every item differently, or can we just -- general discussion about what's on here? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got 86,000. MR. MUDD: We're going to talk about the general fund. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the first question, the 86,000. Is it only 86,000 -- you were saying about a roll back from -- MR. MUDD: Turn back, turn back from the constitutionals. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Turn back. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we don't have that now. MR. MUDD: We won't know -- I won't know that for another 30 days or so, Commissioner, when they finally bring the checks in and they say this is what it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we possibly be looking at things contingent upon that, or is that into the new year budget? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. As soon as -- as soon as I figure out what that is versus what the budget is, I'll bring that number to you and we'll discuss that during communication at a board meeting. And if you want to bring that back as an item, then we'll bring back this list or any list that you want and bring that dollar amount, and then get your direction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Could I just ask you some questions about items down here, the second from the bottom -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't ask it? Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The feasibility study for beach access through Pelican Bay. I thought we had a study underway. MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't? MR. MUDD: No, sir. This would be -- this would be a study to Page 54 -",.--- September 23, 2004 take a look at access through that particular community if the board desires to see if there's any viable ways to make sure of the legalities of the particular documents that are there, to see if there's a viable alternative for the county for access. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Message to the constitutional officers, please work real hard at that turn back. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now, some of the things that have been suggested to us -- and I think we're all in agreement the guardian ad litem really needs to be funded. I see nods from this side, on this side as well. We've also spoken about the one purchasing agent for the contract administration section, so just one funded rather than two, and then we also have a lobbyist, a portion thereof, it was mentioned, $20,000. Is that something that all the commissioners feel comfortable with? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. MUDD: The difference between the one person and the ad va (sic) litem item is about $25,000, Mike just told me on his calculator. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Guardian ad litem? MR. MUDD: That would -- there's $25,000 left if you want to do that to the lobbyist -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The lobbyist. MR. MUDD: -- and put it in that -- put it there, and then you use it as you go along. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And understand, Commissioners, that that would just put an appropriation in place. Obviously, if you chose at a future date not to spend that money, you could either just leave it within your budget and not spend it, and it would accrue to fund balance, or at a future date, you could always move it back to reserves Page 55 September 23, 2004 if you made a decision not to employ a lobbyist throughout the seSSIon, so -- MR. MUDD: But in -- but in any case, to -- before we spend a dime in that $25,000, you're going to have the approval on the particular item during a board meeting, okay? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we would have to. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. So now what we hear is, I've seen from this side that they're all in agreement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this side as well? Yes. So you've got our direction? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Let's move on. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And there's nothing in the unincorporated general fund about -- as far as available funds concerned. If there's anything in turn back that comes in that particular fund, we'll bring that back to the board to your attention so that you can look at that at a future time. We -- special revenue funds, there's no available funds that I can determine for the museum on those these particular items, and I think Mr. Ron Jamro talked about playing soccer versus baseball the other night, so he owes us a cleansing of that list so that we can bring that back to you at a future time. The last piece that's on this particular item is enterprise funds. Now, these funds are not ad valorem, are not tax funds, they're not the unincorporated tax funds. These have to do with an enterprise fund, and this particular fund is 408, and that's in public utilities. And I'm going to let Mr. Tom Wides lead that discussion off with you, ma'am, Commissioners. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good evening. For the record my tame is Tom Wides, operations director for public utilities. Page 56 September 23, 2004 As Mr. Mudd has just stated, as an enterprise division, public utilities is primarily funded by user rates from the water, wastewater, and solid waste customers. Our resources are driven to maintain a level of service that promotes the division's ability to remain in regulatory and good operating practice compliance while still meeting all of our customers' demands. In that -- in that vein, we need to maintain a reliable infrastructure and a safe working environment. As we look into FY-'05, into fiscal year '05, in the following years, this division will experience a tremendous addition in plant capacity and infrastructure throughout the network based on a rapidly growing population. As an aside to this point and as we see from our master plans into the future, we're adding approximately 3,000 water customers a year, 4,000 wastewater customers, and, likewise, 4,000 solid waste customers. As a result, our capital spending plans that must be executed over the next 10 years in accordance with our master plans approach approximately $1 billion. And you're -- I think you're somewhat familiar with the number of projects that we have out there into the future tax acute (sic). The operating plans -- the operating departments continue planning for methods to optimize their costs -- optimize their costs, and optimize the FTEs to successfully accommodate an environment of high growth and significantly expand the demands based on the increases in production capacities. As a result, the division is facing FY-'05 with six unfunded FTEs that we wish to discuss with you tonight and attain your approval to execute these and to include these as part of our FY -'05 budget. In total these unfunded requests -- if you'll turn to page 2C2, they account for an annual cost of $378,300. There's one line item there for $26,000 for an SUV that we've deleted, which is the difference Page 57 September 23, 2004 between the 404 and the 378 -- excuse me, the 373. What we will be doing with these expenses is we will be generating incremental revenue and avoided costs that amount to approximately 869,000. So what I'm saying is, for an expenditure of 378,000, we will offset by incremental revenue and avoided costs, 869,000, for a net annual benefit of almost $500,000. Now, in order to explain those in more depth, we have with us the individual directors of the departments for each of these FTEs that will explain the details to you, but if I may, just as briefly as I can, the utility billing and customer service department has one FTE with an annual cost of $84,000, little bit over 84,000, but the net annual benefit will result in $30,000. John Y onkowsky will answer any questions you have there. The engineering department has requested two FTEs at an annual cost of approximately $120,700, generating a net benefit of 162,000. And generally where that is going to result from is minimizing agreements with outside contractors or outside engineering firms to do the work that inherently can be done in house. And with that 1 O-year business cycle of almost a billion dollars of expenditure, we're not -- we're not concerned about a short-cycled employment situation. Roy Anderson will be here to discuss that. Finally, the wastewater department has requested three FTEs and one additional vehicle at an annual cost of $173,100, with a net annual benefit of almost 300,000 -- $299,000. Joe Cheatham, our wastewater director, is prepared to discuss this request in more detail. Before I turn the discussion over to the individual directors at your lead, I would like to ask if there are any other questions in terms of our unfunded requests. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- how many code enforcement officers do you have? MR. WIDES: We have approximately, I believe four, but John Page 58 ^-'--'--'---'-" September 23, 2004 will answer that directly for you. MR. YONKOWSKY: For the record, John Y onkowsky, utility billing and customer service director. Public utilities division has three code of enforcement -- certified code enforcement investigators and a certified supervisor to enforce and gain compliance for the water, sewer, and solid waste ordinances. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what your code enforcement officers really deal with was solid waste, you know, somebody not putting their bin in on proper time or littering, or litter on a residence, and things of that nature? MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, Commissioner, that used to be the major function of those code enforcement officers, but we now do the illegal water for -- illegal water taps, water restrictions, we've got commercial recycling coming on this year. We are also doing the fats, oil and grease, or FOG program. So there is a wide variety, or a wide area that the code enforcement people in the public utilities division are functioning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, couldn't we let community development code enforcement handle the litter problem? I mean, they're out through on all the streets now in the same areas. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Sir, for the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. Joe -- Joe Schmitt and I have talked through that. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I thought I got your question. Apologize. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm a little slow-- MR. DeLONY: Well, me too -- me too, obviously. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you'll have to bear with me, okay? You have the same people going out there in the same places, and they're supposed to be focused on all code enforcement issues where your department is just focused on one. Well, in this case garbage, litter, recycled bins out, garbage containers out, and our community development should be doing that. Page 59 September 23, 2004 MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. No, I'm not going to argue with you on that, sir. I think that is a joint effort. Our folks have got a specified task to also administer the collections contract with waste management, it's contracting officers, contacting representatives in that regard. Fusing the ability to make that direction on the spot with waste management has been much more effective working it that way with the code enforcement folks from Joe Schmitt's shop, and that's the way we've got it set up now. We don't -- it's not exclusive, but it's mutual. And having this asset that's real time when we can direct it and fuse the result that we need based on the customer's complaint or problem with code enforcement as well as oversight to make sure that that's done from a contractual standpoint, I believe, is a very effective way to use those resources in a very cost effective way to provide high quality customer service. And I would just like to add a little bit, if I could, about the other duties. In the fats, oils, and grease program where we're looking at the grease trap program, these enforcement officers are also responsible for that. Joe's folks are not trained to do that, and it would be very difficult for all 50 plus of Michelle's folks to be as good as these folks are. The other area that we've got a specialty in that we spend a lot of time is looking at water -- water restrictions. Now, no question about it, we do get help from Joe's folks or Michelle's folks on that, but our folks have two prong, they're also out there for code enforcement, they're also out there for education. So my suggestion and my recommendation has been to keep it the way it is with not a redundancy in the function, but an enhancement of our customer service with this current arrangement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions from the board Page 60 September 23, 2004 members? Any more comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: When Mr. DeLony sits down, yeah, I'll have a couple. MR. DeLONY: I'm not going to live that one down. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we'll wait for you to sit down then. MR. DeLONY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, we just -- you know, I agree that the grease trap and recycling is a specialty. Litter is not a specialty, and it's just -- you know, places of Golden Gate, Naples Manor, Golden Gate Estates, Immokalee, and we have over 50 code enforcement officers within Joe's department, and they should be handling things like that, and I would hope that Mr. DeLony can hand that over to them and not hire this person and let -- let's diversify the code enforcement officers that we have today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I look at what the damage is going to be if we don't hire somebody of this nature. And the waste, the grease, ends up getting into our plants and causes us actual unnecessary, undue costs. So I really believe that I -- I've been to Mr. DeLony's department many times, and I'll tell you that it's a very efficient organization. And as far as 50 code enforcement officers in Joe's area, I still don't think it's enough for all the problems that we run into constantly in regards to what goes on in this county. And it's a big -- it's a huge county, and we've got tremendous amount of growth, and I feel that we're lacking a lot in code enforcement. I know in my district alone, I've been after Joe a number of times in regards to taking care of that. So -- and I'm concerned about -- we're bringing -- spending a lot of money for these sewer plants, and I feel that DeLony -- justification for the people there is well deserved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I appreciate Page 61 --- ..~--_. September 23, 2004 Commissioner Henning's concern over the cost and investigating the particular situation to see which is best. I do see a problem if we don't expand this and meet the needs outside of code enforcement. Remember, we just recently passed a housing ordinance as far as the upkeep of housing and businesses. It's going to require a tremendous amount of time of the existing staff of code enforcement officers. And for them to take on this additional burden, I think what we'll have is, we won't have compliance the way we need it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm missing something here. There are no funds available. MR. WIDES: Commissioner, in fact, we have approximately $2.5 million of reserves, of our statutory reserves that are available to fund these positions. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Let me clarify for, Commissioner. For the record, Michael Smykowski. Within your ad valorem tax imported funds, the available UFR pot, in the case of the general fund, was $86,000, and that resulted from changes andlor additional revenue receipts above and beyond that that were initially projected in the budget in June. The enterprise funds are unique in that they are self-supporting through their own revenue structure, so they do not have the conventional available UFR dollars like the general fund or the unincorporated area would, so there is not a true UFR pot, so to speak, like there would be in the ad valorem tax imported fund. But they do have a healthy contingency reserve of in excess of two and a half million dollars within the county waterlsewer district, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess I would hope that you'd include in the available funds column the total amount of funds that might be available for this. It might have helped us a bit to get along here. Page 62 September 23, 2004 But it appears to me that if such is the case and you have excess reserves, it seems like an issue we talked about earlier this evening, that we should only determine what level of reserves we need with respect to our current assumptions about reserve requirements in the future. And I'm not going to start trying to micromanage whether or not you hire one person to do this or one person to do that. There's only one decision to be made, and that is, how big should the reserve be? What are your contingencies? What are the reasons you might need access to reserves? And what does that indicate to you? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, what we have done is we've maintained our statutory level of reserves, okay, and the contingencies are for unexpected activities, okay. In this case, we've looked at our rates on the solid waste side, we've looked at our rates on the waterlsewer side. We make our plans over -- based on our master plans, we make our plans years in advance, okay. We do try to lock in our FTEs as we think we'll need them, and because we are planning, and we are planning sometimes 5 and 10 years out, okay, we will have shifts in our actual results versus what we've planned. So, yes, the reserves will move up and down somewhat, okay. So that -- that is the difference between saying, you know, six months ago I knew it was going to be this, and six months later it's changed slightly. In fact, we're planning over 12 months to 18 months out at least in most cases. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I can jump in. Jim Mudd, for the record. And it's not the Band-Aid, but I just want to talk about the budget policy that we had. The budget policy -- and Commissioner Coyle, you and I have talked about this at great length -- is to -- was to try to hold down the head count on this particular organization to less than 25. I did that, first of all, by taking a look at the population that were Page 63 September 23, 2004 in the divisions now and coming up with a number that they should proportionally get out of those 25, and then I had the division administrators and the separate department directors coming forward with their expanded positions for the year. And then we talked at great length about why that particular position needed to be there, and it got to the point in time that, in some instances, in Mr. DeLony's particular case, that I said, you've got so many positions, you need to get the most important positions that you have above the line, and those below the line on the number of counts you're going to have to put on the unfinanced list, and that's these particular positions that you're looking at right now. In Mr. DeLony's particular case, it wasn't because of a lack of funds or the proportion from the ad valorem that we were worrying on the county manager's side of the house to try to contain. It was sheerly that body count had to get less than 25. So in some cases it was a little artificial in his particular case, but he's proportioned, he's part of the county, and we're trying to hold those -- we're trying to hold those positions down because positions and people's salaries and their health benefits and whatnot are some of our biggest costs. And it is a -- if you have that person, you don't normally cut them with a growing community. You're always talking about expandage (sic ). You're not talking about people you lose. And now I have to say Mr. Schmitt was one exception because he did reorganization and cut some positions in his particular organization in the last couple of years in different departments. Code enforcement has been one where there's been additional folks that have come on. But I would say it's more of an artificial constraint. On Mr. DeLony's side of the house it's not so much a monetary constraint, but it was an artificial one that we were trying to hold the head counts down. Page 64 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But here is the trap that everyone seems to fall into. If you remove money from reserves to fund operating expenses and your revenue is lower next year, you have added staff that you have to pay next year, right? MR. WIDES: Commissioner, if I may respond to that. In fact, what I'm saying about these positions is, as opposed to reducing reserves, our intent is to either, A, increase revenues, okay, from -- whether it be more citations being issued because we're out there being able to find the issues, or whether it's reducing the expenses from outside consultants to fund or to, in fact, monitor our capital projects. Either way, we're reducing somewhere else, not reducing reserves or adding to revenues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're telling me this is essentially revenue -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Generator. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- neutral? MR. WIDES: This is either revenue positive or expense beneficial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I can't quarrel with that. There's nothing wrong with that logic. MR. WIDES: That's where we have to step forward. And that's what our folks have done in terms of coming up with these net benefits that I've actually mentioned here today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you know, if you can assure me that that's what it's going to be, revenue positive or expense beneficial, then as far as I'm concerned, do it. MR. WIDES: I would like to let each individual director respond to that positively, because I can, and I will, but I think they can tell you from their own position exactly what's going on in their departments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to move on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Page 65 September 23,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd just like to say one thing, that if we're going to do that, this code enforcement officer, I want to bring back on a regular agenda about diversifying what that officer does, and I just want to let you know that if we're going to generate revenues for citations, the commissioners are going to start getting calls about a 20 or $50 fine because I didn't bring my garbage can in at SIX p.m. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I think what they're talking about is where they're going to generate revenues when somebody is in violation of pouring grease in a sewer system or pouring anything else into a sewer system that doesn't belong there. I think that's where they're going with this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you're right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's where this is going, yes. And this is not going to be a $20 violation. These violations are going to be a lot heavier than that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hopefully they're just in District 2. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just raised a question that prompts me to ask one other question. Now, when you said that these would essentially have a neutral effect upon the budget, you're talking about all of these positions or only about the code enforcement position? MR. WIDES: I'm talking about each position having a net benefit put against the cost incurred or basically -- each position, each of those, I believe, four positions, five. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Each of the four or five, what positions? MR. WIDES: Let me -- if I could. I'll walk you through them. MR. MUDD: They're right here on this slide on this overhead, if you can help him, Tom. Page 66 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see six. MR. WIDES: Okay. First off, the third position down we were talking about was the code enforcement for financial operations. That has a cost of approximately 64 -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eighty-four; 84,5. MR. WIDES: Eyes aren't quite what they used to be, 84,5. We intend to generate incremental revenue of $114,000, for a net benefit on that position of $30,000. And if interested, I'm prepared to tell you where that -- where that incremental 114,000 comes from this evening. Okay. Let's go to the two project -- or the two engineering positions. One is a project manager for engineering, $68,000 of annual cost. Cost avoidance of $195,000. Net benefit, 127. Again -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom, you don't need to read those figures to me. MR. WIDES: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see them. That's the kind of budgeting I like. It makes sense. It justifies the reason you need the people. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other comments from commissioners? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Tom. MR. WIDES: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next? Next? I don't know who's coming up next for us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're done with the UFR. MR. WIDES: We would like to ask for your approval of these unfunded positions though before we break. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've got to vote on it. MR. WIDES: Or disapproval. Page 67 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Everybody's nodding. MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Item #2D MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item, Commissioners, there was a question brought up. Mr. Bill Dearborn was a speaker at the first public hearing relative to funding for the Juvenile Assessment Center. As you'll recall, you adopted an ordinance imposing an additional $65 in court costs to fund programming within the court area. The additional proposed budget had shown -- reflected all of -- one of the 25 percent categories was for teen court. We had shown 100 percent of that 25 percent piece or $160,000 within the teen court budget. Mr. Dearborn spoke at the first public hearing requesting that half of those funds of that 25 percent, or $80,000, be applied toward funding of the Juvenile Assessment Center operation. And he had spoken with the court folks, Mr. Mark Middlebrook, who was also in attendance and nodded agreement that that was acceptable to the court system, and Mr. Dearborn had also spoken with Chief Judge Hayes as well. We just want your concurrence. We didn't take any formal vote or action. I believe it was understood that that was amenable to the board, but we just wanted to be clear before we made that final change to the budget, and Mr. Dearborn was here as well, and obviously was interested in the final disposition of his request. And if there are no questions from the board relative to that, it Page 68 September 23, 2004 would be our intent to make that change as initially proposed by Mr. Dearborn but agreed to by the court staff. And again, the available funding will depend on the actual court fees that are actually collected, because those are based on felony and misdemeanor. Obviously in felony cases, when people are in jail, their ability to generate revenue to pay their -- pay their outstanding fines is somewhat limited. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Everybody's in agreement then? MR. MUDD: And you're not really shorting the teen court because they have a pretty good reserve in there. They had funding to fund them through 2007 before the 60 -- before the $64 issue came up that we approved, that the board approved earlier. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the court representatives are -- MR. MUDD: They're fine with this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Let's move it on. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, Mr. Bill Dearborn is signed up to speak on this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. DEARBORN: Can I come forward now? MR. MUDD: Yeah, come on, Bill MR. DEARBORN: Having heard the board's approval-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, up to the microphone, please, and state your name. MR. DEARBORN: Bill Dearborn, from the -- representing the Collier County Juvenile Justice Council. And as chairman of the Juvenile Assessment Center, I just wanted to thank the board for its continued support by its action here this evening, and I'd like to thank the county manager and Mike Smykowski for working with us to get that done. Thank you very much. Page 69 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That was the only public speaker slip I had. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any other speakers, by the way? MS. STONE: Yes, Madam Chairman, You have three speakers registered to the speak on the sheriffs budget. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. We'll -- thank you. I'll call back to them at that time. Thank you. Next? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where we at? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we're on -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're finishing our public speakers. There are -- there are three that are registered to speak on the sheriffs budget. MR. MUDD: And then before you have to -- before you finally approve the budget, and Mike will take you through those resolutions, you need to come to some kind of agreement based on your propose -- your earlier proposal about the $2.5 million. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, we're going to be discussing the sheriffs budget within this, or are we first going to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So-- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Our recommendation would be you hear from the public speakers before you entertain a motion as to the funding of the sheriffs budget. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Would you call our public speakers? MS. STONE: Yes. You have two public speakers. One withdrew, the sheriff is no longer going to speak. Burt Saunders and Crystal Kinzel. And I think you may want to leave it up to them which one of them wants to go first. Page 70 .._-~"-""_.,,...,,._,. September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Look likes they're both going to talk at the same time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're going to go at the same time. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I might. Again, Burt Saunders with the Gray Robinson law firm representing the sheriff. We are here to speak on the issue of the $2.5 million that may be taken out of overtime. I don't know if the commission is going to entertain that motion. So that's why we're here. If that's not going to be a motion, then we don't need to speak. So that's why we're here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Those are our two speakers? MS. STONE: Two speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you're talking about 2.5 taken out of overtime, you said? SENATOR SAUNDERS: My understanding, Madam Chair, from the last commission meeting that ended prior to the budget hearing tonight, was that there may be a motion to take $2.5 million out of the sheriffs line item for overtime to make up for the $2.5 million that was taken out of the '03/'04 reserves during your previous meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. If I were to make the motion, and I'm not sure I will or that I'm the one that's going to do it, but since I brought the issue up, I'll at least explain my position. I would not presume to tell the sheriff where he takes his money from. It is the sheriffs responsibility to decide where money is used, and he can do it a lot better than I can. But I certainly would support the reduction of the FY-'05 budget by an amount of$2.5 million, and then it will be the sheriffs responsibility to decide where he wants to cut that money. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Then, Madam Chair, I would like to address that issue in terms of the $2.5 million cut, and Crystal Kinzel Page 71 September 23, 2004 may have some comments also. First, I just want to make it perfectly clear. I'm the lawyer, so I -- my job tonight is to protect the interest of the sheriff. And I want to advise the board that I don't believe there's any -- any logic to simply saying tonight, you're going to take $2.5 million out of the sheriffs overall budget. And the reason I say that is that you've had budget hearings, you've had a budget document that has been presented, and you've suggested changes to that, and we're now at the final budget hearing, and there is no evidence of any kind to support the -- what I would describe as arbitrary decision by the board tonight to simply say, we're going to cut $2.5 million from your budget, Mr. Sheriff, you go find out where that $2.5 million is going to come from. I would submit that that certainly upsets the -- what I would describe as a delicate balance and a compromise that has been arrived at with the sheriff and the county commission in terms of where your budget is tonight. The amount of money that the county was planning on appropriating for the sheriffs budget is substantially less than what the sheriff had requested in his original budget document. And to now say to the sheriff, well, in addition to those cuts that we've already agreed to, we've already discussed, we're going to simply take $2.5 million in addition, I think, is arbitrary and capricious, not supported by any -- any factual evidence. And on behalf of the sheriff, I would obj ect to that and advise the board that the sheriff does have certain appeal rights, and I just want the board to know that you may be forcing the sheriff into exercising those rights. I'm the lawyer making that statement. That's not coming from the sheriff. That's coming from me as his -- as his legal counsel. Let me -- let me point out one other thing, if I might, as we have this conversation. You have a policy to require a reduction in what the anticipated personnel expense will be by four percent. That's your Page 72 September 23, 2004 attrition that you apply. You apply that to all your departments with the exception of Emergency Medical Services, Ochopee Fire, and the tax collector, and you apply that to the sheriffs budget already. Now, we've already had testimony that the sheriff is 100 percent staffed up, and there's every reason to believe that during the '05 fiscal year, that the sheriff will continue to be staffed up. So you're already starting off with a four percent reduction in his personnel line item that is unrealistic and has already been shown to be inaccurate. Now you're saying that you're going to add another $2.5 million in cuts on top of that already, and I would submit that that's just not appropriate. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay . Your time wasn't up, so I was just waiting, but fine and dandy. SENATOR SAUNDERS: Oh, that's all. I just want to preserve the sheriffs rights. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Crystal, you were also registered to speaker -- as a speaker, excuse me. MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, I just wanted to basically get one quick thing into the record, because it was regarding the overtime issue, and I know that was a concern about the growth. And I think that -- if you can help me on the visualizer again. Weare -- and if you look at this over a long period of history, our forecast for this year, yes, is $8 million. And what we've included in the '05 budget for overtime is actually about $6 million, so that is a $2 million plus reduction in what we anticipate in overtime costs for next year. So I wanted to comfort the commission a little bit. I think you were concerned that our overtime just kept growing and growing and growing in subsequent years. But if you look at what we actually are proj ecting to occur in '04 in our budget, we are cutting back in the actual dollars that we're going to be spending. In fact, if you go back to that level and you would try to take out Page 73 September 23, 2004 another 2 and a half million, you're looking at a $4 million budget, which goes clear back to our '02 actual type of costs. Now, that was before significant pay plan adjustments or increases in cost of living adjustments that have come to staff. If you divide those dollars by the hours when they are at a higher rate, you're looking at less and less hours available to work for overtime. And as we tried to put in the record previously, that would include anything from code orange, that the sheriff mentioned, to other incidents or events that we might have throughout Collier County; tornadoes touching down, things that may not be events of the caliber of a FEMA reimbursement but certainly have to be made available and are necessary for certified law enforcement officer response. We see the most -- the majority of our overtime are in very specific areas. The jail, we're hoping that that does go down, and it has gone down in the last couple of pay periods now that we're seeing those academy staffing coming onboard. So we are seeing some reduction. We have overtime in road patrol, but that's minimal. And dispatch, we are filling those positions. As soon as they come out of the dispatch academy and training, we're also hoping to see a reduction. But we are budgeting and forecasting a reduction to what we have actually experienced, even though it is an increase to the budget. Because as I explained, we try to budget salaries, in addition to overtime, and where's that fine point of vacancies, plus the overtime rate. In any year we're still looking at that four percent reduction right off the top; 3.2 million this year, and you're looking at an additional four in '0 -- four percent in '05. We're going in fully staffed. I'm going to have to have some Page 74 September 23, 2004 assurance of an access to reserve, and we will try to make it, but we're probably going to be coming back to ask for those attrition dollars because we're fully staffed. If in addition to that you're considering another $2 and a half million reduction, we are 80 percent staffing in people. We have just now been able to get fully staffed, recruit and retain qualified members to the agency. We don't want to see those kinds of reductions in labor or reductions in force. So I just wanted to get up and put into the record some of the overtime issues that I know you're concerned about. And just to add, we did work with the board during the workshops, and just to remind you that we came up with about 3.6 million reduction in costs simply by phasing in positions and working with the board what we thought was a reasonable compromise on a lot of these slots that we're looking to to '05, including to open a brand new jail, which will almost double our capacity when it does come online. We have a lot of things that are unknown. We don't know the timing exactly on that j ail construction. So we have a lot of ifs in 2005, and I would just request that the board take those into consideration before you consider reducing the sheriffs budget any further. And that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In Tuesday's board meeting when we discussed this, you made it very prevalent that you were going to be back after more money even before we even -- start -- discussed about how we were going to address the $2.5 million. You made it very clear to me that you were coming back and getting some more money next year, before we even got to this point in the thing. And as far -- as far as labor reduction, I don't think you have to do anything in labor reduction. I -- you know, I've been in the Page 75 September 23, 2004 corporate world, and when somebody says, you're going to make a cost reduction, there's lots of places that can be administered where cost reduction does not involve the workforce itself. So I just -- that's what concerns me, okay? MS. KINZEL: Okay. Well, Commissioner, the only reason I mentioned that is, remember, our full staffing budget that we had proposed to the board started out at about -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I heard that. MS. KINZEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. MS. KINZEL: You take $3.6 million away from that, starting in October, if I'm fully staffed, I'm already behind the eight-ball $3.6 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You don't have to replace all the cars every couple of years then. MS. KINZEL: My entire automobile budget is not 3.6 in replacement. And then you get behind in your capital replacement of assets for deputies out on the road that are putting miles on these cars to patrol over 2,000 square miles of the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And about 70 percent of that is in preserve of some kind, I believe. CHAIRMAN FIALA: One of the questions I had, Crystal, was, in year '03, according to your figures, you needed $4 million in overtime because you were understaffed, and in '04, you needed $8 million in overtime because you weren't fully staffed, And in '05, now that you're fully staffed, you need $6 million in overtime. And somehow, you know, we kept -- we kept approving the overtime, even though it was rather -- in my opinion, rather exorbitant because you weren't fully staffed. And I wanted to see you fully staffed, and now it's fully staffed and now it's $6 million overtime when you've got a full staff. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Page 76 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: It doesn't compute to me. MS. KINZEL: Okay, Commissioner, let me explain. It goes -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not going anywhere. MS. KINZEL: -- into several of those issues. Whether or not they're fully trained and taking up the full capacity of the position over the course of the year, so even though they're hired and we're paying their salary, you still have that learning curve, and so there will be some overtime to take up those positions. I'll give you another example. We had almost -- oh, I can't remember exactly the hours, but things like Family Medical Leave Act. Federal rules and regulations have impacted us in our staffing. And as in an office environment, if I'm not there today, I don't need to be replaced. We don't have that luxury in our emergency services capacities. For the jail, for road patrol, for dispatch, if someone's out on a maternity leave for 12 weeks, if they're out on illness for 12 weeks, that all has to be staffed with overtime positions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we done with the public speakers? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the sheriff might be with us? SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm still here, and yes, when the time is appropriate, Madam Chair, I'd love to make a couple of comments. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. It looks like the time is appropriate. SHERIFF HUNTER: Great. Because this overtime issue is such a difficult item to understand unless you live it, of course, much like your EMS group. The best I can do tonight would be to give you some examples. And I will try to do that again, because it still seems to be one of Page 77 September 23, 2004 the catch points for the board to understand the agency issue, especially the 6 million that we're budgeting again next year, that is an increase from the 4 million we've budgeted but less than what we actually expended this year. And-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I think you expended 8 million this year. SHERIFF HUNTER: Right. We're expending 8 million, so therefore, the next year's proposal is a $2 million decrease from what we're spending this year. We think we will have some decline in the overtime budget. But I want to give you a sense of what's happening here. Overall, the agency is good because the county health and -- public safety health is good for Collier County. Our crime rates are good, but that doesn't -- that's not magic. It really does require tactical involvement of the agency for crime suppression, and I want to give you a sense of that. Besides the code orange and code red and the hurricanes and other catastrophic events that are placed upon the agency and your own EMS crews, there are other things that happen to us, such as, we will get threats from time to time from an organized group. It may be direct threats against a deputy or group of deputy sheriffs, and we will exercise a special enforcement effort. We will from time to time, as in crime prevention weeks and national night out, have mass deployments where we attempt to create an absolute zero crime, no activity night. We can't do that on an ongoing basis because we're not staffed for that, but we do attempt to do it from time to time to show the force and to try to keep this county safe. We do incur overtime from time to time when that occurs because we will do these things at the end of a pay period. Sometimes we're able to balance hours. We don't accumulate compo time, however, as you do. We -- because that simply causes additional Page 78 September 23, 2004 suffering in terms of staffing. I will assure the board that we're doing all that we can and we'll work with the board to do even more and better with -- again, I'm offering monthly meetings. We're going to work with you to try to limit the overtime expenditures of the agency, but I also want you to be fully informed on what those overtime expenditures go for, rather than simply adopting the position that that's too much. I do want you to understand how it's incorporated into the taxable operations for crime suppression of the agency. And let's not kill our efforts on the street and in our investigative groups by discussing these things. It's very important matters, we should be discussing them, but let's not just simply adopt a position that they're inappropriate simply because it's a -- it's a number that is uncomfortable to the board. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We done with public speakers? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board -- the board asked our agency and our constitutional officers to stay within a budget policy of 11.1 percent -- if I'm correct, Mr. Mudd -- and what -- the sheriffs budget increase was 19.66 of 122.75, almost .76, million dollars. And if it is the board's wishes to cut $1.5 (sic) million, that's less than two percent, and that still would give the sheriff 17 -- 17 percent, and where we tried, or we did, stay within the 11 percent, and the constitutional officers. So I don't think it's a -- if somebody was to make that motion, I probably would support it. But if somebody would make a motion to cut the sheriffs budget and give direction where to do it, I will not support it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll make the motion that the Page 79 September 23, 2004 sheriffs budget for FY-'05 be reduced by $2.5 million and that the sheriff has the discretion to manage his budget, manage his personnel, and manage his overtime hopefully to reduce the very, very high expenditures that have occurred in the past. And that's my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The discussion about keeping the budget at the rate of growth in Collier County is responsible government, and if we go out of that on our side, then that is just growing government. So I'm proud that we had this discussion and direction for local government. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That passes unanimously. SHERIFF HUNTER: Madam Chair, may I just ask for a point of clarification? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. SHERIFF HUNTER: The motion as you approved -- I'm not sure if it incorporates the four percent reduction, the 3. -- which would be approximately, if I understand correctly -- about 3.2 million, plus the 3.6 million previously agreed to, plus the 2 and a half million, totaling to roughly almost $8 million; is that what you're suggesting? Page 80 September 23, 2004 Or is this a formal vote and we're talking about besides the four percent that has been the policy of the board to remove, you're going another 2 and a half million? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I think the last time that we discussed the budget, the sheriffs budget -- correct me if I'm wrong -- what was the figure on that? COMMISSIONER HALAS: 16 million-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was 121 million, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: 121, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was less than that, I think. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I think that's my confusion. Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's $121,729,900, and we said we're going to cut it by 2 and a half, and I think that comes out about $119,229,000. SHERIFF HUNTER: So all told, approximately $8 million decrease? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or a $17 million increase-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- depending on which way you look at it. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, and we had some -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a $17 million increase. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. By policy -- for the record, Michael Smykowski. By policy, we took the four percent up front in attrition. That was already incorporated into his budget request. The change from the sheriffs initially proposed budget involved a shift to impact fees, a correctional capital to impact fees of 406,000, and shifting law enforcement capital to the impact fee yet to be adopted of 931 ,000. Page 81 September 23, 2004 The other two changes involved -- well, we're talking about reductions. They were delays in hiring 27 law enforcement staff, that was 1,109,100, and the delay in hiring of 30 correctional officers, which was 1,246,700. That was your starting base point tonight that had already backed out the attrition and the changes that we made during the budget workshops during June that had already been agreed to. Above and beyond that we're talking about $2 and a half million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. You're going to have to go over those figures again, because I think there is some confusion. What is the -- what is the sheriffs preliminary budget approval for FY-'05 before we walked in here tonight? COMMISSIONER HALAS: $121 million. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure it is. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Inclusive of board paid expenses, it's 121,729,900. That's board paid expenses of 2,263,000, and the sheriffs operations budget, his 040 fund of 119,066,900. SHERIFF HUNTER: And that's a reduction, Mike, of the 3.6 million that we discussed previously? MR. MUDD: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, Mike, what figure are we talking about if we subtract the 2.5 million from him? COMMISSIONER HALAS: 119 million. MR. SMYKOWSKI: $119,229,900. MR. MUDD: And that's inclusive of the board? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Inclusive of the board paid expenses. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's the total. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that's where I thought we were. Page 82 September 23, 2004 SHERIFF HUNTER: If I may then, Madam Chairman, just for the record, in creating this record, I need to make the board aware, again, that four percent attrition appears to be a policy that will not fit the agency's experience this year, and I would, again, ask the board to make the proper reservation of reserve fund that we may come back before the board to make any adjustments in agency budget at year end this next fiscal year. I would also like to, one more time, make it plain to the board that the 2.5 million that we've requested tonight is for positions previously approved by the board from reserves previously approved by the board to be expended by the agency if needed with exactly the same caveats I've just made to you, that last year we went through the same process. It now seems to be a surprise to the board that we have asked for the full funding because we have filled the vacancies we assured the board we would fill. I'm, just for the record, making you aware that the four percent attrition appears not to fit our experience and that that policy may need some adjustments, similar to what you do with your EMS department, that you need to recognize public safety, and I'm asking you to do that in future years. Secondly, the 2.5 was requested of the board from existing reserves, already approved positions, and this -- I want to make this a smoother process in the future. The additional cuts that were made tonight are goings to be difficult, and I need to consult with staff, because I'm a bit surprised. We'd already worked this out with staff at your direction for the 3.6 million, which is a very significant reduction when we're faced with hiring 60 additional jail deputies to staff the expansion of the jail, which has been postponed for over 20 years. And I'm very surprised by the board action. I will certainly be getting back with you. I do appreciate the support that you've been Page 83 September 23, 2004 able to give. But I do caution that I think we just made some severe cuts. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff Hunter. Are there any further comments from the board members? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. I would like to emphasize that we've been talking about cuts in the sheriffs budget. I would like to point out that what we have actually done is added $1 7 million -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: From last year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the sheriffs budget from last year, $17 million were added to the sheriffs budget from last year, and that is about a 1 7 percent increase, which is the highest increase for any, any element of Collier County government. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for pointing that out. Okay. Item #2E RESOLUTION 2004-293 AMENDING THE TENTATIVE Onto the next subj ect. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, Commissioner. That moves us to item 2E, which is a resolution to amend the tentative budgets, which would reflect the changes you've made tonight. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion on the floor to move the resolution amending the tentative budgets for FY-2004 and to '05. Motion by Commissioner Coyle -- or Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Thank you. All those in favor? Page 84 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does this request everything that we just got through doing, too? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It will, yes -- yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might want to add that to that, just to make sure that it's not a boilerplate -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what Mr. Mike Smykowski did state. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. We will be incorporating any changes we've made up at the hearing tonight, up to and inclusive of the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- $2 and a half million motion that was just approved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) Item #2F PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVYING Page 85 September 23, 2004 MILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY, THE ROLLED-BACK RATE, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, AND THE MILLAGE RATE TO BE LEVIED - READ INTO THE RECORD AS RE.QllIRE.D.-BY ,A W MR. SMYKOWSKI: Item 2F is a public reading of the taxing authority rolled levying millage, the name of the taxing authority, the rolled back rate, the percentage increase, and the millage rate to be levied, as item 2F. The general fund has a rolled back rate of 3.5899 and a proposed millage rate of 3.8772; 8 percent increase over the rolled back. Water pollution control, the rolled back rate, .0321 mills, proposed millage, .0347 mills; 8.1 percent increase. Unincorporated area general fund, the rolled back rate is .7458 mills, the proposed millage rate, .8069. It's an increase of 8.2 percent. The Golden Gate Community Center is .237 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. Can you tell us what page you're on, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to read all these things? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can't you just put them on the visualizer and let everybody see them? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. The statute requires a full reading of all of those before you take a vote adopting the resolution setting the millage rate. It's item 2F, page one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, we don't have an F. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have 2F. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it's the same page 2A. MR. SMYKOWSKI: 2A, page one, is identical. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Page 86 September 23, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Golden Gate Community Center, which is under the MSTU as the second item, it's fund 230, is point-- a rolled back rate of .2370 mills, proposed millage of .2357. That's a decrease of one half percent. Naples Park Drainage, rolled back rate .0054 mills, proposed millage, .0090; 66.7 percent increase. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, the rolled back rate, .0551 mills, proposed is .1028 mills, or 86.6 percent. Victoria Park Drainage, rolled back, .1796, proposed, .5179. That's an increase of 188.4 percent. Naples Underground FPL, there is no rolled back rate. The proposed millage is .0839 mills. Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, the rolled back rate is .4645 mills, the adopted or proposed millage rate is .5. That's a 7.6 percent increase. Naples Production Park, rolled back .0122 mills, proposed, .0340 mills. That's an increase of 178.7 percent. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, rolled back is .4524, proposed is one half mill, an increase of 10.5 percent. Isle of Capri Fire, rolled back rate, 1.3561, proposed, 1.5 mills, an increase of 10.6 percent. Ochopee Fire, rolled back, 3.7360, proposed, 4 mills, an increase of 7.1 percent. Collier County Fire, the rolled back rate, 2.0024, the proposed millage is 2 mills; that's a decrease of a tenth of a percent. GoodlandlHorrs Island Fire MSTU, the rolled back rate, .5167, proposed, .4746 mills, a decrease of 8.1 percent. Radio Road Beautification, rolled back is .4671, the proposed millage is .25. It's a decrease of 46.5 percent. Sabal Palm Road MSTU, there was no rolled back rate, as there was no levy in fiscal year '04. The proposed is 2.1584 mills. Page 87 September 23, 2004 Lely Golf Estates Beautification, rolled back, 1.8397, proposed 2 mills, 8.7 percent increase. Hawks Ridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, rolled back .0294 mills, proposed, .2882 mills; an increase of 880.3 percent. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU, the rolled back rate, 2.6834, proposed 3 mills. It's an increase of 11.8 percent. Immokalee Beautification MSTU, the rolled back rate, .9879, proposed 1 mill; that's an increase of 1.2 percent. Bayshore Avalon Beautification, the rolled back rate, 1.8322 mills, the proposed is 1.75 mills, a decrease of 4.5 percent. Livingston Road, Phase II MSTU, rolled back rate, .2532. There is no proposed tax levy. That's a decrease of 100 percent. Conservation Collier is a proposed -- rolled back of .2315, proposed, .25 mills, an increase of 8 percent. The Parks GOB Debt Service, there is no rolled back or proposed levies, nor is there any rolled back rate or proposed for Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue Debt Service. The Collier County Lighting District is .1412 mills, rolled back; proposed .1250, a decrease of 11.5 percent. Naples Production Park street lighting, there is no proposed levy, there is no rolled back rate. Pelican Bay MSTBU, rolled back rate is .1267 mills, the proposed is .1433. That's an increase of 13.1. The aggregate millage rate, factoring in all of these taxing districts, the rolled back rate is 4.4441 mills, the proposed millage, 4.7949. That's an increase of7.89 percent. That concludes item 2F. Item #2G RESOLUTION 2004-294 SETTING THE MILLAGE RATES- A.D.ŒITED Page 88 September 23, 2004 Item 2G is an adoption of a resolution setting the millage rate. I will need two separate motions, one for the dependent districts, which includes the water pollution control and the Conservation Collier tax levy, and the second motion would be -- would incorporate the balance of the MSTU s that I've just enumerated. So the first motion, setting the millages, would be for the two dependent districts. I would need a motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So for the first -- the first motion would be setting the millage rate for the two dependent districts? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's unanimous. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Now we'd need a motion for the balance of the taxing districts, exclusive of the dependent districts that you just voted on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to accept by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. Page 89 September 23, 2004 Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (N 0 response.) Item #2H RESOLUTION 2004-295 ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET BY EI.lND - A DOEIED MR. SMYKOWSKI: Our final item, 2H, a resolution to adopt the final budget by fund. Again, we'll need two motions, one for the two dependent districts. That would be the first motion, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the dependent district. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The dependent districts, again, inclusive of the water pollution control and the Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 90 September 23, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And our final motion then, Madam Chair, is to adopt the final budget by fund for the balance of the funds, again, excluding the dependent districts that you just voted on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: With that, we are finished. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. The meeting is adjourned. Page 91 September 23,2004 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:08 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARDS(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~dd DONNA IALA, ChaIrman ATTES,~:' ~.~~,~ì~ ~', DWI~ì-Ì1~J3. B~~J(, CLERK , . ;;.~. "~' ~'::';.ji-, .. Þ..,.! ~ .,¡', '.' . ~~ f!'. r. ~~.1\.,< . i ~~~j ~ ~. ;;;', "" '-' ':.--~.' ,'- ~. ,~ ~~ ..I''''''''''''~\''' ." - .;>' ,"i:.~).. '.'1 Âf~ ~.\t~ Ch., F'IIIn . s S 'g..tur. Oft 1,. These minutes approved by the Board o~D .- Jw.- d1:l? f ,(1 as presented ~ or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 92