Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/22/2005 B (Budget) September 22, 2005 BUDGET MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, FL September 22, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in BUDGET SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Michael Smykowski, Budget Director David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:05 p.m. Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 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 PRESENT A TION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, 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. Page 1 September 22, 2005 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 - BCC FY 2005-06 Budget A. Discussion of FY 06 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 to Adopt the Final Budget by Fund 3. Adjourn Page 2 September 22, 2005 September 22, 2005 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. The Board of County Commissioners meeting is now convened. Could you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is your second budget hearing in September. And it's mandated by Florida Statutes. And it's starting at 5:05. And I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Smykowski to start the agenda for the meeting. It's on the visualizer, for the folks that are watching this meeting at home. And we'll start with the discussion of the FY '06 millage rates and increases over the rolled back rates. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Michael Smykowski, County Budget Director. Before I begin that discussion on the tax rates funding the budget this year, just a few administrative things for members of the public who may want to speak. There are speaker sign-up slips in the hallway. If you're interested in speaking, if you would fill one of those out and provide them to Ms. Filson, she will call the names at the appropriate time. Item D is where we will take public comment or questions on the budget. The notice for this meeting was via a newspaper advertisement published in the Naples Daily News on Monday, September 19th, in accordance with statute. Item #2A DISCUSSION OF THE FY 06 MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER THE ROLLED BACK RATES - DISCUSSED Page 2 -'-'... September 22, 2005 As prescribed in statute, the first item to be discussed is the tax rates funding the budget and the increase over the rolled back rate, expressed as a percentage. The rolled back rate is defined as the tax rate that will generate the same amount of money as that levied in the prior fiscal year, exclusive of new construction. And, for example, if you look at the Golden Gate Community Center, last year's tax rate was .2357. The rolled back rate, because of increased taxable value within the district, is .2003. The proposed tax rate is .2337, which is actually slightly less than the millage rate that was actually levied in the prior fiscal year, but because of increasing taxable value in the district, Florida Statutes require us to express the percent change as the function of the rolled back rate, rather than as a function of the actual prior year tax rate that was actually levied in the previous fiscal year. That does create some confusion. It is required as part of statute that we discuss it as a function of the rolled back rate. It does create some confusion. I know with the TRIM notices that the property appraiser sends out, it shows what the taxes were last year, what the taxes will be this year on that individual property, as well as what they would be if the rolled back rates were levied across all governmental jurisdictions levying taxes. The property appraiser has told stories of where people actually send in a check for the taxes at the rolled back rate, even though it's not the actual tax rates that are being levied by the specific jurisdiction. So that is a confusing concept. But for the principal taxing district that the county -- the county's general fund operations, the rolled back rate is 3.3417. The tax rate, though, is the same as that levied. 3.8772 is the same as that actually levied in the prior fiscal year. It is an increase of 16 percent. We had a large increase in funding of road construction. We do have unallocated dollars that we are going to be discussing tonight. And there was a major increase in the Sheriffs budget, due to the Page 3 September 22, 2005 opening of the new j ail, as well as additional officers being put on the road. And there's also a new North Naples Regional Park that is scheduled to open next summer. Water pollution control fund is the same tax rate as the prior fiscal year. It's an increase of 16.1 percent over the rolled back rate for budgeting for replacement lab equipment and replacement vehicles. The unincorporated area general fund, the county is the principal service provider to the bulk of the residents, as they're only three incorporated municipalities, but the bulk of the population actually lies outside the boundaries of those districts. It's the same tax rate, again, .8069, as that levied in the previous fiscal year. It's an increase of 14.8 percent over the rolled back rate. Included in the budget there's a million dollars to begin paving lime rock roads in the Estates and one and a half million dollars for landscaping projects. The Golden Gate Community Center MSTU, there's a $74,500 increase in the tax rate to fund a replacement roof on the original building. We have a number of MSTU's that are levying the same tax rates as the prior fiscal year. They are governed by MSTU advisory committees who make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And there is a long list. Those include the Naples Park drainage, the Golden Gate Parkway beautification at a half mill, the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU at a half mill, the Isle of Capri Fire at a mill and a half, the Ochopee Fire Control District at four mills, the Collier County Fire District at two mills, the Radio Road beautification as a quarter of a mill, Lely Golf Estates at two mills, the Immokalee beautification at a mill, Bayshore beautification at 1.75 mills, and Conservation Collier at .25 mills. Each of those is the same tax rate as that levied in the previous fiscal year. Page 4 September 22, 2005 But the MSTU advisory committees working with staff bring forth a budget recommendation, and the MSTU advisory committees are recommending the millage as proposed that is consistent with the actual millage levied in the previous fiscal year. The Pine Ridge Industrial Park, we've got a small increase in the tax levy for maintenance for mowing and litter control. In Victoria Park drainage, our Fund 134 it's a very small increase, $900 in the tax levy for maintenance of the stormwater system and to fund replacement pumps within that district. Naples Production Park MSTU, there's a $1,400 increase in the tax levy for maintenance within the district. The Goodland/Horr's Island Fire is noteworthy. In the prior fiscal year we levied .4746 mills. The proposed millage is 1.3632 mills. That's an increase of 85.2 percent, again, over the rolled back rate. There were a number of changes in this district. Marco Island Fire Department provides service to that MSTU. They were recommending a change that's been under contract for a number of years. They had requested initially a -- the equivalent of two mills to provide that service. Through negotiations, staff was able to lower that to the proposed levy of 1.3632. If they were not -- if that MSTU didn't exist, they would be in the Collier County Fire MSTU, which is also at two mills, so staff was able to negotiate almost a seven-tenths of a mill reduction from what the initial request was from the City of Marco Island. So we feel that was in the best interest obviously for the residents of Goodland. Sabal Palm Road MSTU is an increase of 15.8 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping, there's actually a decrease in the tax levy there. And we have a new levy for Caribbean Gardens proposed at .15 mills. Again, that was approved by voter referendum. And then finally, the Pelican Bay MSTBU is an increase of21 Page 5 September 22, 2005 over the rolled back rate to fund street lighting and security patrols and increased reserves, as recommended by the citizen advisory committee. Again, that is a function of the rolled back rates. At the first hearing, the question arose as to how many years we had levied the same tax rate. And for your general fund, which provides a general government services, the tax rate of 3.8772 has been in place since fiscal year '02, so this would be the fifth consecutive year where the board would be levying the same tax rate. And in the unincorporated area, again where the county steps in to become the principal service provider because there is no municipality to provide those services, the proposed tax rate of .8069 mills also has been in place since fiscal '02, or five years running at the same tax levy. Are there any questions? I know that's somewhat confusing and cumbersome to go through. The advantage of the MSTU's is that specialized services or extraordinary service levels are paid for by those people who solely benefit from them. It is cumbersome at this time where you're forced to talk about each of the individual tax levies, and later on this evening when I'm forced to read each of the respective taxing rates proposed within each of the MSTU's, but we feel it is kind of a customized government and tailored services to those -- specialized services to those who are demanding them and are willing to pay for them. With that, I will move to discussion of further changes to the proposed budget. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET - DISCUSSED MR. MUDD: And that is item 2-B. Page 6 "- September 22, 2005 MR. SMYKOWSKI: 2-B. Your notebooks are tabbed, Commissioners. The total changes amount to $1,548,400. They do revolve around a few principal issues. Tourist Development fund changes associated with budgeting the fourth penny, that was recently approved, as well as the board approved projects. The board at the 9 -- September 13th commission meeting approved the beach re-nourishment project, which necessitated some changes in the budget. But again, that went through the TDC and the county commission prior to being incorporated into the budget. The Sheriff did make a budget reduction of a half million dollars since our first public hearing. He had alluded to that. It was associated with the closure of the D.R.I.L.L. Academy. And that is on Page 2 within the package. It's principally operating expenses. The biggest piece was a reduction in the medical contract of $418,000 of that $500,000 reduction, again associated with the closure of the D.R.I.L.L. Academy. And a few instances, we're re-budgeting capital funds that will not be encumbered by the close of the fiscal year for website redesign and the primary care clinic construction within our Risk Management area. And we had a few changes within our road districts in the capital project budget forecasts. Again, we had some -- recently received some additional impact fee revenue that we've incorporated into the forecast this year, and there were two road projects that were approved by the board on September 13th as a result of the board approval. In that instance we've incorporated those changes into the budget for you at this point in time. That concludes -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you have a question? Page 7 . .----~" September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a couple of questions on the budget in general. And one is public services and the other one is community development. First one is the maintenance workers for the North Regional Park (sic). I have a question about public services and one about community development. First one is the North Naples Regional Park expansion maintenance workers. Is that going to take care of --let's see, 9.5 personnel maintenance workers and two crew leaders __ MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for that. That will take care of the total park operation for the north regional -_ MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. What we've done with parks and recreation, in order to bring in a budget that has the number of employees you see as expanded was did an entire reorg. of the department and consolidated where we needed to and brought in staff over and above that that we need to operate that park at. And we feel with the quality of personnel that we're looking for, that that ought to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of consolidations have you done? MR. RAMSEY: We've done a re-org. right from the very top, all the way down. In the past our re-org. -- I don't know how specific you want me to get on the dais, but in the past we've had specialties, recreation, maintenance, et cetera. And what we are now looking at doing is taking an entire park and putting that park underneath one supervisor. So everything in that park goes all the way up to the park program supervIsor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This -- is it this year or next year that you're going to outsource the community park's maintenance to the private sector? MR. RAMSEY: In this budget year, starting in October, we plan to do contract service, what we call mow and go, and then have the Page 8 --.- September 22, 2005 park people come in and do inspections of playgrounds and make sure that any vandalism or any of that stuff is taken care of by park personnel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And presently we're doing in-house. How many -- MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- personnel -- how many personnel do you have doing that? MR. RAMSEY: Currently there's a road crew of six, I believe, in Naples and three in Immokalee. And what we're looking to do is take that road crew that is currently doing the neighborhood parks and we're putting them on the athletic turfs in the school systems. So we're substituting the school fields for the neighborhood parks for their crew. And that was one way that we could reduce the number of employees that we needed in this budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So theoretically you're actually adding nine more, because you're taking away one duty and replacing it with another duty. MR. RAMSEY: Well, currently we have -- what we've really done is take specialties, because we've taken the best turf people that we have and putting them on our school sites that are on the road. Because currently they just do mow and go and cut and pick up the trash. So we're actually looking at the quality of the employee that's going out to the school sites. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, are we taking care of the school sites now? MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. And they're being done through the community parks, not by the road crew. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is this going to be on the agenda in the future? MR. RAMSEY: In what regards, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as outsourcing it. Page 9 September 22, 2005 MR. RAMSEY: Depending on what the contract comes in, yes, I would assume it would be coming on the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because what you're telling me is you're taking nine people and give them less work. MR. RAMSEY: No, sir. No, the nine people that are currently on the road crew are only doing neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well who's doing the schools then? MR. RAMSEY: We've got road crews coming out of our community parks, which gives us less time in the community parks to take care of the turf. And so we're taking our turf people and moving them to the school sites on a road crew, and we're doing contracted service in our neighborhood park, because it's a lesser of a specialty. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe somebody else -- does anybody else get that? Because what I hear are the community parks are doing the schools now, yet we're outsourcing the community parks. MR. RAMSEY: No, we're outsourcing the neighborhood parks. These are the ones like at Poinciana, Rita Eaton -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Community parks are -- MR. RAMSEY: -- Vineyards, Veteran's, Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: More of the regional. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The five large parks. MR. RAMSEY: Exactly. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The neighborhood parks are the smaller and they're fairly labor intensive because you have to go from site to site and there's a lot of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's where I was confused -- MR. RAMSEY: A lot of road time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because I always refer to them as regional parks, but they're -- you're referring to them as community parks. That's where I was misunderstanding. Page 10 _._~"". September 22, 2005 MR. RAMSEY: Yeah. Community parks are the Veteran's, Vineyards, Golden Gate, East Naples, et cetera. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're adding those people to the existing parks. MR. RAMSEY: We're trying to take their emphasis to the community parks themselves, because we need to have more time in the parks in order to get our quality up in those parks. We're taking our neighborhood park patrol and putting them on our schools and outsourcing -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this will be on the agenda then for -- MR. RAMSEY: I'm assuming that the contract will be large enough that it will be on the agenda, correct, for the neighborhood park outsourcing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think he's saying he wants it on the COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want it on the agenda. MR. RAMSEY: No problem. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, the board will have to vote to approve that -- MR. RAMSEY: Contract. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- outsourcing contract. MR. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we'll have that opportunity again. Tonight you'll be approving the budget, but the ultimate decision for the outsourcing will be when that contract comes before the board for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the way that I understand that is we're taking and reassigning people and actually giving them more responsibility in the areas they're being reassigned to. That's my understanding of what's taking place here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, visiting Page 11 "'--'~ September 22, 2005 some of the regional parks, I don't think they're in bad shape. And maybe I need to take a better look and find out what kind of maintenance, extra maintenance we're going to be doing on that. That's all. The next question is for -- we have an expanded on community development. And what was the understanding of the hiring of the expanded positions when they started? I ask you why. It's my understanding that we said to you at the preliminary budget is go out and hire them tomorrow. Was that your understanding or was that my misunderstanding? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, community development, environmental services division. Commissioner, that was my initial understanding. And getting clarifications through the staff, the guidance that I received was that I would have to wait till the budget was adopted before I could hire. But we're in the process of going through the hiring right now. It's once the 1 October date I can bring them on board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. But I don't understand why we have to wait if we already gave you direction to go ahead and hire them in June when we gave that direction. Why do we have to wait? MR. SCHMITT: Don't have an answer for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that's an enterprise fund. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's different than the actual budget. Why do we have to wait till -- MR. SCHMITT: I would have had to come back in under the' 05 budget with a budget amendment, which I could have done, but the decision was made just to keep it as part of the FY '06 budget and have them come on board effective the 1 st of October. I would have had to amend my budget for the year to bring the 24 additional folks Page 12 September 22, 2005 on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The board made a policy to give you direction to hire ASAP, I thought. So who changed that? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think if you take a look at what was said to go get was about half of the 23 folks. It wasn't the entire 23 in the process. It was about 12. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are inspectors, right, and planners? MR. MUDD: That was my take. And basically talked to Joe and to Denny Baker and said, you've got half of those, get the other ones out, advertised and get those folks in and we'll bring it in 1 October, and that's the second piece. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think in the future that when the board gives direction and it's changed you come back to us first before changing that direction? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, we're at October 1 so-- , MR. SCHMITT: I'm in the process of -- this has been working through the HR system. All the jobs are advertised. Quite frankly, I'm having a difficult time trying to get people on board. That's the real Issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need to give a formal direction on that when we make a policy not to be changed? CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's a given. Staff doesn't have the authority to change policies once they've been established by the Board of County Commission. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. I did not change a policy, I just moved on the direction that I was given through HR that -- and through the HR staff and the budget office. And I'm not pointing blame at the guidance. My understanding was yes, we could go forward but then it was corrected to me that we could not hire until the Page 13 ____.~~~'m_.. , September 22, 2005 1 st of October. And that may not have been clear to the rest of the county staff, but my guidance was then I could not hire until the 1 st -- could not bring on board until the budget was actually in effect. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was my interpretation of the direction that we gave them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could -- are you finished, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I'm fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to carry that just a little bit further. We know that we've had some difficulty because of workload for some time. And we're just now beginning to deal with it at the end of the fiscal year. And if I could place any reliance on newspaper reports of interviews, which might be a dangerous assumption, but I understand that you're saying that the people we've approved for you might not really be enough, that you can only keep your head above water with the people we've approved. MR. SCHMITT: And that's exactly what I said during the budget hearing as well, Commissioner, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that causes me some concern, because we have struggled through a couple of years of difficulty in being able to meet performance standards to handle this very, very high volume of permits. And we're just now dealing with the staffing requirements at the end of this fiscal year, beginning of the new one. My question is, when will we deal with the true manpower needs to provide the level of service that we and the community deem to be appropriate? Are you going to come to us -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- with another request for more people soon, or are you going to wait for the next budget year to deal with Page 14 --- September 22, 2005 that? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, I will come back. But let me just make sure you understand. The first year I was here, I came to the board and asked for 25 additional folks. And actually, that year I plussed up 37. The following year, through some reorganization, moving of the tourism office, we went down six. Last year I came in plus three. This year I'm coming in at 25, plus you already gave me one earlier in the year, an environmental review staff. So I'm looking at this continually, looking at the work load, looking at the demand placed upon me, and coming to you for additional staff when I think I need it. Right now I need to hire the people that you authorized that I can hire, plus I have some shortages. I have about 34 positions open right now within community development. I think I'd rather say right now I'd like to fill those first and get those people on board. The shortages that have been, for one reason or another, people who've departed, the additional positions, as identified in the various departments, the 24 positions that are part of this budget, let me get those folks on board and if I need more, based on work load, I'll be back to you to both ask for that and quantify and qualify that request, based on the work load. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I think that it's probably the sentiment of the board that we would like to deal with that issue as quickly as possible. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so there shouldn't be a dig delay in determining what level of staffing is necessary to provide the service as expected by the community. Okay? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who was first, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. Page 15 ~-- September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, while you're right there, sir, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about your personnel in relation to the fast track program -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and the fact that, you know, their economic incentives out there. The problem is, is that a lot of people that are coming here from other areas of the country or the world, they're used to relaxed standards, they're used to seeing things happen in a fashion that seems more orderly. Not to say that your department isn't doing what they're doing, because we do have very strict rules. And the expectation in Collier County for what we expect people do is extremely high. I would like you to entertain the thought and possibly discuss it again later and bring it back to the commission, is possibly one of these positions for a planner. We might be able to dedicate it to the EDC who does the fast track programs. Through them we get a lot this -- the interest in the fast track program goes through them. But we might be able to use this planner with them to be able to have people understand the process a little bit better and make sure the applications that come through are sufficient, have sufficient information to be able to keep them going forward. I'm not asking that we give you more money, it's just that one of those positions that you're having a hard time filling, it might be a good idea maybe if we took it and dedicated it to the EDC. MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate that guidance. I already somebody that's dedicated to that program. In most instances when you're dealing with the fast track program, it's normally -- as we peel back the onion, it's more than just the fact that it is not moving through the process. And unless you wanted me to begin to talk about that tonight, I think what we need to do is probably bring that back at a separate agenda. Page 16 --..-..-. September 22, 2005 I am bringing back to you in October a fast track ordinance. We've never had an ordinance that codified the fast track program. I'm bringing that back to you as part of an official program. It's normally just kind of been a policy, but it's not been official. We've done that for affordable housing. I'm bringing back the EDC program as well. Tammie Nemecek and I have been talking about making sure my staff is involved earlier in the process, so that when someone's looking at a piece of property for a potential future site, that they understand the consequences, or at least the hurdles they're going to have to overcome. Most instances that cause delay in the fast track program are in the site plan review process. And it's not the fact that the staff isn't reviewing in a timely manner. Normally it's at a point where for one reason or another, because an old PUD -- a great example was what was in the paper this morning, International College. It was not the SDP that was the problem, it was the fact that we were dealing with a very, very problematic PUD that has been in violation for years, was significantly short in its environmental preservation standards, and that's what causes the problem. So it's more than -- there's more to meet the eye. But my -- what we're going to do and this policy will do is if -- we're at a point where at least if there's a three-time rejection in- between my staff and the applicant, we agree to disagree, we're going to try to bring the entire staff together, along with the applicant, to try and work out the problems, instead of this back and forth submittal, rejection, submittal, rejection. And that will all be in the ordinance. And I'm bringing it back to you in October that will define that process, and will put some of the burden onto the applicant as well. Because there will verbiage in there that they will have to meet certain resubmittal time lines. And I've been working with Tammie on this and that's something that we need to do. Page 1 7 '---,~" September 22, 2005 But I'd like to come back to you maybe in a workshop sometime and talk about -- give you a full understanding of the submittal process. And just for a snapshot, 75 percent of the SDP's that come into my building require three or more reviews. I don't understand why, from a standpoint of the process. And I have a lot of detailed information on rej ection comments and how many comments and all those kind of things. I think I'd like to come back and talk to you in detail on that process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions for you, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We seem to be having a problem with turnover ratio in regards to where we bring people on board, get them well trained for what they need to do, and then for some reason we lose them. What is our turnover ratio per year? And how long does it take to bring somebody up to speed in regards to the rules and regulations of our GMP and our LDC here in the county? MR. SCHMITT: That's kind of three questions. How long does it take? Probably for a planner, almost two years for them to become what I would call well versed in the process. My turnover rate when I first came on board was about 13 percent. I was down to about three percent. I think what you've experienced now, I've had a significant turnover in compo planning, but that was mainly due to folks accepting jobs for promotions. It just all of a sudden five people. One went to northern Virginia for a promotion, another one went to Montgomery County, Mary land for a promotion, one went to Fort Myers for a promotion. And it's just the dynamics of the process. Page 18 ."-----..-- September 22, 2005 Where I'm having problems, and quite frankly, I think everybody in Collier County is, getting somebody to come down here. They come down here, and all of a sudden its shell shock when they look at the cost of housing. I had a GIS, a super candidate two weeks ago, she and her husband were going to come down. And then when they realized what it was going to cost, they declined the offer. So that's something HR could probably come back and talk to you about in whole. But as you know, this is not only a problem with government, it's with the school system and business and everyone else. But -- so basically right now I'm probably running about five percent, not counting the new positions. So that the turnover has gone down. And I think that's pretty much statistically correct across the board, even in HR. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, are we in a competitive wage scale with the private sector? MR. SCHMITT: The short answer, no. I -- in some positions, the private sector is outbidding me. I mean, that's -- I lost a planner, I'll use his name, Fred Reich. Fred accepted a promotion and got a tremendous offer. And I couldn't compete against the offer he had. Plus it was a great opportunity. But I know HR does periodically or pretty consistently evaluates our wage scales against other sectors of the government and the private sector. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess what -- we've got a number of problems here. In order to address the problems that are down at your shop, number one is we are losing long-time employees that have a tremendous amount of knowledge in the process to the private sector, because we're not competitive. So therefore, it takes us time to retrain people to bring them up to speed. And of course -- how is the morale problem with all the -- with everything that's been happening here, some of the cases with the Page 19 September 22, 2005 insinuations that's been placed upon that department from this board? MR. SCHMITT: You're putting me on the spot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's do this in a workshop. Give you time to think about that. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, it's -- it's tough. It's tough down there because of the demands. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How much overtime are you working in there? MR. SCHMITT: I have overtime -- Jim has approved overtime for my environmental staff. I have another request up in his office yesterday, and that's a professional staff, which we are allowing to pay overtime. I've been paying them almost three-and-a-halfmonths, four months, Bill? About four months. And we're coming back. So I'm working them overtime and my inspectors overtime. But we get to a point where overtime becomes almost non-effective. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the amount of overtime per pay period? How many hours per pay period? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I don't have that information in front of me, sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one question, please. This is to Jim Coletta -- I mean Commissioner Coletta. When you were talking about a person to kind of walk through the fast tracking, were you speaking like an ombudsman or something to kind of help -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually, my thoughts -- and I really haven't thrashed them out with staff yet -- was to have that person assigned to the EDC to do nothing but work the fast track programs. And not just a person, but a planner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like an ombudsman, really, to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: More or less, yes. Page 20 --~~.'~ September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- guide it through the system, right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To guide it through the system. If there's a problem, they report back to the EDC where the problem is, rather than have to come back all the way through our chain of command. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they would be working for the county? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the county would pay for it. I'd like to see them work for the EDC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Working in the -- I see. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we've all been called on by the EDC and the Chamber of Commerce about the fast track program -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to finish the statement. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me weigh in on that one, okay? These are the county manager's employees. We cannot interfere in how he assigns them, and we cannot force him to assign somebody to an external agency that would have authority to make decisions internally in the planning department. So it is important that we leave this issue up to the county manager. Our job is to demand standards. The county manager has the responsibility for deciding how he gets them. So I would be very much opposed to any program which takes a government paid employee, assigns him to an external agency and gives them the authority to make decisions and shepherd things through our planning process. I think it's a violation of our ordinances and I think it raises a lot of ethical questions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You missed the whole question and the whole statement I was making, which you didn't allow me to finish. If I may? Page 21 September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understood it very clearly, and I think COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You interpreted it your own way. What I wanted to see was a budget change at Mr. Schmitt's office to be able to have the money, be able to dedicate it for a planner through the EDC for the EDC's budget. How that's a violation of anything that's within the system is beyond me. This is nothing more than a thought for people to talk about and you taking it and bending it several different ways. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought you were pretty clear both times. And I still understand where you want to go with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The whole thing is, you know, we say we have a problem with this, we think it needs to be fixed, come back to us with ideas. I think that's what Commissioner Coyle has said is that instead of directing how to fix it. That's all. But I think both are worthy discussions to -- MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's make sure we understand. The fast track process needs to be improved. I do not see that it gets to be improved by coordinating it through the EDC. It gets to be improved by coordinating with a person who submitted the permit. And whether it's the Botanical Gardens or whether it's any other organization, coordination with the people who submitted the permit will yield the fastest result. And so I think the EDC does a really good job of getting the business opportunities here, but I for one do not want to see the EDC get involved in starting making decisions about how we get permits. MR. SCHMITT: Can I just clarify for the record? I do payout of my budget almost $400,000 to the EDC to help pay for the staff to help Tammie do those kind of things that you're -- exactly what you're saying. But they do a lot of the marketing and other issues. Page 22 ---._,_. September 22, 2005 I have a staff member that's over there every week, meets with her staff, reviews the project. My principal planners -- and you'll see in my weekly report, and sometimes we're up to 154 different projects moving through that organization. And those are both major land use petitions and site plan amendments. Every week. And of the 13 or 14 planners, I've got to balance the resources and try and use those resources the best I can. And I do devote a person to help shepherd through, but the person is on my staff. Tammie uses part of the $400,000 I give her out of my budget to help her do the kind of things she needs to do in the EDC staff. And I think that's -- and I'll come back, like I said, with a fast track ordinance which will clearly define the responsibilities of the EDC, of the zoning department, and of the applicant. Because the missing piece here was the applicant. I want to make sure the applicant buys into this and has a contract and understands their role, number one, submitting a quality product for review. Almost two-thirds of the applications that come in my building aren't even sufficient for distribution. And have I lots of those statistics I'll come back to brief you on. But that's parts of the process. And I need to focus on that and help Tammie do her job, and I understand that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I think we've beaten that one to death. What else do you have to tell us? Any other questions by commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, just one more. The -- have we resolved the issue with the health insurance and that whole deferred compensation thing, or is that coming up in the agenda later? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That will come up under the UFR discussion. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to the next item. Page 23 ---_._~,"- September 22, 2005 Item #2C BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS MR. SMYKOWSKI: That brings us to item 2-C, which is the UFR discussion. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, do you want to do the UFR discussion first, or do you want to do public comment and then go to UFR? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's do UFR. It's on the agenda first, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's what we want to follow, the agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say something on the UFR? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, you'll see a scratched out line item for the Golden Gate Library. The reason I did that, they were talking about tearing down a building of 7,000 square foot. I think that has a lot of useful life on that. I've seen no report from facilities that it needs extraordinary maintenance on it, and I ask the county manager to take that off. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. But he's going to give you a new library too, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that's up to us. I think that's how it works. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the UFR list is on the screen. It's not showing up very well. But we'll go down that particular -- we'll go down that particular list. In your packets under tab 2-C, you have that list. I tried to put it up on the visualizer. Each Commissioner was asked to prioritize this Page 24 .~~---'" September 22, 2005 list and to submit that list to Mr. Smykowski earlier this week. Once we have that list, based on the methodology that we used in May that seemed to work pretty well and the board found it easy to work with, we took every commissioners vote, put it on this spreadsheet. And then over to the right-hand side, the number of commissioners voting for that particular item, we put that down there. If there were over three commissioners, three, four or five commissioners, once you have over three, you have the majority vote of the board. Now, you're not voting on this, it's just the way we arranged the spreadsheet. We took the number of votes and then we basically took the average of the four quantities of dollars that were there, summed them and then averaged it by the number of votes. And that's what you see on the very last column that's on that sheet of paper. One note that I would like to bring to your attention, the spreadsheet and the dollar amount that you had that we supplied to you last week -- Commissioner Coletta, to you this week -- had $8,729,400 on it. Since the time that we passed that sheet back out, we received notification from the Sheriffs office. There's another half a million dollars that he's returning to the board in his budget and adjusting his budget because of the D.R.I.L.L. Academy. That half a million dollars added to the total would bring it to $9,229,400 that are on the -- that you have to fund unfinanced requirements or to do whatever you may. So you have those particular items that sit there as far as the average dollar amounts that are on the right-hand column. And that -- all of those dollars sum up to $4426,800. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, can I interject something here? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Either I left something out on mine or it Page 25 --> September 22, 2005 wasn't properly transcribed from the copy I gave you, but it was my intent, and you'll see that my total amount is short of the total amount that is available for allocation. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was my intent to suggest approval of the $750,000 for the feasibility study for the Everglades Boulevard intersection and 1-75. So just -- just so you can complete the records, you have three other votes already, so it's an item that would be improved. But I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I did support that proj ect. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Fiala, question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I had a question. I asked you in my office to -- we heard from a few employees about the COLAs and those few employees that are not going to be receiving the COLAs, and you explained to me how that's handled, those employees that were like at the top. Could you explain that to me again? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The way your pay plan works in the county manager's agency is you have a minimum salary at the bottom of the range. We normally go from a market point that's in the middle and then you have a max dollar amount for that particular trade. That pay scale is normally set for 30 years, okay? And the way it's -- it's assumed that an employee will come on at the lower end of the range, and by the time he has or she has worked for a number of years, will progress up that pay scale and will be close to the top of that pay scale when it's time for that person to retire from Collier County government, if they choose to stay at that trade, and maybe they'd get a position to a supervisory position and move into a different pay range. We basically do -- as Mr. Schmitt alluded to, our HR department Page 26 -_._,~ September 22, 2005 does a market analysis of our pay plan annually, and that's part of a quarter of a percent that you see. We do COLA plus merit, and then I ask for a quarter percent to do pay scale maintenance. Part of that money is put into this analysis that's done. And we get a market firm to do it. They basically take a look at our pay ranges and see if they are competitive. They produced a report this year and they said -- and we basically have three blocks. We have a blue block, a white block and a red block, and they're different scales. They basically said the technical staff in Collier County, their pay scales need to be moved around 2.5 percent. So in this pay scale, which is on your Tuesday agenda, we are moving their pay ranges two and a half percent. So the mins are moving two and a half, the market's moving two and a half and the max is moving two and a half. The red scale, which is your directors and administrators, the market analysis said that we should move that one percent forward. So they're going to go through the same thing. Now, part of your pay plan says that when an employee is at the maximum amount of money, okay, that the market will bear for their particular trade, they're at the max point. When that happens, we don't give those employees COLA, okay? If they have -- if they do well and they get a bonus for their performance, we do that in a one-time payment as a check, and we do not put that merit in their pay. We don't put merit in the pay for directors and above in the administrator level either. And we don't put merit in pay for those employees that are 110 percent of their pay scale. And that means they're 10 percent over their -- the market value. When they get 10 percent over market, we basically say okay, we don't need to catch them up or move them forward as fast, we can slow them down. At that particular juncture, their merit doesn't go through their pay, but they receive a one-time bonus check for their performance from that particular era. Page 27 September 22, 2005 And that was what we talked about, trying to slow down or stop the gift that keeps on giving. So again, once they're maxed out in their pay range, they continue to receive that maximum amount. They don't receive COLA because the market is saying that's the maximum amount. But if we do that survey that adjusts the pay range, then that pay range would move. And when it moves, that person would move. And if the COLA is greater than or equal to or even less, they would get that COLA amount in their pay, and it would move it forward and keep it basically at the max rate again. Did I describe it for you, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to ask Commissioner Henning and Halas to wait just a second. I want to tag something on to that discussion. County Attorney, I remember receiving a memo from you, suggesting that you are not doing the same thing. And I think it is necessary that the board make some kind of decision with respect to whether or not we are going to treat all of our employees the same or not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is now the time we make that decision? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, both pay plans are on the agenda for Tuesday, and I believe that would be the appropriate time to make that decision. Because if -- no matter what happens, if you said today that all the county manager's employees, their merit was going to go in their pay and we weren't going to do that, we wouldn't need a budget amendment, because it's only for that one year. But then you'd have to adjust subsequent years. Same thing with Mr. Weigel's particular item, the way he wants to do it. The money's there and it's budgeted in this particular budget. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, then we'll deal with that Page 28 September 22, 2005 Monday -- Tuesday. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to see if anybody wants to do some bartering. I know Commissioner Halas, one of his top priorities is beach. And per my memo, I'm ready to do some bartering. Commissioner Halas, you want some beach money? CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's going to ask you for money in return, something else. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any money in return. I've pretty much spent the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're okay, you can do it. Trust me. I mean, it's there. I mean, I think you've got -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm afraid of. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got six million dollars not earmarked for anything else. That if you look at your column on the bottom -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you have six million. Commissioner Coyle has almost five million. Oh, wait a minute, that's -- MR. MUDD: No, that's spent, sir. That's spent. The number at the bottom -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's spent. It's already been promised. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He took it off. He spent all the money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, he didn't take it all. What is it, nine million? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it's 9.2 million. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing I missed was the 500,000 turn back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: From the Sheriff. Page 29 September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then somebody didn't add up your numbers right, because it looks like you got, what is that, 36 -- 3.26 -- $3.6 million of -- that is not dedicated to anything? Is that correct, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For Commissioner Halas? He has allocated -- he allocated $8,729,400, which was the total amount that was available when we distributed. The only differential now is that $500,000 as a result of the Sheriffs budget change. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also what -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. I see how you're doing it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also, I believe there was 1.2 million that was committed over a 1 O-year period to address the Sheriffs requirements for infrastructure. And I think that shows up down there on description of the state's substation jail, security and special operations building. Have I got that right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I'm mistaken, I just want to make sure that it's the bottom line that each Commissioner allocated to? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: And when you go over to the far right column, when you add up all those numbers, it comes out to be $4,426,800. That's basically what's allocated. Commissioners, I'd just like to make one mention, and the -- and this has to do with the Sheriffs facilities that are sitting -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just what I was going to ask. I was trying to ask you about that. MR. MUDD: It's the Estates substation, the jail security systems and the special operations building. Those particular facilities, the two, the substation and the special ops building, have been in the planning stages. And we have designs Page 30 September 22, 2005 ready to go. I just don't have enough of those capital dollars and that third of a mill to make everything work in the county. One of the things that I had mentioned during the workshop, if you remember when Chief Smith was up at the table, and he was talking about coming back with dollars underneath his pie, so to speak, of that 39.6 percent, was if he was going to come back with those particular dollars, it might be a good thing to do to take those dollars that he brings forward and apply them to his construction program. Now, Commissioner, those are -- those requirements have been established. You as a board have approved the designs. You even approved an extension to the lease with the airport authority for six more months so that we could hold it for the special ops building. If you took the dollars that the Sheriff gave back underneath this pie. I'm not talking about -- his total back to us is about -- it's a million, seven underneath the pie, but there's another 723. So it's a total of about $2.5 million. And again, it's an approximation. I don't have the exact numbers right here at the tip of my tongue. So he's $1.7 million on an -- if I was able as a manager, with your direction, to take those dollars and leverage commercial paper, I could make a big dent in those particular projects and get those things going. Now, on the Sheriffs side of the issue, those dollars will have to be -- would have to be available in future years underneath his pie slice. And I've talked about that with Chief Rambosk on the phone for the last couple of days. I believe it's important. And I believe those -- right now he's operating out of a trailer that -- I think he's worked out a deal with the school board out in the Estates. And it's not necessarily the best thing. We would put him right next to the MS station off Immokalee Road. He'd have a visible presence there as far as the Estates substation and the special operations building. If you've been over to the EMS and you've taken a look at the Page 3 1 September 22, 2005 hangars, everybody's jammed in there. I was there the other day. You have helicopters on top of helicopters, and folks around there. I'm not too sure that's the best of all facilities. Plus we're renting it. It would probably be good in this particular case if we could go do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Chairman, that's why I felt that we needed to use $1.2 million out of recurring funds for the next 10 years to address the issues that the Sheriff has. And I think it must be that all three items are of great importance to him. So I felt that we needed to divide that up. That's where that funding came from. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. And there -- we have to get one more vote to get that done, because right now you only have two commissioners that are doing that. And the reason for that is that I didn't have that information about the additional $500,000 at the time I submitted my UFR break-out. If the agreement with the Sheriff is consummated, that there will be recurring dollars, I think it would be logical for us to put that money into his capital improvement program for these particular projects. So I will be the third vote to approve that, if the Sheriff is amenable to that process. SHERIFF HUNTER: Can I make a couple of comments? One, if I may, the current modular unit we're occupying at the school on 858 for purposes of District 4, we've just finally gotten all the hook-ups, everything's about right. I think we ought to live there about a year or two. We're okay with that. As long as the board would agree that it's not going to be a permanent arrangement. I think the schools enjoy us being there. Some level of security. That's good. It's working out okay. I would minimize the priority of that particular facility at the moment, because I think it is working out, Commissioner Coletta. And we can survive there for a while. Page 32 September 22, 2005 But I do believe that the special operations facility, because of the windows that we have to be attendant to on the loss of lease, we need to turn a shovel here pretty quick. We have been working. In fact design drawings have already completed by board staff. And we need to push forward with that. That should be number one priority. As far as recurring dollars, I'll stand by whatever has been worked out between Mr. Mudd and Chief Rambosk pertaining to recurring dollars, and we would -- we have agreed I believe to commit to whatever recurring dollars may be available to assist with the capital projects. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. That's good news. You're happy with that? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're happy with that arrangement? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's a significant improvement of where we are right now. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Commissioner Halas, I have Commissioner Fiala and Coletta waiting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I may have been out of turn. I think it was Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I think you're right, you were next. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was just on that subject, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Listen, when you put these things together, you're never too sure what's going to happen or how it's going to fall. Everybody has a tendency to look at their own priorities. And at this time I'd like to add to my particular list the beach access issue or the beach access property for the $1,903. Page 33 ..-.--- September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that makes number three. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right. And also too for the skiing program. I'd like to also include that on my list as a choice. And I hope that possibly we may get some consideration for the roads and bridge maintenance crew which is direly needed in eastern Collier County. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you add that to it as well, now you've got another half a million bucks? The road and bridge that's 111. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'm already there myself. If I'm not, that's an oversight. Oh, you're right, I'm not. I definitely -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My UFR list did include it, but I gave it to him verbally over the phone. So that's it. We got that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you wanted to add the road and maIn -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Road and bridge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- road and maintenance crew? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the water-ski group. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. And I don't need anything to trade. They're all worthy by themselves. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to give anymore money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm waiting for you to call on me. My light is on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. Is there any way I can turn her light off? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was trying to talk about and I never got to talk, and so let me just say now, because I -- I was trying Page 34 September 22, 2005 to say that I had spoken to Jim Mudd about commercial paper for the Sheriffs office. Because I really -- I was going to allocate some money, and Jim Mudd said no, we're going to have some commercial paper here and this is the way we can do it. So I just wanted to throw my two cents worth in and say I'm all for it as well. So count me in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, first of all, I'd just like to mention that where my vote was in June in regards to the beach sticker, I studied that very thoroughly, and I felt that it was -- we were disenfranchising the people here in the unincorporated area of Collier County whereby we were charging them a beach sticker fee. But yet we really weren't addressing the people in the City of Naples or Marco, and I was concerned that it wasn't being fair. So I have turned my vote the other way and I've put $600,00 -- $660,000 into the rebate program. And so, therefore, I think there's enough support that we're not going to have to charge for beach stickers. But I can assure you that when the parking garage comes on-line in the Vanderbilt area, there will be a user fee for that garage. And I'd also like to say that I'm somewhat concerned that we haven't looked at looking at enhancing the administrative -- administrations building, which we're in, in regards to security. Not only for the Board of County Commissioners -- and we're easy to replace -- but when we have legislative people here who represent the state for us and also we have a Congressman that's in this building, I think that we ought to look at this very closely and at least put some funding towards security in this building. That's under enhanced administrative building security. And there's a request for 275,000. And I'm concerned. Like I said, we have a Congressman that's in this building, U.S. Congressman, and we also have two state legislative people that are here. Page 35 September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER HENNING: He can have my security door. I want to be accessed by the people. So he's welcome to have my -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think it's the issue of turning away people. I think that in the situation that this world is in today, I think that we just need to be more prudent in regards to where we are. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not worth it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Where do we go next? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've got Mr. Smykowski trying to tally those changes right now as we sit. And then it's up to the board to decide. And we'll go down those numbers with you to make sure that you're comfortable with what I believe you just said. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, while you're doing that, I would like to take just a minute to support Commissioner Halas's concern about security issues. But it's my understanding that you are -- our facilities manager is in fact currently in the process of making a number of security enhancements to this building, including the security of the parking lot, which we've just experienced. So it's not as if nothing is going to be done. But it would be good, I think, if you were to have an individual discussion with the commissioners about certain security issues that are being contemplated, rather than discussing them in the public. I think that would be an appropriate thing for you to do, okay? Sometime over the next several weeks. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What vice -- if this didn't get funded, the direction was that there would be -- that we would actually -- we would check randomly folks in the building, along with things that are being carried, to make sure -- and no particular order, but -- and we have the guard at the front, so that was the direction I gave to Mr. Camp and the security -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't necessarily want to talk about what we're going to do, but there are some other issues, other Page 36 ---_.- ,_.,-._--~- September 22, 2005 measures that were contemplated. And I for one would like to make sure that they are -- that we continue those. The Sheriff is going to give us some money to get this done. SHERIFF HUNTER: Actually, I am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can see that right now. SHERIFF HUNTER: I am. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely. SHERIFF HUNTER: I just want to make one modification to the UFR list. I understand from staff that the jail security system that got Commissioner Halas's vote has been satisfied by -- somehow within the current new wing project. So that monies, those monies, the 1.5 million, may be removed from that list. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there's our security problem solved already. SHERIFF HUNTER: That's the jail security. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Sheriff, you certainly wouldn't deprive us of an opportunity to be secure in our offices, would you? SHERIFF HUNTER: No, I'd recommend it. MR. MUDD: And that particular item is not recurring, it's a one-time cost. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, so are some of the things that Commissioner Halas is talking about, too and we've been talking about. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sir, if I have -- right now we have Commissioner Halas saying that he wants the additional security system, and I believe you've just shown some kind of interest. That's two people. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Throw me in on it. It was two commissioners, we now have three. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just make sure I understand now, that we're still going to take out commercial paper for the special operations building and the Estates substation; is that correct? Page 37 September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. MR. MUDD: There's not enough money, okay, in order to -- if I had to do commercial paper over a 10-year period of time in order to do the substation and the special ops building, it would come to about $2.2 million. The Sheriff just said that the substation could hold for about two years in the process. We don't lose it. We own the land, so it's not a rental agreement. And he wants to go full boar on the special ops building. And I believe there's enough recurring dollars so that we turn back that $1.7 million in order to get that loan and get that building working. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's -- and that's what I've already said is we are going to take commercial paper out for that? MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, you have to get commercial paper. That's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And so do you need all five of us to say yes, nod of approval, or -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just three. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you've got four. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would need three. And then again, with the commercial paper loan we're forced to bring back a resolution in front of the board, requesting approval of the loan documents and all. So that would come at a future commission meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought commercial paper meant you just print it off yourself. No? MR. MUDD: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you hear that, Sheriff? SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll report that to the Secret Service. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where do we go next? Have you finished tabulating? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're just consulting. Item #2D Page 38 September 22, 2005 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we go to public speakers? MR. MUDD: We can do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to take some more time? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I'd like to spend just a couple seconds to CHAIRMAN COYLE: We only have I think two. MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sue? MR. MUDD: We're going to public speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two? MS. FILSON: We have four. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have four now. MS. FILSON: Bob Murray. MS. MURRAY: I'm going to waive. MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Scott Coulombe. MS. NEMECEK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. On your unfunded request, or UFR list, you have an amount of $164,500 that is being requested by the EDC for marketing and promotion of economic development for Collier County. This is over and above the 400,000 that is in the budget for ongoing staff expenses. There are no marketing dollars that are -- anticipated marketing dollars for that line item. This is an extension of what was funded this fiscal year, which is funding a marketing analysis for the Immokalee Regional Airport. A bulk of this money will go towards marketing for the airport next year, in addition to a $20,000 request that is a partnership Page 39 September 22, 2005 between Lee County and Charlotte County to fund a regional economic research institute, in conjunction with the regional planning council and Florida Gulf Coast University. In looking at the efforts of the EDC over the last many years with our public/private partnership, we have proven that the jobs that we're working on to retain and create here in Collier County do indeed pay back to the commission and to the county by $110 for every dollar that's been invested by the county. In addition, we just completed a return on investment report for the four years prior to 2005, which shows that the projected consumer expenditures, based on the jobs that are retained and created, through our efforts through the public/private partnership, are in excess of $65 million, based on the wages that those individuals are making in the community. And that expenditure comes in food and housing and apparel and transportation, health care, entertainment, all types of things within our community. And so this request is minimal for marketing. As anybody will tell you, marketing is not an in expensive proposition. But I do request that you look into the budget to see if you can fund the $164,500. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: Scott Coulombe. He'll be followed by Tom Lykos. MR. COULOMBE: Good evening, Commissioners. The name is Coulombe, for the record C-O-U-L-O-M-B-E -- that's okay, it's French, everybody does that, they put the U in the wrong place. But that's all right -- Executive Vice President, Collier Building Industry Association. Good evening and thank you for the chance to speak to you. I just wanted to touch on earlier comments from what Commissioner Henning had said and you, Mr. Chairman, and also Mr. Page 40 September 22, 2005 Coletta are echoing the situation of the 113 enterprise fund that the industry pays for. When Mr. Hammond had approached us a few weeks ago, he had informed us of the situation that the inspectors were being averaging 30 inspections a day or more. We know the national norm is 24. So he was -- we said well, bring on new people, bring on more staff. And he says, well, before I can do that, I've got to go ahead and put in, you know, limited calls on the call-in inspection, at that time when it was started, I believe at 825 a day. Then he got cut off. And then he raised it to 1,025 a day. Well, what was beginning to happen out there in the real world was in the morning, it was almost like tantamount to a phone call lottery. He'd just speed dial. He'd just speed dial. First one to get in gets an inspection. If you miss that, you don't get it. I had members that were sending crews home for two days because they weren't getting the inspections. They were missing that window. They couldn't get into it. But that was the result of what was happening. We understood what was happening from the point, because you don't want to shirk off anybody's inspection, you want it thorough, you want it right. If you didn't, if you try to speed it up, that exposes you to a little bit of liability also. Because if something goes wrong and it falls back to your inspector, because he just didn't have the time to get to it. And we understood that. But what got frustrating was the fact that they were informed and we were informed that there was a policy that you had to wait till October. Since the enterprise fund is funded and paid for, the permit fees -- got nothing to do with the ad valorem or the tax base -- let and allow them at any time they see to gear up. Just like in the real world, any business community, if you start to see this need come upon you, then you try to expand, you bring on more people to meet that demand and to maintain that level of service or improve it. Page 41 ~ ,........-..-.'.--- September 22, 2005 So we would just like that ability. And I thought that's what I heard echoed here tonight, if Mr. Schmitt, if he needs it, just come on up to you, and he talks about the ideas, he talks with Mr. Mudd, and we can go ahead and say yeah, there it is, there's the justification, and here's the revenue source. And it doesn't affect the budget. So we don't understand why this was held off till October. Because it does take time to get these people, and it is harder to get people to Collier because of the pay scales and also the cost of housing where it's going now. It's going through the roof. We're all aware of that, we know it. That just compounds it. It makes it harder. If anything you can emphasize and stretch, that's all the more reason why you have to jump out ahead of time, because it's not going to be the normal fast turnaround time to bring people in. You have to really do a hard search for it. We understand that. But we just wanted to make sure that this policy is open. We wanted to get it on the record that we totally understand why the things have happened, but we do support bringing more people on board for the inspectors to take care of that. And the increase that went up to 37 to 38 percent, not all of that was single-family. As a matter of fact, compared to this time last year, we were at 20 percent down. But still the need is there. All the permits have to go through that department. And we want to thank Mr. Schmitt too for inviting us and bringing us in to where we will sit down, we'll do some further analysis and tweak this and get it right. Appreciate your time. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Tom Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Commissioners, thank you for your time this evening. I appreciate it. I am currently the presidential appointee in the executive committee of the CBIA. But more importantly, I'm a general contractor in Collier County, and I'm a remodeling contractor. Now, a lot of the conversations regarding permitting and impact Page 42 September 22, 2005 fees and those kind of things, you hear a lot about developers. But you know what? I represent part of the industry that we work with homeowners, and we sit across the kitchen table from those people. And some of the problems that we're having, it's not about how many houses can you build in a year, how fast can houses get built, it's about how fast can I remodel somebody's bathroom, and how fast can I get a kitchen done for somebody. If you've ever had to experience a remodeling project, waiting for a permit and then getting the work done, waiting for inspections, it can be -- inconvenient is an understatement. The problems that have occurred down at the permitting department and with the work overload, we understand that, but again, I think it's important that we stress that you're not only solving problems for the developers of this community, but also the smaller contractors and the homeowners that live here, that already live here. It's not just people that are new that are coming to Collier County, it's also people that already live here that need the construction services of the other part or industry that serves Collier County as well. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Do we have a final tabulation? MR. MUDD: Mr. Smykowski was going to get that burned off. But let's go to 111 real quick, okay, while we're working that. And that's the next page over. And Commissioner, on this sheet there is -- there are about six items. One was lime rock paving. That's basically -- this is the unincorporated fund. The available funds in this particular area that are uncommitted at this time are $694,400. And that is up in this gray box. The items that are there are lime rock, road paving, landscaping, crew, which are two FTE's to do irrigation maintenance. An Page 43 September 22, 2005 environmental plan reviewer; code enforcement vehicle for hire; a senior field supervisor. And then there were various capital projects that were described to you on your sheets that are attached. And then there was a system fault tolerance ECM and business continuity. It's basically -- that has to do with the IT department, information technology department. The votes were tallied on this particular sheet, and there are four votes for lime rock road paving, and the average amount of dollars for that particular item. And again, it's how much each commissioner allocated the sum of those particular dollars, divided by four, was $305,606 -- excuse me, $305,650. The next item is landscape crew. That's the irrigation crew. There were three votes, and that was Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala. And that dollar averaging each allocated 114,600 to that particular crew, which is what was needed in order to hire those particular people. Next is environmental plan reviewer. There were four votes for that particular item. And each commissioner allocated the dollars that the -- the $66,900 that would fund that particular person. Next item was code enforcement vehicle for hire. There were three votes, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala. And that basically came out to be $78,000, which was the amount that was requested for the code enforcement vehicle for hire. The next item is a senior field supervisor for ball field maintenance. Staff request was for $71,900. Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta voted for that particular item. And they basically went full value, or what was requested for that item, and that was $71,900. That's all the votes that were three or above for the 111 funds. That particular item came out summed up to be $637,050, which is around $50,000 -- about $55,000 less than the available funds in that Page 44 September 22, 2005 particular item. Commissioners, do you have any questions, and do you want to CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have a question on that. I have something on what a speaker said. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it disturbs me that another policy decision was made, even though that I understand the rationale about limiting permits -- or inspections. But what I understand about government and the organization of government, whenever a regulation or policy is put upon the people, that the elected officials make those decisions. And I think that, you know, we were charged to do that. But yet we wasn't even consulted to do that. Never came before us. Had to hear it from the public that a regulation went on to the citizens of Collier County and we had no say-so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you referring to the number of inspections? I'm not sure that's a regulation. I think that's probably an internal standard established by the county manager. But I don't think we establish those, do we? COMMISSIONER HALAS: State of Florida also has a regulation on inspections, don't they? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The number of inspections that are done in the inspection side of the house is basically left up to Mr. Schmitt and their building department and what they feel is reasonable to perform quality inspections that are out there in the field. And it got to the point in time that the number of inspections -- the inspectors were not spending the amount of time they needed to in order to do a quality inspection, and the building department director felt very, very uncomfortable with the amount of inspections that were being done and what his particular employees were telling him back in Page 45 September 22, 2005 that particular case. He went and he put a cap at 825, as was alluded to by one of the speakers. Went back and looked. Some of those were a redundant call, what they call a redundant call, from what I read, and he increased that by 200 inspections a day, and he's now up to 1,025. He has inspectors that are out -- were advertising for those positions. They have just hired an electrical inspector, but they still haven't had any bites on the plumbing side or the structural side. And I will also tell you that the long pole in the tent, so to speak, is structural inspections right now. On the electrical side, he's probably got some surplus as far as the inspectors are concerned, but not on the structural side. When I've read the situation reports that you receive every week from Mr. Schmitt, it seems to indicate that structure is the particular Issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I follow up with that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what was done is purposely to not hire when the board said, but now what I hear is you're limiting the total amount of inspections per day, but yet if somebody calls in for an electrical inspection and they're over that daily amount, they're not going to get an inspection until the next day if they get in line and call. And again, it's just a policy decision on how we govern the people in Collier County. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, from the workshop, my recollection is the board basically said go out and hire 13 people that were on Mr. Schmitt's expanded list. He had another list that had 10, and the board did not give direction for those 10. I will find out what happened as far as the hiring and not hiring in those particular items and find out who made the decision not to hire the 13 right off the bat from the Board of County Commissioners. Page 46 September 22, 2005 Because I was a little surprised at your particular comments. You caught me by surprise as far as that was concerned, because I remember having this discussion at the workshop with Mr. Baker and Mr. Schmitt sitting in the first row. So I'll find out how that got conflicted, turned around or whatever and I'll get to the bottom of it and I'll provide that information to the board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it didn't really answer my question about the electrical inspector. But I just want to say we circumvented the public process to allow the public to give us testimony on decisions that were we're about to make on the public. And I just really have a problem when those daily decisions are made. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you. Who's next? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe I was. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Going back to the 111 general fund UFR list there. At the time that I filled it in, I was trying to allot for several different things that the rest of the commissioners didn't go for, and that's understandable. The most important thing that I seen on that is the lime rock roads. And it's kind of ironic that the amount that I put down there was the least amount of all, when it is probably one of the most important things that could be on this sheet. What I'm going to suggest is that -- we have a balance of $57,450 left from this particular 111 fund, and that we add it back into the lime rock road paving. If I knew that amount would have been left, I probably would have skewed my numbers to include it to begin with, but I didn't. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there any objection to making that change from any of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Page 47 September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, without objection, that change is made. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to follow up on what Commissioner Henning was saying there. I think one of the problems that we have as far as finding inspectors is the fact that it's pretty hard to find an inspector, because he has to be qualified in a particular area. And obviously there's a lot of incentive for them not to be inspectors to work in the private sector. But I think we are -- we, when I say that, I'm saying that, I think HR is working diligently to try to fill those particular positions that we have shortfalls in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we just got handed our UFR list, and under interchange justification report, four of us have all agreed to the $750,000, but somehow it came out to the number of both totaling three to a million dollars. So I thought maybe there's a little problem there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's inflation for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why we ought to give it to the people. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we're in a total of8.5 million allocated at this point. I'm sorry, I neglected to change that fourth vote. So that averages to 750. I was offby 250. And I've been scurrying like a rat to find it, and Commissioner Fiala found it for me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe we could use that other money then to go to EDC. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That wasn't real money. Page 48 -"-" September 22, 2005 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm still there. I don't think you got a third vote. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have any questions about this one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It looks like, correct me if I'm wrong, there's -- no, I'm on the wrong line item. So there's no turn back money to the taxpayers? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's two people who voted to turn back money for taxpayers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You and I. MR. SMYKOWSKI: With the changes that have been made, Commissioners, you are at again, 8,503,600. The available change, or the available UFR pool was 9,229,400. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's the availability of 700,000 to send back to the taxpayers. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if we don't say anything, it will just go on reserves and spent out through the year, right? MR. MUDD: It will go into the reserves, and if the board approves it, it will get used for a project or two, or whatever the board desires at that time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or it goes -- MR. MUDD: Or it just stays in reserves and it will roll over to the next year and the next year and the next year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that -- are those funds available in case of any kind of emergency? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have enough emergency funds? MR. MUDD: Do we have what, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Enough emergency funds Page 49 September 22, 2005 without this money? MR. MUDD: Sir, you have 2.5 percent of your budget in the emergency fund, so -- of the entire budget. So you have money in the budget. How much money exactly, about eight million, eight or nine in reserve? And we'll get you that number, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that enough money in case of an emergency? MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, it depends on the emergency. If it's a New Orleans hurricane, no, sir, not by a long shot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bottom line, we'll never have enough money. I'd rather see it go back to the taxpayers, but that's up to the majority of the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My personal feeling is, is that we're providing needed services that have been needed for a long time. We run a real tight ship as far as the budget goes. And this amount, what, 674,000, being left in reserves to deal with emergencies is probably the correct thing to do at this point in time. We still at capital millage rate at the same point it's been the last year. We have provided additional services that meet the needs of a growing community. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I concur with my fellow commissioner. There are a lot of items on here that I feel deal with the health, safety and welfare of the people. And I think that that's the primary goal. Especially roads, bridge and -- road and bridge maintain crews and items of this nature that we discussed earlier. And to me, that to me is very important. I want to make sure that we address the issues of growth as growth hits us in the county, as it has in the last couple of years. We've had a large spurt in both areas, and I just want to make sure we take care of the people here in Collier County, too. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we need three commissioners to Page 50 September 22, 2005 tell us where they want the additional amount of money to go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reserves. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's $725,800. That's a difference -- your UFR available funds was 9,229,400. You've allocated 8,503,600. The differential is 725,800. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, you've got 725,300? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 800. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear a motion as to where you'd like to see it go? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we put it In reserves. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner to put it in reserves, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And those opposed, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. So it passes 3-2, with Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle favoring giving it back to taxpayers. Okay, what's the next step? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just wanted to make sure that I've got down exactly what the board asked for in the 111 fund. The 001 fund is locked. You basically -- there was a difference between $694,400 and 637 -- $637,050. And I believe the board's direction was to take the $57,350 and put it into lime rock road paving. Page 51 September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. That's right. MR. MUDD: Okay. Then we're done with the 111 on particular Issues. Item #2E RESOLUTION 2005-324: AMENDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGETS - ADOPTED W/CHANGES Mr. Smykowski, you are doing a resolution to amend the tentative budgets. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Commissioners, we would need a motion for a resolution amending the tentative budget that would incorporate the changes that I walked through under item 2- B, as well as the changes you've made in allocating the UFR funds. We will make those necessary changes to the budget and come up with a final budget total. But the resolution you would be adopting would be incorporating, again, those changes that I discussed under further amendments, 2- B, as well as item 2-C, the UFR list allocation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the resolution is on Page 2-E, under tab E, in case you need to refer to it. Is there a motion to approve amending the tentative budget for fiscal year 2005-06, as discussed? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 52 September 22,2005 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it opposed -- or it passes 4-1, with Commissioner Henning in opposition. Item #2G 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 - READ INTO RECORD MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is a public reading of the taxing authority levying millage and name of the taxing authority, the rolled back rate, the percentage increase and the millage rate to be levied. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're on item 2-G, Page 3, is the list of the various funds and fund numbers. I'll begin and get through this as quickly as I can. The fund title, the General fund 001. The rolled back millage rate 3.3417. The proposed millage rate, 3.8772, an increase of 16 percent. Water pollution control fund 114, the rolled back rated, .0299. The proposed millage rate, .0347, an increase of 16.1 percent. The unincorporated area general fund 111, the rolled back millage rate, .7027, proposed, .8069. 14.8 percent increase. Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130, the rolled back rate .2003, proposed millage rate, .2337. Percent change, 16.7. Page 53 September 22, 2005 Naples Park drainage fund 139, the rolled back rate, .0077, the proposed millage rate, .0090. That's an increase of 16.9 percent. The Pine Ridge Industrial Park, fund 140. The rolled back millage, .0897, the proposed millage rate, .095. That's a percent increase of 5.9 percent. Victoria Park drainage, fund 134, the rolled back rate, .4585 mills, the proposed is .4877, an increase of 6.4 percent. There is no proposed level levy in the Naples underground FPL. That was a one-time levy in fiscal year '05. That's a decrease of 100 percent. Golden Gate Parkway beautification, fund 136, the rollback rate, .4308, proposed is .5 mills, an increase of 16.1 percent. Naples Production Park, fund 141, the rolled back is .0306, proposed .0341. It's an increase of 11.4 percent. The Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, fund 143, the rolled back rate, .4458, the proposed millage rate, .5, an increase of 12.2 percent. Isle of Capri Fire, fund 144. The rolled back rate is 1.816, the proposed millage rate is 1.5. That's an increase of 26.9 percent. Ochopee Fire Control, fund 146. The rolled back rate, 3.2082 mills, proposed is four mills, an increase of 24.7 percent. Collier County Fire, fund 148, the rolled back rate is 1.6764 mills, proposed, two mills, an increase of 19.3 percent. GoodlandlHorr's Island Fire MSTU, fund 149, the rolled back rate, .7362, proposed 1.3632. An increase of 85.2 percent. Radio Road beautification, fund 150, the rolled back rate, .2209, proposed .25, an increase of 13.2 percent. Sabal Palm Road MSTU, fund 151, the rolled back rate is 1.3014, proposed is 1.9881, an increase of 52.8 percent. Lely Golf Estates beautification, fund 152, the rolled back is 1.7273 mills, proposed is two mills, an increase of 15.8 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU, fund 154, the rolled back, .2720, the proposed .1507, a decrease of 44.6 percent. Page 54 September 22, 2005 Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU, fund 155, the rolled back is 2.5847, proposed is 4 mills, an increase of 54.8 percent. Immokalee beautification MSTU, the rolled back rate is 1.1304 mills, proposed is one mill. That's a decrease of 11.5 percent. Bayshore Avalon beautification MSTU, fund 160, the rolled back rate is 1.4786 mills, proposed, 1.75, an increase of 18.4 percent. Livingston Road Phase II MSTU, there is no proposed tax levy, and there was no levy last year. Conservation Collier, fund 172, the rolled back rate is .2155, proposed is .25, an increase of 16 percent. Parks GOP debt service, there was no levy in '05 or none proposed in '06. Caribbean Gardens, fund 220, there is no rolled back rate, there was no levy in '05. Proposed is 1.5 mills. Isle of Capri debt service, fund 244, there was no levy in '05, there is no proposed levy in '06. Collier County lighting, fund 760, the rolled back rate is .1057 mills, proposed is .0850, a decrease of 19.6 percent. Naples Production Park Street lighting, there was no levy in '05. The rolled back rate is zero. There is no proposed levy in '06. Pelican Bay MSTBU, fund 778, the rolled back is .1331, proposed is .1610, an increase of 21.0 percent. The aggregate millage rate rolled back, 4.1327, proposed, 4.7928, an increase of 15.97 percent. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have failed to give our court reporter a break. Can you make it through a few more minutes, or are you ready to stop? THE COURT REPORTER: I can keep going, thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're going to continue. Item #2G RESOLUTION 2005-325: SETTING MILLAGE RATES- Page 55 September 22, 2005 ADOPTED We'll move to item 2-G, it's an adoption of Resolutions setting the millage rate. A strict reading of statute. I will need two separate motions: First for the dependent district, which includes your pollution control fund, the Conservation Collier fund, and the Caribbean Gardens fund. They are dependent to the Board of County Commissioners. A strict reading of statute says they should be adopted by separate motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a motion to adopt the millage rate for the dependent districts? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. I would also need a motion then for the balance of the tax rates that I just included reading a short time ago. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Page 56 September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Approved unanimously. Item #2H RESOLUTION 2005-326: FINAL BUDGET BY FUND - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: That moves us to Item 2-H, a Resolution to adopt the final budget by fund. Again, a series of two motions. The first for the dependent districts. Again, the pollution control fund, the Conservation Collier fund and the Caribbean Gardens fund. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas to accept the proposed budget for the dependent districts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying Page 57 September 22, 2005 any. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the final motion, sir, would be the balance of the operating and capital funds, exclusive of the dependent districts. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the budget for the remainder of the districts, excluding the dependent districts? There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That concludes the presentation, sir. Page 58 September 22, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything from Commissioners? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that case, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:23 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~ ,Jl w C k FRED COYLE, Ch:&an J Q..DQ5 ) TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 59 ~~~"----,~~,