Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/21/2006 B (Budget) September 21, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 21, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION, Budget Hearing, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Michael Pettit, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. ANY PERSON WHo DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - Collier Coooty BCC FY 2006-07 Budget. A. Discussion ofFY 07 Millage Rates and Increases over the Rolled Back Rates B. Discussion of Further Amenaments to the Tentative Budget C. Public Comments and Questions D. Budget Discussion Items . UFR Lists 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 Food 3. ADJOURN." September 21, 2006 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager Mudd. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And this is -- the Board of County -- Collier County Commissioners is now in session. This is going to be our second public meeting for the approval of the fiscal year of '07 budget. And I'd ask at this time if anyone has a cell phone or pager, if you'd be so kind as to turn it off. And at that, we'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A DISCUSSION OF FY 07 MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASE OVER THE ROLLED BACK RATES CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe I'm going to turn this over now to Mike Smykowski. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just on the visualizer, just for the viewing public, we have an agenda for this meeting. Again, this is the second advertised public hearing for the FY -'07 budget for Collier County. And Mr. Smykowski will start this under paragraph 2A. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening. Thank you. For the record, Michael Smykowski, O&B Director. Before I get started on 2A, just administrative issues. If you are interested in signing up to speak on any topic tonight on the budget, there are speaker sign-ups as well as agendas available out in the hallway. And Ms. Filson, who's up front here, will collect those and Page 2 September 21, 2006 call the speakers' names at the appropriate time. That will be under item 2C under public comment, and she'll call them two at a time. So if you'd just pay attention. Again, you need to sign up if you would like to speak tonight on any given topic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mike, I just also would like to bring to the attention. There was a misprint. It said five minutes. It's limited to three minutes for each speaker. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That will bring us to item 2A. In your agenda packages, there is a list under 2A, page 1, of the proposed tax rates for the current year. Florida law requires us to express the increase in the tax rate as a function of the rolled back millage rate, and that defined is the tax rate that generates the same amount of tax revenue as levied in the previous fiscal year exclusive of new construction that comes on the tax rolls. With that, Florida Statute requires that the first substantive issue to be discussed at the public hearings on the budget is the increases over the rolled back rate and the millages funding the budget, so I'm going to briefly summarize each of the respective funds, the tax rates, how they've changed, and give a brief explanation as to what they are funding. The general fund, the prior year tax rate was 3.8772 mills. The board, on July 25th, reduced the millage rate to 3.5790 mills; a decrease of29.82 -- 29.82, $29.82 per $100,000 of taxable value due to increases in taxable value. That's an increase above the rolled back rate of 12.9 percent. The pollution control fund has a change in millage of .0027 or a decrease of27 cents per $100,000 of taxable value. The tax rate at this point is .0320 or $3.20 per $100,000 of taxable value. And we're budgeting and reserving for replacement of lab equipment. In Page 3 September 21, 2006 addition, we're adding a chemist and an environmental specialist to aid in our water quality monitoring efforts. The unincorporated area general fund, that provides service -- the bulk of Collier County is unincorporated, meaning the residents do not reside within the boundaries of a city. There are three cities within the boundaries of Collier County; City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Everglades City. Population-wise though, that's probably 35- to 40,000 of the 300 -- 340,000 population. So Collier County de facto becomes the municipal-like service provider for the bulk of the population of Collier County because there is no municipal service provider. The millage rate is the same as that levied in FY -'06 at this point. That's .8069 mills; an increase of 22.7 percent over the rolled back rate. Tonight we'll be deciding -- there's $8.4 million of un allocated funds at this point. That will be part of our -- probably either the public comment, as well as the UFR discussions under items 2C and 2D, which we'll be proceeding with shortly. The Golden Gate Community Center budget has a proposed millage rate of .1815 or $18.15 per $100,000 of taxable value. That's a one one-hundredth percent decrease below the rolled back rate. Overall it's a $12,100 increase in the tax levy, and they're going to fund an outdoor movie system within -- within that MSTD. Naples Park drainage, the '06 millage was .009. It's being decreased to .0077. It's a $1,700 increase in the tax levy for the maintenance of these stormwater system within Naples Park. The Pine Ridge Industrial Park is a decrease of 32.1 percent below the rolled back rate. This is a $5,000 levy for maintenance basically for mowing and litter control within the boundaries of the industrial park. Victoria Park drainage is an MSTU to support a stormwater -- stormwater system within Victoria Park. It is an increase of9.6 Page 4 September 21, 2006 percent above the rolled back rate, but the millage itself is decreasing from .4877 to .4328. We're also looking to fund a replacement pump and electrical panel within that MSTU. It's a very small tax levy. Golden Gate Parkway beautification. That's -- there's an advisory committee, recommends the half mill tax levy. That's an increase of 29.3 percent above the rolled back rate. It's for median maintenance and landscaping improvements within the boundaries of the MSTU. Naples Production Park maintenance. The proposed tax levy is .0284. It's a decrease of 1.4 percent below the rolled back rate. That's for roadway maintenance within the Naples Production Park itself. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU is another beautification MSTU with a citizen advisory committee recommending a one-half mill constant levy. They are budgeting at this point to -- the principal expenses that they're anticipating is to bury overhead power lines within the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, and that's an increase of 17.8 percent above the rolled back rate. The Isles of Capri Fire. That also has an advisory committee recommending the 1.5 mill tax levy to fund operational costs of that fire district as well as three additional positions: An administrative assistant, a firefighter and lieutenant position. That's an increase of 20.8 percent above the rolled back rate. Ochopee Fire is a constant 4 mill tax levy for fire control within the rural area of Collier County, and that is an increase of 32.3 percent above the rolled back rate. Collier County Fire is an MSTU for fire protection for areas outside the boundaries of a fire service provider. It's an increase of 33.9 percent. The funds are collected and then distributed between Golden Gate, East Naples -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ochopee. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- Ochopee and Isles, by contract, to Page 5 September 21, 2006 provide service to those areas that would otherwise not be provided fire coverage. The GoodlandlHorrs Island Fire MSTU, there's a decrease in the millage. It was 1.3632. The proposed millage rate is .7734. That's 9.9 percent below the rolled back rate. That is for fire protection provided by the City of Marco Island to the residents of Goodland via contract. That was a change that resulted from the Marco Island incorporation. Radio Road beautification. There's a quarter mill tax levy as recommended by the advisory committee. It's an increase of24.8 percent above the rolled back rate for median improvements, curbing and maintenance along the Radio Road corridor. The Sabal Palm Road MSTU. There's no increase above the rolled back rate. The millage has changed from 1.9881 to .9975, and that is for roadway maintenance along Sabal Palm Road. Lely Golf Estates beautification. There's a constant 2 mill levy as recommended by the Citizen Advisory Committee. It's an increase of24.6 percent, and they are budgeting for Lely phase II and Augusta Boulevard landscaping improvements within that MS TU. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU is a decrease of 4.6 percent below the rolled back rate. There's a $300 decrease in the actual tax levy, and that provides for a small stormwater system exclusively within the Hawksridge development along Airport Road. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU. That's a 4 mill levy to continue capital improvements within the district. That's an increase of24.6 percent. Immokalee beautification is a constant 1 mill levy. There's also a citizen advisory committee there; 23.2 percent increase to fund maintenance and capital improvements, median beautification within the Immokalee beautification boundaries. Bayshore/Avalon beautification is a 1.75 mill tax levy. It's an increase of 32 and a half percent above the rolled back rate. They're Page 6 September 21, 2006 doing their second phase of capital improvements as well as ongoing landscape maintenance for the improvements that have already been made along Bayshore Drive. Conservation Collier is a .25 mill tax levy for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. That's an increase of 22.2 percent above the rolled back rate, and that was approved by voter referendum, as is the next one, the Caribbean Gardens, is .15 mill tax levy for the acquisition of the Caribbean Gardens property. That, again, was approved by voter referendum; an increase of 22.2 percent. Collier County lighting district is an increase of 55.3 percent above the rolled back rate. The tax levy itself is going from $8.50 percent for 100,000 of taxable to $10.36. There's a repayment of 150,000 advance and, obviously, the increase costs of electricity from Florida Power & Light also affects the lighting district for cost of electricity to operate the street lights. Finally, Pelican Bay MSTBU had an FY-'06 tax levy of .161. There is no recommended millage rate. It is 0 this year, so it's a decrease of 100 percent, and due to a change in sheriff policing methods, they eliminated the contract deputy positions, and a budget was recommended as well by their citizen advisory committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have a question? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify again, Mike, because maybe people didn't understand when you first started this, but each one of these MSTUs is paid for by the people just in that district, not by anybody else. I mean, I don't pay for anything that's happening in Forest Lakes or Immokalee, and -- but I just wanted to make that clear. I think some of our taxpayers don't realize that they don't pay for all of these things. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Let me add to that. Depending on where you live in the county, obviously there are a multitude of Page 7 September 21,2006 combinations of various millage rates based on all the MSTUs. There's approximately 300 possible combinations depending on where you live in the county. The value of the MSTU is that it is, in essence, a custom fit government where if one group in one neighborhood petitions the board and says, we want to tax ourselves for additional services above and beyond that typically provided to the rest of the county and we're willing to pay additionally for that, the MSTU allocates those costs only to the residents who directly benefit from that rather than the taxpayer at large across the entire county paying for improvements that really only benefit a very small segment of the population. So it is really custom fit, and a lot of those beautification MSTUs or neighborhood MSTUs for stormwater really only benefit in typically the name of the development even. If it's the Forest Lakes or the Hawksridge, they are specialized and unique just to those developments rather -- and again, the benefit is, the general taxpayer at large is not paying for something that only benefits relatively few people. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET That moves us on to item 2B, page 1. There's a series of changes that are identified on 2B, page 1, with a net change to the budget. A decrease of $574,900. The principal changes being, within Bayshore in the stormwater capital proj ects, an item that was initially scheduled to be heard by the board on September 12th has been deferred until September 26th, so obviously we're not budgeting for this at this point Page 8 September 21, 2006 because the board has yet to make a formal policy decision relative to that funding of the property acquisition. Within the road impact fee district, 331, there was a major change in capital expenditures forecast. The board did approve item 12B on September 12th. So if we did not make these changes, the unallocated budget would automatically roll forward, and because we will have a purchase order issued for that contract that was approved on 9/12, we would have, in essence, have too much money available, so this is a restrictive measure to ensure adequate fiscal control. Because that was approved in FY - '06, we deleted that item from the budget in FY-'07. Same thing in the water capital fund, 412. There was a half-million-dollar item approved, agenda item 16C3, on September 12th. In the Collier Area Transit, otherwise known as CAT, there was a decrease of $95,800. The Marco Island circulator funding is being absorbed within the current '07 budget and also recognizes additional state block grant funds approved by the board on September 12. The transportation disadvantage program, fund 427, increases $231,200, and that's reflecting additional grants that the board has approved on three separate dates. Solid waste capital, there's a decrease of$75,100 based on the board approval of agenda item 16C8 on September 12th. And then finally, the board approved, in the Airport Authority capital fund, some additional grants that were -- the contracts were actually authorized this year, so we're reducing the funding in the '07 budget by $1,281,600. On page 2 under item 2B, we simply allocated -- there was a .25 percent reserve for market adjustments, and those -- since we cannot, by law, expend funds out of reserves, we place them into the appropriate cost centers within each of those respective budgets. That Page 9 September 21, 2006 was approved by the board on July 25th. And then item -- page 3 is an administrative change. There are -- there's a series of six MSTUs that in the SAP, or financial system, they're being changed from a project designation fund where the unspent balances in each account automatically roll forward to a cost center fund in our terminology, and the simple change is that at the end of the fiscal year, the only thing that will roll forward are encumbered contracts. We've had problems and issues with the MSTU advisory committees where the automatic project roll forward has created just some confusion as to just how much money is really available and necessitate the whole series of budget amendments. So we think both for fiscal control purposes as well as simplicity and assistance to the advisory committees in terms of their being able to better manage and understand the budgets and making recommendations relative thereto, we are simply changing those project designations and because the financial system simply does not allow you to reuse a fund number that you've used in the past, so we have changed the fund numbers. For example, the first one listed, Pine Ridge Industrial Park MSTU, has been up to this point fund 132. Due to this designation change, it will become fund 142. There's no change in the dollars, no change in any of the budgets that the board has approved. But in terms of being up front about all of the changes that have been made, no matter how minuscule or purely administrative, we wanted to be clear that we are making those changes. And we worked together in conjunction with the finance department to bring about those changes. And with that, that concludes item 2B, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have a question. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, the airport grant, is that 1.2 whatever, is all grant money -- or I think there was a match. There Page 10 September 21, 2006 a match to that. Does that include the match? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's inclusive of the match, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- then that money was allocated to the improvements, so where does that money go? I know it's a small amount, but it doesn't just disappear. Does it go into the reserves? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We reduced the general fund transfer to the Airport Authority in FY - -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh eight. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh seven -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seven and eight. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- as a result of that change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But where does it go? It doesn't go away. It goes somewhere. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. We -- any changes in the general fund, we simply increase the available UFR allocation pool, the unallocated dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's re -- isn't that reoccurring dollars that comes from the general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's reoccurring dollars under -- you have a one-third of a mill by policy allocated to general fund capital projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. That came out of the general fund capital projects? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, got that. I understand it completely now. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, continue. Page 11 September 21, 2006 Item #2C PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would move us to item 2C, sir. That would be public comment and question. And again, if you are interested in speaking -- Sue, if you wouldn't mind raising your hand. Ms. Filson collects and calls the speakers, so if you are interested in speaking, if you have not done so already, there are speaker sign-up slips in the hallway, and if you would provide them to Ms. Filson, if you have not done so already, and then she'll begin to call the speakers one by one. You can use either of the two available microphones to address the board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Each speaker will be limited to three minutes. And Ms. Filson, if you'd start off. MS. FILSON: Are you ready? Okay. Neomi Rakow. She'll be followed by John Bruce. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FILSON: You have 12 speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. RAKOW: I just put mine in. How'd I get up front so fast? Must be the speed lane. Hi, good afternoon, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon. MS. RAKOW: My name is Neomi Rakow. I live in Golden Gate Estates. The street that I live in is not paved. I drive home every day from work and pray that when I turn the street there will be a street paver there. My prayers have not been answered yet. I was told that I am on the schedule for next year. I'm grateful for that news because many others in Golden Gate Estates are scheduled for five, six, even 10 years from now. Page 12 September 21, 2006 I cannot even imagine how depressed I would feel if I had to wait 5 to 10 years for my road to be paved. We have endured dust from the A TV s and dump trucks racing through our streets. We have endured potholes, and never-ending reasons not to wash our cars. Golden Gate Estates property owners should not have to wait so many years for their roads to be paved. They pay taxes just like everyone else. Many of our Golden Gate Estates property owners will actually be paying more because they do not have homestead or SOH. The least the county can do for them is to provide them with decent roads in a timely manner. We're not asking for much, just the basic necessity for a decent quality of life. I urge you to -- please, to vote enough money in this year's budget to get these dirt roads paved more quickly so that the residents of Golden Gate Estates can have the quality of life that they deserve. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Bruce. He'll be followed by Gary Beardsley. MR. BRUCE: Hi. John Bruce. I came here with Mayor Hamilton to explain what's going on with the city hall, Everglades City Hall, and I do have a CD. And if the IT guy could just put it on the screen. I put this together real quick today at Mayor Hamilton's request. Let me just go through them real quick. If you have any questions, just speak up. That's the foundation. I think we started this back in November and we should be done with the whole job by December or January. That was after the hurricane. That's the second floor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the Chair's permission, if I may, I'd like to ask what the significance of Everglades City Hall is. Sir? What's -- would you explain to us what the significance of Everglades City Hall is in relation to Collier County? Page 13 September 21, 2006 MR. BRUCE: That is where all this started that is the original Collier County courthouse. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got some new judges that might take up some space. MR. BRUCE: Yep. These are just a lot of pictures of what's been going on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you possibly give us some idea of what's been raised already and what your shortfalls are? MR. BRUCE: I think Sammy can do that for you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, Sammy's the next speaker, I take it. MR. BRUCE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll save those questions. MR. BRUCE: And there he is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are those sunglasses, or are his eyes glowing in the dark? MR. BRUCE: Apparently that was a rec. center up on the second floor at one time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, sir. I think we've got the idea of what you need. Thank you so much. MR. BRUCE: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Beardsley. He'll be followed by Mayor Sammy Hamilton. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman Halas. My name's Gary Beardsley. I'm a resident, along with my wife, of Golden Gate Estates, 2360 19th Street Southwest. And I really am here to try to convince you to go along with Commissioner Henning's wish to drop the budget back. My recommendation is to drop it back to last year. I think it's very misleading, maybe not only on the part of the commissioners, but whenever you ask questions of the commissioners about why the tax rate has gone up so much this year, roughly 50 million increase in Page 14 September 21, 2006 budget, they tell you, well, don't you have homestead? Well, I want to specifically talk to properties that do not have homestead and businesses that do not have homestead. We have two businesses in Collier County. One of them, the tax increase is 151 percent this year. I then took approximately 46 random properties in Golden Gate Estates -- these are properties without houses. They're non-homesteaded -- and the range of increase in percents went from -- went from roughly 70-some percent up to about 158 percent with an average of 118; 118 percent increase. The property owners that do not have homestead or Save Our Homes have nothing that gives them some option to say, well, your taxes are going to go up 50 percent or 20 percent. And I really strongly urge, as Marco Island City did, to keep the budget amount this year the same as last year. Even the City of Naples only increased the non-homesteaded properties 60 percent. I'd be happy as a clam with 60 percent. But 150 percent and 118 percent, that's just excessive. I've talked to realtors, and because of various factors, the economy has slowed down a little bit. I understand that schools may not be built as fast in the future, populations are not coming down because of affordable housing because of increased costs of land and houses and building and such. And I asked, what are the realtors doing? They aren't selling any properties, they aren't getting any commissions. And this one realtor, a very experienced realtor, said they're doing equity loans on their home, hoping they can survive this time period. I think you folks need to look at the big picture, all those things that are negative that are going to make the quality of life in Naples and Collier County go down. You need to look at the big picture. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) Page 15 September 21, 2006 MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mayor Sammy Hamilton. He'll be followed by Nicole Ryan. MAYOR HAMILTON: For the record, my name is Sammy Hamilton, Jr., the Mayor of Everglades City. I'd like to thank Chairman Halas and commissioners for giving us time to bring up my little city hall, which has a lot of history there. So if you have any questions, Jim, or -- you were bringing up a while ago. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, as a matter of fact, I do, Sammy. I know that you've been very proactive in raising funds for city hall. If you could give us an idea so my fellow commissioners don't think this is something they're going to be financing from beginning to end. MA YOR HAMIL TON: Right. What we did actually with FEMA and the state, FEMA, we've got probably, I think it was a million and two, something like that, for city hall itself. But actually the state was -- promised us, which they would drop the 12 percent, which we have to take, you know, pay them back 12 percent. So they did not do that. And also, we didn't get the money that -- half of the money's all we got for the foundation because FEMA says Wilma just caused half of this, the other part was already done. So we got that dropped down to half, and that's what we're short of, which we have done just about everything else, the windows and stuff like that. But the electrical and all, so forth and so on -- we almost lost the city hall, which you guys all know probably, everyone here, that that is part of our history, which was brought up, and probably what really started Collier County is that building there. And that it's not just used only for the City of Everglades. It is also used by the county. And also, you know, up at Chokoloskee Island, which is just a few thousand feet from there, that was a -- Monroe boundary runs right through there. So probably if it wasn't for our building, we might be Monroe County. Page 16 September 21, 2006 So really I'd rather be Collier County, which I don't have anything against Monroe County. I want to get that clear in case somebody here is from Monroe. But actually, I think that building serves -- used to be the county seat, which you probably know. Has a lot of the history there, used to hold court there, the whole thing, Judge Jolly, and that's part of the whole Collier County history. And actually, we're lacking about $600,000, around 600-, maybe a little more, but we -- we do -- I'm here as Mayor of Everglades City asking commissioners to help us, the city, or the county, all help us with the city hall. We do need about $600,000 to finish it. And we were taking -- couldn't stop the foundation because actually when we stabilizing it, we almost lost it, it went down, so we had to keep working on it to finish it, and we did get it finished on time. I asked them to get it done by June the 10th, and I think it was done by June the 10th, somewheres in that area. But we had to take the money out of the general funds from the city, which the city can't afford, but I went ahead and did it, we did it on or own, to finish the foundation, so we're kind of hurting and it needs, actually if the county could do it, we need $600,000 to finish it back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Mayor. MAYOR HAMILTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Appreciate it. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed by Steve Russell. MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the Conservancy is requesting that funding be secured for watershed management plans during this budget cycle. After talking with staff, it's clear that partial funding this year and trying to find a secure source of funding in subsequent years really Page 1 7 September 21,2006 isn't practical and it lacks the necessary certainty that we need. In order to ensure that funding is truly in place and allocated to fulfill the county's obligations to do watershed management planning, the $6 million should be placed in this year's budget, and the Conservancy is asking that you do this. While this request for funding is in the list of unfunded requirements, it's important to reference the Growth Management Plan and the Department of Community Affairs objections, recommendations and comments report, which very clearly spells out the county's requirements and obligations to do watershed planning within a very limited timeline, a timeline that simply cannot be met unless we get the funding in place now. First, within the transmitted GMP language Collier County established a schedule for prioritization, data collection and completion of watershed management plans. Within the conservation and coastal management element, objective 2.1, the transmitted language states in part that watershed plans and the process will, among other things, budget authorization to begin preparation of the first plan by January of 2008, and a funding schedule shall be established to ensure that all watershed plans will be completed 2010. So your transmitted GMP states that you need to establish the schedule, and this means getting funding in place now in the FY - '06/'07 budget. The Department of Community Affairs is also going to be looking very closely at how Collier County treats funding of these watershed management plans. From the ORC report, they've indicated that they were very unhappy with the missed deadline of 2000 for watershed planning. And while they will accept the new 2010 deadline, they do want interim guidelines and standards to be put in place. So another missed deadline simply cannot occur. Page 18 September 21, 2006 DCA is serious. They're going to be watching to see if funding is allocated, and it needs to be done now. Another thought, these watershed plans should be seen as something more than simply an obligation in the GMP. They're going to be a very necessary and useful tool in the future. The recent flooding in the Estates is a clear indication that we have to take a new approach for planning in order to protect watersheds and people and their quality of life. Placement of goals, objectives and policies in the GMP is the first step. Funding has to happen next. So in conclusion, again, please allocate all of the $6 million funding for watershed management plans in this year's budget in order to comply with the Growth Management Plan and the objections that were raised by the DCA. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. (Applause.) MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steve Russell. He'll be followed by Bill Hazzard. MR. RUSSELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman Halas. Steve Russell, state attorney for the 20th circuit. I'm here with others from the court system in support of the board appropriating sufficient monies to finish the last three floors of the courthouse annex. I think we're all suffering from the same problem. This circuit in the court system is beginning to catch up where we've traditionally lagged for many years in terms of resources commensurate with our growth and caseload. F or myself, we have the sixth and seventh floors here. We have divided, subdivided and subdivided the subdivisions. We have copy rooms and closets being used as office space. We have tried to utilize and maximize the resources we have. We've had off-site storage to have minimal files kept on site. We Page 19 September 21, 2006 have overcrowded office space, having several people in one office. We're down to the conference room. And we certainly don't see any stop to this. We've seen in other counties within our circuit where we have built courthouses in Charlotte. We're already growing out of space even though the courthouse is only a few years old. This year my office is adding approximately 24 positions in the circuit, of which a fourth should go to Collier County. We don't have the space. We have relocated 11 staff members in the last year or so to an off-site facility which the county is paying, my understanding, is $72,000 just in rental on. And while that has worked, it has made the operation less efficient. We're concerned that some of the items that we have to store start to show up in hallways, and it starts to become a security and safety hazard. Weare fortunate from time to time to have volunteers, we had some this week, attorneys who live in the area who are starting to volunteer, but we don't have the space for them. So we're very much in support, along with other members, public defender, and the court system here, in building out that space. We have seen in these other counties, while -- once the space is started, there may be a couple of floors, but quickly we use it up. We feel in the State Attorney's Office what we're about 40 positions behind comparable circuits based on caseload and workload. If we get those 40, and that's my number one priority as state attorney, a fourth of those should go to Collier County, but we don't have the space if we get them. So we're asking your support to fund the last three floors of the annex so that we can have a more efficient system and really, between all of us, maintain the security of the citizens of Collier County, as I know you're interested in. So we're going to ask for your support in that regard. Thank you. Page 20 September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Hazzard. He'll be followed by Judge Hayes. MR. HAZZARD: Good evening, Commissioners. Bill Hazzard from the Collier County Bar Association. Thank you for having us here tonight, and I don't want to be repetitive of what Steve said, but I'm simply here to add support from the private sector that deals with the judiciary on a regular basis, to the concept of fully building out the annex building. I want to assure you that in the civil law sectors and outside of the state attorney and public defender in what I would consider to be the private practice of law areas, we've implemented every possible alternative dispute resolution system in place, we're trying to utilize the courts less and solve problems in other areas, but we continue to see the growth, and it just simply parallels the growth that we have in the community. And I would urge you to please be forward looking and forward thinking as you're preparing the budget and fully fund the buildout. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judge Hayes. He'll be followed by Robert Jacobs. JUDGE HAYES: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Hugh Hayes. I'm currently serving as the Chief Judge for the 20th Judicial Circuit, which, of course, includes Collier County. I'll be brief. I would reiterate what Steve had said. The problem that we're facing in Collier is one that we're facing all over Southwest Florida from Charlotte County, down here, and even in LaBelle. So we're trying to figure out how -- the good thing is, we're getting the staffing that's necessary to address the caseload increase that we've experienced because we are in Southwest Florida. The problem is, we need the facilities to keep up with it to Page 21 September 21, 2006 adequately house these people. The facility we're talking about now, the annex, whatever it's technically called, would house members of the State Attorney's Office, Public Defender's Office and some of the members of the Clerk of Court's office. These are necessary support personnel. Without them we can't do our job. So you have made a great commitment to help service us and that building, and we would think that at this point it would be wise to go ahead and finish it out because, as we know, of course, the cost later on is going to be a lot more than it is today. So it would be a good investment. I'll stop at this point so they can speak. Can I answer any questions you may have though? Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Judge. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Jacobs. He'll be followed by Lawrence Martin. MR. JACOBS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Robert Jacobs. I'm the Public Defender for the 20th Circuit. I echo everything that Steve Russell and Chief Judge Hayes have said. We do need the space. Currently we're like Bedouins in the desert across the street at the Vega building. I appreciate that space, but we will be tapped out for that space soon. And any help you can do for us to complete the last three floors, we'd be greatly appreciative. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lawrence Martin. He'll be followed by Carol Moseman. JUDGE MARTIN: Probably one of the greatest lies that lawyers tell is, I'll be brief. But I promise that I will be. I know a couple of you very well. You know who you are. I am, in addition to being a Circuit Court judge here in Naples, am also the administrative judge for Collier County. And I'm very proud of the work we do, notwithstanding the fact that we can't please all of the Page 22 September 21, 2006 people all of the time. I just would ask that you strongly consider the words of the people who are a great deal wiser than I am in asking for this additional space. Thank you all. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FILSON: Carol Moseman. She'll be followed by Tammie Nemecek. MS. MOSEMAN: Good afternoon. How are you folks? My name is Carol Moseman. I live in Everglades City, and I'm president of the Friends of the Museum at Everglades. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the purchase of the Rob Storter collection, which is about to be considered on the unfunded request list. The Rob Storter collection is a unique glimpse of our early history in words, pictures and artifacts. It was created by Rob Storter, a member of one of this area's pioneering families. It is a value contribution of original source material to the study of our history. The collection tells what it was like to live in Collier County both before and after Barron Collier became such a dominant figure in the 1920s. Rob's work is already known to thousands of individuals who have purchased his book, Cracker in the Glades, Life and Times in the Old Everglades. The acquisition of this collection provides an opportunity for more than 300 original creations to be seen and for them to be available in Southwest Florida for our descendants. Rob Storter's work belongs to the people of Everglades -- of Collier County. The Friends of the Museum of the Everglades have worked hard over these past two years to raise funds for the collections. To date, we have paid $75,000 in principal to the Storter family. Weare now asking for your support and that you vote favorably on the museum's request for funding to complete the purchase. Thank you very much. Page 23 September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Douglas Newcomb. MS. NEMECEK: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Tammie Nemecek. I'm the president of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I'm here to respectfully request your support of an unfunded request that the EDC has for marketing dollars of $160,000. In addition to just marketing, this request will also help to fund the Regional Economic Research Institute in cooperation with Lee County and Charlotte County that will be housed -- that is housed currently at Florida Gulf Coast University. So 40,000 of this request will actually be to help jointly fund that project with Lee County and Charlotte County. I'd like to go over a couple of success stories this year, some positive news. Job creation for this year. We've helped a number of expansion projects in Collier County. One in particular that's cited here this year and finally got their CO is March Performance. Originally this company was going to create just 40 jobs in Collier County. They're actually creating 100 jobs in Collier County. They're located off of Old 41 and they're average wage is around $50,000. It's a significance project for our community, and we're very excited that they're here and participating in our economic development program. Another success story this year was your success actually in funding a fast-track program manager for the county. Cheryl Soter has been in place now for several months. And I will have to tell you that in the short time that she's been there, we are already starting to hear positive comments from companies participating in the fast-track program that they have someone at the county to talk to, that Page 24 September 21, 2006 understands the process, that can help shepherd that process along. She's participated with us in a basic economic development course, which I think is fabulous from the perspective of understanding what economic development is all about and all the facets of that, and so I thank you for that program, and the businesses that are participating in the fast track program thank you for that. The EDC completed this year a land use analysis which helps to develop our long-range planning for Collier County and understanding what types of land use we're going to need to have and titled in Collier County to preserve our employment sites. And from that land use analysis, we've determined by the year 2030 we're going to need an additional 3,700 acres of land for business parks. That's a significant number, but it also helps us all in planning for the future and understanding that a lot of that growth will be out in eastern Collier County and knowing what we're going to need to do for the long term with those lands in eastern Collier County. We've also recently completed a cluster analysis for Collier County that will help us better understand the businesses here in the community, what potential we have for specific clusters to grow. In addition to growing those specific clusters organically within the community, we'll be able to better understand what types of companies we'll be able to recruit to the community. I have a couple more, if you -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. NEMECEK: -- if it's okay. Okay. In addition, with the Florida Trade Port, we had disappointments with regard to Sky Truck being able to locate there, but I will tell you, we do have three companies; Salizar, who is currently located at the airport, is getting ready to build a 20,000 square foot building; we have another company that's a 200,000 square foot building that would be 200 jobs at the Florida Trade Port; and we have a third Page 25 September 21, 2006 company, which is a distribution company, which will actually activate our foreign trade zone at the Florida Trade Port and will be importing products internationally and then distributing them through the United States. And so those are very exciting projects that are starting to come along. We've got some permitting that will have to go concurrently with that. And if all the stars align, we'll make sure that that happens, but that also is another success story for the year. Regionalism is also part of this marketing request. What we're working towards is leveraging some local dollars on a regional basis. And for Collier County, we actually have two regions that we get to participate with. One is with Lee County and Charlotte County, but the other is with the Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative, and that's the one that really partners our eastern Collier lands with the whole heartland area of Florida, of South Central Florida. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you close to wrapping it up, Tammie? MS. NEMECEK: Yes. And a lot of those -- a lot of those marketing efforts are going to be directed towards public relations and site selection consultant events with the heartland area. And I wrap it up from there, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: But I do respectfully request the approval of the funding, and thank you very much for your support. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Tammie. MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Douglas Newcomb. MR. NEWCOMB: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you. Doug Newcomb from Marco Island. We started off today pledging the allegiance to the flag. One of the quotes in there is "justice for all," and I just don't feel that us non-homesteaded people have any justice down here. Page 26 September 21, 2006 My real estate taxes increased 50 percent in 2006. You now propose them to go up another 33 percent in 2007. That's a 384 percent increase since I moved -- since I bought down here in 2001. I don't think that any rational government could tax their citizens at such a rate and get away with it. I don't know. The -- how would the commissioners like to pay those types of tax increases? How would the residents of Golden Gate like to pay those types of tax increases to have their roads paved? I don't think they would. It's just -- it's a non-fair taxing system, which I know is not your problem, it's the state's problem. I've heard all about that. But something has to be done and it's not fair to us non-homesteaded people. Thank you, Commissioner Henning, for your voice of reason. I appreciate that. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's fair to say at this time about the -- some monies that we can turn back. There's about $28 million not allocated at this point. Most of those are nonrecurring dollars, therefore, they're not there to return the following years. About $4 and a half million are recurring that can, and I believe should, go back to the taxpayers. But I think if we try to allocate the rest of those funds, it would be a disservice to the public in particular to give that money back or lower the millage rate only to have to raise it the following year. So as I stated in the budget workshops, I think it's a -- good budgeting to take care of some of the needs within the county with those nonrecurring dollars, and I still believe that. But the disappointment is the scoring sheet that I chose not participate in because of unanswered questions, and there wasn't a line Page 27 September 21, 2006 item to turn anything back. But I still have questions. I have my scoring sheet somewhat filled out. But how can you allocate something with unanswered questions? And are we going to have time, Mr. Chairman, to talk about these different line items? CHAIRMAN HALAS: If -- so be it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to go line item by line item or just my questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we go by your questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The first one is South Regional Library allocation. Have we recognized the grant that the legislators appropriated for this year's budget? MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. Yes, it should be in -- as part of the construction funds, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This is -- this -- these funds -- when we talked about this in the budget hearings, you stated -- this was on the UFR list -- and you stated, no, we haven't recognized it because we haven't received it. MS. MATTHES: The UFR list for South Regional is -- includes the cost of hiring the first 10 people for that building, the $147,000. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I see. MS. MATTHES: It had nothing to do with construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. All right. And I had a conversation with the county manager that the libraries were servicing the same amount of people. Why can't we just allocate those employees out to the different libraries? And you may not agree with that or what, but anyways, that's -- now I understand why that is there. The second one is the merit budget increase. Would that be for all the employees? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would be based on their Page 28 September 21, 2006 performance appraisals from this last year, 2006. It was -- it was mentioned by at least two commissioners from the dais when I talked about this on the 25th of July that they would feel more comfortable if they had an increase that was based on performance and it wasn't across the board at a certain percent. And I was trying to come up with a way to at least fulfill the recommendation of the -- of your Productivity Committee that basically said that they wanted to have a 5 percent across-the-board raise. And there was some opposition to that. There's 1.5 percent already in the budget for '07 for merit and/or a bonus for the employees. And if this was increased another 3.5 percent, it gets to the 5 percent, but it's based on performance. Now, it doesn't mean everybody's going to get 5 percent. If you didn't perform, you're going to get something much lower than 5 percent. If you exceeded or you were outstanding, then you could get 5 percent or you could get a little bit more than that based on that average across the employee population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you another question. If we have an employee that gets a -- his evaluation was very high but publicly states how dissatisfied he is with the county, you're saying that employee deserves part of this money? MR. MUDD: Well, I can't -- I can't tell you if that appraisal was this year and/or if it was a year ago. I'll have to go back and take a look at it. And I'm assuming we're talking about the article in the paper today. So I would say to you, the answer -- the answer to your question is, depending on what his score was on his appraisal, he would issue -- this merit would apply to him, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The countywide -- or the stormwater management or watershed plan, you know, it's been said in the past by other commissioners, the dissatisfaction with big government being the state telling us what we should do. Page 29 September 21, 2006 So I just want to clarify through some correspondence that we had on this watershed management plan, is the county tied to having to do this? Because the way I understand the fact is, if it affects the estuarine, yes. But I know that a lot of these watersheds are not going to the estuary. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The total watersheds in the county are 13. That's what I've been told, and I think that's pretty close. The inland watersheds that don't go out to the estuary system were taken out of the estimate. That leaves us 10 watershed plans that need to be accomplished. The estimate that staff -- that I received from staff talked approximately $600,000 per study. I've had several conversations with other commissioners on the dais. Does that sound too high? All I can tell you is that was the estimate that I received from staff. Ten watershed plants to do at around $600,000 each. Now, are some watersheds going to be more difficult than others, i.e., the one that's going into Naples Bay is going to be extremely complicated, and there will be -- and there will be ones that will be less complicated, i.e., the one that goes out to Henderson Creek will probably be less complicated because it doesn't take -- at present it doesn't take all the flows from the Golden Gate Canal. And so on an average basis, that's what this staff has recommended, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We've got -- I just read in the Naples Daily News, my source of information, that we just received a grant for the Gordon River Greenway and the Fleischmann property. Now, was that taken under consideration when this was -- the UFR list was given to us? MR. MUDD: I believe the Gordon River Greenway is for the City of Naples, so it's not in our budget. And I'm not -- I'm not trying to be -- I'm just saying where it is. And the Florida Community Trust Grant isn't given to us yet until Page 30 September 21, 2006 we do two more appraisals, and they do site visits. So the exact dollar amount is still outstanding. So I will say to you, Commissioners -- and I've said it before when you were debating the final cost of the 120 some odd acres, which came in at over $40 million -- it's 41 and a half and some change -- but it was over the $40 million that the voters voted on as far as their bonding authority. That million and a half over, it's on your list. I mentioned it in a memo to the board, that I just hold it as placeholder because I'm waiting for some kind of grant from the state. When we get it, we'll take $1.5 million off of that grant to pay that outstanding balance for the purchase, and then it's up to the board what you want to do with the remainder of the grant. But I can't tell you it's $9.9 million at this particular juncture. We still have some more work to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: We scored very, very high. We were tied for first, and that is a great tribute to our staff and a lot of hard work in order to pull that together. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm done with my general fund UFR list. I don't know if anybody wants it. But anyways, I still have some more questions. And one thing that I really cannot support is -- and we brought it up during the community developmentl environmental services allocation of personnel -- is somebody to dedicate themselves to amend the Land Development Code. And again, my understanding is, we hired somebody to straighten out that code as it was explained to us to make it easier for the public to see and read. I still find it difficult. So I understand why it needs to be changed. I won't support that. And besides, I think this will give our employees too many reasons to amend our code. But the other -- the other thing on the -- and I support the courthouse annex. I mean, that's very important to get that done and not to be put off. Page 31 September 21, 2006 And I support some other things. Again, like I have my list. But Commissioner Coletta, I am sorry, I cannot support paving roads in Golden Gate Estates when the people knew that they were -- moved on roads that are not paved, and I think it should be a cost share and I think the county should be a participant. But until I see that cost share, I don't think that it should be a burden on everybody else. And I apologize that we can't agree on that, but that's just where I stand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll have a chance to respond. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there is a cost share, when there is a cost share, I'd be glad to dedicate anything. But anyways, my sheet on that is done. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think this format is particularly good, that way we can all cover the issues we're concerned about at one time and the other commissioners will understand how we stand on them. I would also like to address the merit budget increase issue. I believe that we need to do something to get our general pay ranges up to the point where they are competitive and we can retain people. But like Commissioner Henning, I am very, very concerned that a merit increase will be given to staff members who, perhaps, don't deserve it quite so much as others. I continue to see instances where performance appraisals are overinflated and don't reflect at least our perception of what staff does. But nevertheless, that is not within our purview to influence, but certainly the dollars are. And if I were convinced that we had an effective evaluation and selection process to determine those employees who truly get merit increases because they do exceptional jobs, I would approve every penny in this budget for that purpose. So I would hope the county Page 32 September 21, 2006 manager could give us some assurances concerning that. With respect to the watershed management plan study and the $6 million allocation, I wholeheartedly support the watershed management plan. It is an obligation. We're going to have to do it. We've accepted that obligation. But to say here's $6 million without so much as an initial plan, I think, is irresponsible. I would much prefer to approve a million dollars to get this thing started up and see where we go. In many cases, based upon what the staff has provided us, this information that needs to be analyzed has already been collected for the most part. We have -- there are many, many agencies involved in collecting information and analyzing this stuff on an ongoing basis, and there are many agencies involved in the process, not the least of which is the Big Cypress Basin and South Florida Water Management District. There is no indication in the expenditure of this $6 million what amount of money will be available from those other agencies, what work they are doing that might -- might be complementary to this watershed management plan study. There is no indication of how we can use the existing very well-qualified people in this region to assist us through the voluntary advisory groups rather than sending us all out to consultants and spending $6 million on consultants. So bottom line is, I'm concerned about a $6 million lump sum approval that I'm afraid is going to attract high-priced consultants like a pack of hungry wolves. The courthouse, all of the expenses for the courthouse, I think, are absolutely essential. And I have tried to allocate my preferences for the expenditure of money in those areas where the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Collier County are of top priority; however, I would like to say to you that I would be happy to add to my list of approved projects for funding the South Regional Library. Now, that brings me to the same issue that Commissioner Henning raised with respect to the limerock roads. Page 33 September 21, 2006 It is true that the county has an obligation and responsibility, but it's also true that by doing so we improve the value of the homes on those -- those roads. And I also believe there should be some cost share there, and I will vote for money to be allocated to those roads whenever I am convinced that there is a reasonable cost share. And then we will go to the final area with the community developmentlenvironmental services. I will not vote for any of the allocation of funds for that department primarily because, we discussed once before, that that department seems to have a wide, wide range of responsibilities. And we're told that there was going to be a review to see if there was a better way to organize so that we could get the job done more effectively. I think it's better for us to wait until that organizational concept is developed by the county manager before we -- we start adding staff members. Without knowing what the organization looks like, how can we effectively decide who to hire? What happens if the county manager decides to separate things like affordable housing and environmental services or something of that nature and put it in a separate division so it can be more intensely managed? How can we make decisions then on how that will affect the efficiency of community developmentl environmental services division that might be solved without adding additional staff? So we're putting the cart before the horse here. So bottom line is, I'm not -- I'm not going to vote in favor of any additional funding until I -- I understand how the county manager's going to organize and what effect that organization will have on overall efficiency. And at that point in time I'll be happy to vote for funding for personnel and any other thing that will improve our support. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? Page 34 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Starting off with the first page there with the purchase of the Rob Storter collection. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the support. And I see we have three commissioners saying that they think that's a good idea. Thank you very much for that. Going down a little bit to -- I kind of hope that as we get into our deliberations, that we might be able to reconsider Everglades City for the restoration possibly -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already had that on my list, and I was going to say that when I spoke. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will also. I agree with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. The rest of them here, I'm going down through and I'm trying to see where I can help out. I understand that we have to be finally conservative at all times; however, I need to address -- and Commissioner Henning, I'm not at all upset with you. You know, you can express your opinion, and that's the reason why we have five commissioners up here so we can have a difference of opinion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But however, with that said, I'm going to -- I'm not going to let my passions get away from me on limerock roads in Golden Gate Estates other than to say that I do want to point out to you that we're dealing with a situation that's been ongoing for a long time. It's not a case of these people bought there because it was cheap. They were -- bought there with the idea they were told -- and they were told by the county -- and I'm going to have Mr. Feders (sic) come up here. I think he might have a pretty good history on that. They were told by the county that these roads would be paved. Years ago when Avatar owned Golden Gate Estates and was developing it, they were responsible for the roads. They took on the Page 35 September 21, 2006 job and they did pave a number of roads. They ended up going bankrupt. They settled with the county with some money and a lot of land. That land was supposed to go for paving the roads. Now, that was never enough to really be able to cover it. Anybody in their right mind would have known it, but the county accepted the responsibility. They stood up and they told each homeowner in succession, your road will be paved. We do have a list, and as funds become available, we will pave your road. So the idea now that we have to go back and tell them that, well, we rethought this over, and the deal that was strucken (sic) 40 years ago and every single commission and every single person in staff has been telling you from day one, we will pave your roads as part of the condition no longer is applicable because you bought out there and you bought cheap land, and because you bought cheap land, you have to take the consequences of it. That doesn't wash. That doesn't make any sense. And I don't want to come across too strong on this because I realize the night's still young and there's a lot of other items on this budget I do need to be able to deal with it. And I do see that I've got some very good support, and it balances out right now at about 5,111,000, which was a lot better than nothing. I agree with you there. I kind of hope as we go forward and we do see that we have some extra funds that we find compassion in our heart to be able to move this program forward so we can get one-third of them done one time and make these people whole to a point. We're finally doing something, rather than a meager amount of a mile and a half a year so it's going to take us until the middle of the next century to be able to complete. As far as the merit budget increases, I'm sure the county manager, given the opportunity, would like to talk on that some more. I see that we have enough support to carry it. But since there's questions on it, I hope that we give him that opportunity to go into a Page 36 September 21, 2006 little bit more depth in the discussion of it. The -- Fish Ranch Creek Culvert. Now, nickel and dime item, when you stop to think what we're spending money on, and it's about $77,000. And I'd like to thank four commissioners for supporting that. That's a very, very big thing for the residents in Immokalee to be able to be made whole as far as the drainage issue goes. The next item, parks and recreation, Golden Gate Community Center fence. I probably didn't respond on this as quick as I should. I realized that Commissioner Henning was going to be, you know, ultra conservative on all these different issues coming up, and I didn't put in the $27,000 that I should have put in. And at this point in time I'd like to offer my support with 27,000 to give us three so we can get that particular amenity in there. I have had requests from a number of people in Golden Gate City for that. And what the unique thing was, was 21 years ago. I was partly responsible for putting up the first fence. We did it without a permit, but don't tell anybody. Going back to the next item there, that doesn't seem to a problem in the world. That one went quite well with the planning review inspector. I mean, no one in their right mind would ever argue that. According to the back part of the 131, or the UFR list there, and that we did fine on, too. So all in all, I think we're heading in the right direction. We're going to be conservative, I know . We're going to be responsible to the taxpayers, but we're also going to do what we have to do, and that's provide for the needed infrastructure. There's one thing I'm having a hard time finding on that list, and that's the EDC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's on there. It's 160,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It made it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, it's right below the water management Page 37 September 21, 2006 plan -- watershed management plan, excuse me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You voted for it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You done? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. No, the EDC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right over here. MR. MUDD: It's about eight or so down. I've got my pen -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Number II? Okay. I see it now. Thank you. And we have three commissioners on that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You done? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I appreciate the time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. How I wish that we could all discuss these things before we hand these things in, because I've gotten so many good suggestions here that I wouldn't have thought of beforehand. And, you know, you wish you could talk together, but obviously we can't, so sometimes we have to readjust here. First of all, I wanted to add the $600,000 for Everglades City Hall. I meant to do that, and I'm so sorry I left that out. You know, we have to preserve that no matter what, and I think that's money well spent. And second of all, between Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coy Ie talking about the watershed -- and I feel very strongly about this watershed management plan, I certainly do. And, you know, it's going to be preserving our water for the future. But they pointed out that maybe this is a high figure, so how about if I put 4 million into it to see how it comes out, and then next year reconsider for the last 2 million, if it is, indeed, that high. If it isn't, if it's only 600,000, then we'll do that. Page 38 September 21, 2006 But we all agree, it must be done, and we all agree we have to allocate the money because that's for our future water source. But we can -- being that it's more than a one-year project, I pledge that this year I would dedicate 4 million, and then next year I want to pay the remaining balance so that proj ect gets done. The next thing I wanted to say was, with the -- with the limerock roads, Commissioner Coletta, I -- I put in 5 million because I figured with the trouble they have getting in all the roads, they'd never get more than $5 million worth of roads done this year, and I figured, then we could handle more next year and just keep dedicating it till we're done. If you think they can get $8 million worth in there, but-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we call up Norm F eders (sic) and ask him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, Norm, can you possibly beat these people into submission to be able to do $8 million worth more of work? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you do $8 million worth of work? MR. FEDER: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remember, Norm, that merit pay . . Increase Issue. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Think real hard, Norm. MR. FEDER: I heard that at the beginning of the discussion. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. First of all, what I will assure I'll try to do is answer your questions, give you whatever facts I can. In answer to your question, Commissioner Fiala, we recently came to you with a new contract specifically designed for the limerock road project based on additional monies you had given us in the prior year in anticipation of this discussion, and that provision was up from 1.7, which is what we have in budget today, up to 10 million. Page 39 September 21, 2006 We have three different contractors onboard. Weare going to bring the lowest one most of the business first, but beyond that, we can go to the second, and if need be, to the third. What's hampered us in the past is having a single contractor's price or issues went up, they had other work, then it was very hard to get the projects done. So in answer to your question, my staff feels fairly comfortable that they can get to that total if you brought the 1.7 up to 10 million. We'll address whatever funding you give us. Our effort is to try and respond to that commitment that was made some 25 years ago when the -- basically the Avatar went bankrupt, the county took what little dollars or penny on the dollar that they had from commitments they made. Those people bought a lot in a subdivision with a paved street when they bought it up in Ohio, Indiana, or wherever they bought it, and it didn't have paved streets when they got down here or later on when Avatar went bankrupt, and we took on that obligation. The other thing that was raised, I know Commissioner Coyle raised the issue of MSTU. And we did look at that, and what we looked at out there, if you took what was -- and it's gone down a little bit. We had about eight miles over the last two years that we have accomplished with the funds that you gave us before. So we're down to about 88 miles now. But what I have is a figure that's based on about the 94 miles when we first were looking at this, bringing all of those streets in and every property abutting those. We went to the property appraiser and basically were told that -- we got a value out there of property values of $208,216,499, which if you took what is typically the maximum millage, 3 mills for an MSTU, would basically generate just under $625,000 a year. Each mile is about $362,000. And so that gives you some numbers to look at. One of the key things is hopefully reoccurring money. And I Page 40 September 21, 2006 know the discussion tonight -- and as you look at 111, you have some funds there that are not reoccurring, some that are reoccurring. Obviously, if the bulk of what we get in funding is non-reoccurring, that will give us, divided by 362, that many more miles we can do, but then we'll be back to the process of about four and a half miles a year to hit the rest. Where we stand now with 88 miles, without any further assistance based on what we have in dollars, about 20 years, if you were at that 10 million level, you're talking about five and a half years to get it accomplished. Anything in between you can compute or ask me to compute it for you and I'll try to do so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, if we dedicated 5 million this year and then the remainder of what you need next year but it takes you three years to do it, you'll have enough money to finish? MR. FEDER: No. Actually what I was saying to you is if it was 10 million -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. FEDER: --let's say, for sake of argument, and I'm not saying you're necessarily doing it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you already have 1.7. MR. FEDER: But if it was 10 million, I have 1.7. If you added 8.3, which is effectively all of the dollars that you have almost in 111, okay -- so for the sake of argument, if you did that, that's $10 million. Only about 4.3 of that, or 4.2 I think it is, is reoccurring. So then the first year I'd get about 30 miles done of that roughly 90 miles. The next year I'd have the 1.7 plus whatever reoccurring, in this case, let's say 4.2, or about 6 million a year -- and I can show you the graphic, what that would do, but that would give you 6 million a year from then on, and, therefore, bring it about five and a half years to complete the full job. Page 41 September 21, 2006 Am I being clear on that? I've got graphics or I can give you a handout. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because I think it's very important to get those roads done. I just hate to see those people having these flooding problems. MR. FEDER: We agree, but obviously you're balancing, and we'll try to answer any questions you have. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And the last thing I wanted to do was -- MR. FEDER: I can't lose my merit here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- community center fence. I didn't get a call from anybody about the Golden Gate Community Center fence. But as long as I've heard that it's important, and you got calls, I'd like to throw that in. And the last thing I wanted to say was, on the planning services fund with the CDES, I marked them all in hoping that we would do a better job in there, but at the same time I've had reservations because, number one, last year when we told him early before budget time that -- you know, he said he needed some extra people, and so we said, go ahead and hire them, but then in the fall he still hadn't hired them, and that concerned me. And there's still so many vacancies in that department that we were approving more vacancies and they don't have the ones that they need filled, and I'm worried that we're going to be sending this money over there but it's not going to be used because they haven't -- they can't hire anybody. So I have some reservations there. And that's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I'm disappointed there wasn't a line item to send some money back to the taxpayers. I know that Commissioner Coyle wanted to do that last year but he didn't have an opportunity. I created a line item on mine, but I'm the only one. Anyways. It is what it is. Page 42 September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a couple of questions that I need answered on the -- on the issue of the -- yeah, let me get down here. I've got to get my glasses. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: There we go. In regards to the stormwater management or the wetlands management. Can you give me some insight into that? I know this is an ongoing proj ect that was supposed to be addressed back in the '90s, and I believe that we were supposed to do this in year 2000. And so I want to know what -- how important this is. My understanding is it's very important and it has a large effect on the estuary system in regards to algae blooms that we're experiencing. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Halas, for the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator of Community DevelopmentlEnvironmental Services Division. Just a brief history. This was identified in the previous year, not the ongoing year, but the year -- and in January 2000, we identified-- the previous board identified that these watershed management plans would be done. In this EAR we forwarded --we originally had a 2018 date. That was ratcheted back by the Planning Commission, and you supported it to 2010 with a start year of 2008. It is a comprehensive watershed management plan. It includes -- it combines stormwater plans, but it's also more than that. It includes flooding needs, and it's also ecosystem and study ofTMDLs, total minimum daily loads, those kind of things associated. So it's a comprehensive water management plan. It includes all aspects of water. We haven't even prepared a request for proposals. We would have to put the scope of work together if it's funded. And Commissioner Coyle is correct, it's something that's not going to have $6 million. Page 43 September 21, 2006 Of course, the speakers were saying put the money so it would carry over. Certainly we're not going to spends the $6 million this year, but it's a joint effort, my engineering department, and the environmental services department and, of course, the -- in transportation, at least the -- I just lost -- from a standpoint of flood contro I. So we'll be looking at putting the scope of work together and putting a bid out, advertise to go out to bid. We also will be assessing all the other studies that have been done and the work that can be put together to bring this thing to fruition. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is your-- MR. SCHMITT: Stormwater department. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is your best guess as far as when we're going to get something like this accomplished with the amount of money that we have allocated for this? MR. SCHMITT: We will target, with the dates that are being written in the EAR amendment based on the direction you gave us, a presentation of the plan to start in 2008 with a completion in 2010. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But didn't the state come back and tell us we had to get this addressed by 2008. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Our proposal going back to the state and the EAR-based amendments is a start of2008. I realize what they're asking, but we still have to put a scope of work together, we'll have to go out and advertise, and we'll -- we will explain that during the EAR-based amendments -- the EAR response going back to DCA when we do our transmittal -- or correction, our adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so if we're out of compliance, where does that leave us? MR. SCHMITT: If we're found out of compliance, then the DCA will not approve any GMP amendments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute break, Page 44 September 21, 2006 give the court reporter -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you do -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one second. Is there some way we can start to get some -- a total of what we're dealing with? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I see some important things, like the watershed management plan. Also, too, I want to get into a discussion about the City of Naples and some of those park Issues. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What we're trying to do right now is we're trying to take -- we even got some vote sheets just a second ago, so we're trying to put all of those things together. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, one more question about the watershed, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I just have one last thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were -- you had suggested about raising the amount for the roads, but I don't know if you actually gave instructions to staff for it. That was the limerock roads. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't, and I'll talk about that, yeah. I'll talk about that. Now, the two things is, with the watershed plan, if we allocate all $6 million today, will you then start -- instead of waiting till 2008 to start this process -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- can't you start this in 2007? MR. SCHMITT: Whatever money you allocate, we will start the process, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, because you said, well, you would start it in 2008. But if we -- if I change mine to -- if I keep mine at 6 million, then will you start that in 2007 when we've Page 45 September 21, 2006 allocated the money? MR. SCHMITT: As soon as the money goes into the budget, we will start the process. The $6 million that you allocate today will be carried over. It's a dedicated fund in a -- or monies in a fund that will be carried over. If you allocated only 1 million, we'll be coming back to you in an iterative process for the additional dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, we're required to do this. It isn't like -- whether we like it or not. The DCA is requiring us to do this; isn't that correct? MR. SCHMITT: The board committed to do it in 2000. MR. MUDD: In 2000 a previous board, okay -- none of -- I don't think anybody was here when they made that promise. This thing -- this EAR was being vetted through the public process because it was the first iterations of the EAR. Every seven years we do this, which is interesting. So the previous commission made a promise to the State of Florida, they were going to do these watershed management plans. And they were never funded and they were never acted upon. Part of that could be staffs problem, some of it could be budget, and I still haven't got to the bottom of why we didn't execute it or did we just forget about it. But during this EAR process when we said we would get these things done between now and 2010, DCA said, wait a minute. You said these would already be done, and you need to make good on your promIses. Now, we have -- they've also asked us to come back with more stringent interim procedures that this board is going to enact in order to make sure that the watersheds aren't harmed while you're doing the plan. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. MUDD: And that's what we're going through. So, ma'am, a previous board made a commitment, and now you're stuck with having to follow through. Page 46 September 21, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Can I clarify? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay. I just wanted to make sure we didn't wait until 2008. If I'm going to give the money today, if we're all going to give the money today, why would we sit on the money for another year? MR. SCHMITT: We will not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon? MR. SCHMITT: We will not. And can I clarify? It is an objective in the GMP right now. Based on the EAR report that Mr. Mudd mentioned under objective 2.1 in our coastal and conservation management element, it is an objective that's clearly stated we'd have it done by 2000, the year 2000. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But you just told us, well, we would start it in 2008. MR. SCHMITT: That is what we forwarded in our response back to DCA in our valuation appraisal report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I want you to response to me. MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, we -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you start? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: In 2007? MR. SCHMITT: It's in the 2007 budget. Whatever money you fund, we will start the process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if we fund all $6 million, you will start the process now? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, and that -- but we will not spend all that money this year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we can't put this off. MR. SCHMITT: That's carried over -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, but at least we've got it allocated so that then forever we're going to be preserving what we can of our water supply and regenerating our aquifers; is that correct? Page 47 September 21, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: It will be a plan to do all of that, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He never answered your original question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, and then take a break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just want to clarify something. Ifwe approved only $1 million, they'd start now, okay. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll start now, even if we approve just 1 million. Ifwe approve $500,000, they're going to start now because it is a mandated requirement, and we've already told them that we're behind this thing. My only problem here is that we have no understanding of the scope, there is no plan, there is no schedule. We're saying, here, take this pot of gold of $6 million and do something with it, and I don't like to do things that way. But If you want to get them going fast, let's give them a million bucks right now. Get started, show us what you can do, show us a plan, show us a schedule, tell us how you're going to do it, how you're going to capitalize on the resources we've got already available to us, and then we'll give you some more money to do this. But we're committed to doing it. We have to do it. There's no question about that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if we do commit this -- and you were saying something about staff and so forth, can we use -- with these dollars, could we use something -- could we hire like the Conservancy to do this report for us instead if you do not have -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, here's -- this is a budget. This is a budget. This is not your approval for expenditures of funds. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Mr. Schmitt, in order to spend a nickel of the amount of money that you put into the budget, is going to have to Page 48 September 21, 2006 come back to this board, he's going to have to layout a plan on how it's done, who's going to do what parts of it, what phases are going to be accomplished, and he would come back in order to get a piece of what you budget for the fund. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Put me down for four million for watershed and put me down for the entire eight for the limerock roads. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's take a break at this point in time, and we'll be back at 6:52. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. And we'll continue on with the discussions. I have a couple of questions. I want to get some additional information and hopefully some clarification in regards to the watershed management. And either Bill Lorenz or possibly Joe Schmitt, if you can give us -- give me some guidance in regards to the magnitude of this. And have you ever been involved in a watershed management study before? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the watershed management plan, yes. To answer your question, I have. There's a district engineer, the Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah district, did a comprehensive water management plan for the Savannah River. Three power plants on that river, many municipalities that take water from reservoirs. That project was up in the 6, $7 million range. It was a comprehensive watershed management study and studying the ecosystem and water use from the headways -- headwaters of the Savannah River all the way down to the Savannah Harbor. So would that be the type of study for this? I don't know. We're talking anywhere from eight to 13 basins, depending on how they're put together. Page 49 September 21, 2006 It would be a comprehensive watershed management plan study, but it could also be focused strictly into stormwater, water use, water runoff, flood control and, of course, water quality. And it would be, again, a comprehensive -- it most likely would be some type of consultant service. We would first assess what is available right now, as Commissioner Coyle pointed out, through other agencies. That would probably be part of the scope of services that we would ask even a consultant to do, but it would be a joint effort, primarily engineering services, Robert Wiley, Stan Chrzanowski working, and then with stormwater -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- working together on this in regards to developing the scope of work, and everything that we're doing would have to come back to you in some sort of form or fashion for your approval. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Say we only put a million dollars into this project to get it started and then next year for some reason we don't have the adequate funds. Then what happens? MR. SCHMITT: It's back in your lap as to whether we continue to fund it or do we push it -- we stall it again and move it down the road. But we would come back to you in some sort of format in a proposal that would layout a schedule and layout the scope of the work and the scheduled activities associated, and then the -- a priority of the watersheds that we would study as part of the proposal. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My next question is, do you know, or do you have any history, of what took place, why we haven't gotten this watershed management study going prior till now? MR. SCHMITT: At one time -- and I'd have to go back --you'd have to ask Bill Lorenz, because Bill was, at one time, part of that division, you had the division responsible for these activities. It was -- it was broken apart by the previous county manager. Not knowing the history of it, but natural resources went to CDES, and, of course, Page 50 September 21, 2006 stormwater is under transportation, but at one time -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is Bill Lorenz here now? MR. SCHMITT: Bill? Bill's here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bill, can you give us any history in regards to why we've failed to address this earlier on? MR. LORENZ: The initial -- the initial development of the whole program was through the stormwater utility that was adopted in the -- or developed in the early '90s. Previous boards split out or cancelled that program and went to a program where, instead of funding those types of studies through the utility fees, then looked at a referendum plus one for individual basins. And at that point, as Joe indicated, the divisions were broke up. The different responsibilities were put aside in terms -- in different departments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So at that point we lost the stormwater utility. We lost the funding source. The stormwater system went over into a couple of different organizations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Where does that lead us to today in regards to our obligation to addressing these issues with the watershed management plan? MR. LORENZ: I think what you have in front of you, with a funding source for the watershed management plans, is the obligation that continues to exist through the Growth Management Plan. And as Joe indicated, that the funding -- the funding of those plans needs to be accomplished, and the scope of services would have to be established to determine exactly what each plan would look like. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I had one -- we'll be coming back to you in our EAR-based amendment for adoption, which will, as Mr. Mudd mentioned, will have the interim standards. There will be some interim standards that will be discussed, brought before you in dealing Page 51 September 21, 2006 with water quality and flood control and some other issues. We're addressing those now amongst the staff. That will be part of the EAR-based amendment that will be interim standards that we'll ask you to put in place until such time as the water management studies are complete. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When you say -- when you talk about flood control, are you talking about just in -- out in the Estates area, or are we talking down in the LASIP area and are we talking about North Naples area? MR. SCHMITT: This would be a comprehensive review -- and I'll just -- let me flip to the page so I don't miss any of them. We'd basically be talking City of Naples to Gordon River extension basin, the Airport Road Canal south basin, the main Golden Gate Canal basin, Rock Creek basin, Haldeman Creek basin, the main Lely Canal basin, the Lely Manor basin, and then miscellaneous coastal basins. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we also talking about Mirasol, the flowway up in Mirasol? MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. That flowway was -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cocohatchee, anything in the Cocohatchee? MR. SCHMITT: That would be part of the miscellaneous coastal basins. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But not the Mirasol project? MR. SCHMITT: Mirasol, no. That is a separate -- that was a proposal, separate and distinct part of a project. The Mirasol PUD, that was a proposal to build a flowway. That permit was denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Don't -- do we have any obligations as far as establishing, since that was a watershed area or not? Page 52 September 21, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: That area falls in one of these watersheds. I would have to pull a map out. The Cocohatchee. Thank you, Bill. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just want to go back and revisit a couple of things and see if there's any way that I can offer a logical argument that might change a commissioner's mind. We -- you know, I would really encourage the commissioners who have voted to provide all of the funding that is requested in the community developmentlenvironmental services division. As Commissioner Fiala has already acknowledged we authorized funds for positions last year and they weren't filled, and we're going to authorize funds again for positions this year that won't be filled and won't solve the problem. We're just throwing money at a problem that we know isn't going to get solved with money. And if it could be, then I would like to offer this argument. Give the county manager an opportunity to take a look at the organization to see if he can find ways to make it more efficient. It is a huge organization. I mean, it covers everything from beach renourishment to building inspections. You know, it's -- and I just think it is so complex that throwing additional money at it and authorizing additional positions is just going to create more inefficiency. And I would like to give the county manager an opportunity to provide us an alternate solution to this problem. But as long as we keep throwing money at it and authorizing positions that aren't being filled, I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere. So I really wish that I could get some assistance from the other commissioners on this Issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got my support. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 53 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: It shows in here, too. You know, I've had reservations all along, and you've got my support. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I think it's a very important step to solving a much bigger overall problem. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala asked a very direct question and it wasn't answered, and I'm going to ask it again and I want it answered. And she asked about the watershed management plan. Do we need to do it? Do we have to do it? MR. MUDD: Sir, there is no -- there is no requirement in the State of Florida right now that requires this board to do a watershed management plan outside of the total daily maximum load studies that we need to do. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Total maximum daily loads deals with pollution, right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't deal with how much water goes into the estuarine, right? MR. MUDD: It could, depending on what kind of pollutants you have, what kind of -- what kind of sediment, what kind of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's all to do with pollutants? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and parts per million and things like that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's the answer to your question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But from what I understand, it also recharges the aquifers; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no doubt that it's a good thing, the only point that I wanted to make, you did not get your question answered, and it's getting pretty old, okay? Besides the fact I think it's a good thing, my only point is, and I stated it and I'll state it just one more time, I don't like big government telling us what to do. Page 54 September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I could -- if we're done discussing, if I could go down the list and see if we have a consensus and then do some adding and subtracting or tell me if I'm going to take money and put it in reserves or if you're going to roll back on 111 because there's monies, based on what I'm seeing on the thing, that aren't spent, if that would be the board's pleasure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, as I take a look at this unfinanced requirement list, the first -- the first item that has receive three votes on it is for the South Regional Library, $147,200. Has anybody changed their votes on this particular -- on this particular item? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to our next item on this particular list, which is purchase the Rob Storter collection. And there are -- there are three votes to dedicate $75,000 to match the $75,000 that the community has already collected in order to purchase this particular collection. The total price was $150,000, if my memory serves me. Is there any changes on the votes on that particular item? (N 0 response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I'll move to the next item that has received at least three votes, and that is staff deficiencies in Emergency Management Services and that is -- has three votes, and that is to set aside $338,000 to work the staff deficiencies in emergency servIces. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I only see two votes on it. MR. MUDD: Sir, if you take a look at the yellow sheet that I have provided. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. MR. MUDD: There are commissioners that had changed votes during the discussion, and staff tried to garner that information on this particular sheet and then consolidate them. I have three votes on this Page 55 September 21, 2006 particular item. Is any commissioner going to change their vote on this particular item? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing no change, I move to the next item. The next item that has received more than three votes, and this particular case has four, has to do with the reserve ambulance for Emergency Management Services, and a total budget of $185,000 set aside for that particular requirement. I have four votes on this particular item. Any commissioners want to change their vote on this particular item? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I move to the next item. The next item is an agency-wide merit budget increase to go from 1.5 to 5 percent, and that has three votes, and it's a set aside of $1,427,000. And I believe there's several commissioners that have asked me to say some words on this particular item in a previous discussion on the dais. If the board would like me to do that at this time, I'll be glad to do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe the county attorney has a MR. PETTIT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you consider this item, we would request that we be included in that -- in that adjustment, the county attorney. And that would increase this, based on the math we were able to do, of approximately $82,600. MR. MUDD: Sir, that would bring -- that would bring that total to $1,509,000. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We've included that. MR. MUDD: You've included that in this particular figure? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Then it stands at $1,427,000. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 56 September 21, 2006 MR. MUDD: Now, I've got it there -- I'm still asking the question, does the board want me to talk about this particular item, or have we discussed it enough? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The question I have is, we're talking about including the attorney's office also in this? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's in that figure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the -- I will tell you that only-- there's 30 percent of that figure that will receive not a merit but it would be bonus because they are either a director or administrator or they're over the 110 percent in their particular range. Those particular dollars would be one-time dollars and they would not be a reoccurring expense. So that basically equates to about, if my memory serves me, around $500,000 of that 1.4 would be one-time versus a reoccurring expense to the county. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have $1,427,000 on that particular item, and I have three votes. Do I have any changes to the votes on that particular item? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I move to the next item. The next item is the funding of the watershed management plan study, and there has been interest by five commissioners. What we tried to do was average that interest across the five, and that average turns out to be $4,200,000 CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll change mine to five million from six. MR. MUDD: Okay. Mike, can you do the math? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. You don't have any allocation left. You spent it all. Your allocation -- I mean, your -- on these nonrecurring dollars on this list, you're at 20,000,600. MR. MUDD: But he's basically saying he wants to reduce his $6 million to 5 million, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. He's got Page 57 September 21, 2006 two million left. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do I hear four? Four? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Brings the average down to four. MR. MUDD: Brings the average down to $4 million on that particular item with the decrease from six million to five million on Commissioner Halas. I have five votes on that. There will be $4 million that are allocated to that particular item. Do I have any changes in votes or changes in quantities? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I move to the next item. The next item is monies to -- for promotion and increase to promotion for the trades port out at Immokalee and some other issues for the Economic Development Council, EDC. That's $160,000. There's three votes. There's $160,000 set aside on that particular item. Do I have any changes to the votes that have been -- (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I move to the next item that has some consensus to it, and that brings us down to the Everglades City reinforcelrepair Everglades City Hall foundation. The price asked by Mayor Hamilton and his staff is $600,000. We had one vote by Commissioner Halas at $300,000, and that would -- if you average those votes, that would bring us to $525,000. Commissioners, I would ask you to increase that to $600,000. I don't think that's going to -- it's going to help him, but he's still going to be scratching for money, so -- or do you want to leave it at $525,000? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can bring that back for discussion as we get through and find out what kind of funds are available? MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. We can do it. W e'llleave it for this time being at $525,000 and bring it back for discussion to see where Page 58 September 21, 2006 we are at the end. The next item that I have unanimous support for is to finish out the three floors on the courthouse annex, and that is a cost of $8 million. Do I have any changes of votes on that particular item? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, I move to the next item, which is to renovate the courthouse to build courthouse and courtrooms and hearing rooms. The -- there's three votes. The average -- the amount allocated comes out to $2,667,900. Do I see any commissioners that want to -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was just an error, maybe I put in the wrong -- my 2 million was allocated to that, not the large maintenance items. MR. MUDD: Okay, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't make any difference. MR. MUDD: We can adjust, bring that four votes, and that would bring down the average a little bit. Could I get the board to consider to be a $2,474,300, and take it down just a little bit to that amount, because that's basically the staffs estimate to do the first phase of the total project of$19 million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Say-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wouldn't that add it up if you're adding $2 million to that? MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, because you've got to average it, then you divide it by four. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just leave it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right now it's at $2,500,925. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll throw the million dollars that I took out of the watershed, I'll put it into that. So my portion would be $4,000,055. What do you got, Mike? Page 59 September 21, 2006 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Bear with me one second here. You're now at $2,750,925. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two million what? MR. MUDD: Seven hundred fifty thousand. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Seven hundred fifty, nine hundred twenty- five dollars, rounded, or not rounded. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That hits the target. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, those are the items on the general fund that we have consensus on. Are there any additional items that you want to discuss on that particular list? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to ask what the large maintenance items are since we have a want list of over $12 million. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is the -- that is the backlog maintenance items that have been around, and we've been trying to decrease over the last six years. We've made some success in it. We budgeted to get that down to $12,201,000. We budgeted $1.6 million to major maintenance out of the capital project. And what I plan to do on that particular item is to set aside that $1.6 million in that capital budget for the next nine years to get at this so that it goes away, because this has been hounding this community ever since the '90s, and there's some major things that haven't been replaced that need to be replaced. It goes to everything from an air handler out here that smells like something's on fire -- you remember that last year -- to not being able to get the stuff. So, Commissioner, I will take care of that. We need to take care of that, and I will make sure we do that in the capital budget. But I've set 1.6 million in the budget for '07 against it. That's the remaining money on the major maintenance repair items. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Page 60 September 21, 2006 There's something here that I really do want to discuss, and if I go down through it, I'll try to be as brief as possible. And that has to do with the City of Naples and the park system that's there. The City of Naples has been very great at accommodating the residents of Collier County. In some cases I see where I was there and Commissioner Coyle was there, then I see another one there where Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle -- or Coyle were there -- or Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle. But going down to the City of Naples, Pulling Park project, 300,000. You've got two people. If I take the million dollars I have up there in the City of Naples Fleischmann Park improvements, which is going no place, and dedicate $300,000 to the item number on the City of Naples Pulling Park project, that would give us enough to be able to carry that out of that million. CHAIRMAN HALAS: One thing I'd like to add to that that there shouldn't -- hopefully with the addition of this money, there shouldn't be any surcharges inflicted upon the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you 100 percent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the county-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I didn't vote for anything. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would make it conditional, that's what I was just going to say. I would make it conditional that they don't have surcharges, and if they do want to place surcharges, this money can go back into the general fund for whatever purposes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would also recommend the City of Naples Gordon River Greenway for a half million dollars. Well, I already got that in there, but I'm not too sure what else we -- we don't have enough support on the other ones there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the 300,000 on the priority number 9 Page 61 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I've got one more, forgive me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and that's without -- the attachment with that 300,000 is, there's no surcharges. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That there's no surcharges. And then I've got one more that I neglected the first time around, removing that 1 million that was on there and it was standing alone with, I definitely would like to see the Sunday bus service, CAT transit service and support Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala on that for 305,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that still leaves you with about $395,000, if I remember correctly. You think I could squeeze 100,000 out of you for that Sandpiper Street enhancement beautification? That is adjacent to county property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't they have an MSTU in that area? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got it, Commissioner Coyle. I agree with you 100 percent. In fact, I already got it down here, and that was the next thing I was going to bring up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So Sandpiper Street is in then? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's up paying 50 percent -- 50 percent of the planning for the Sandpiper improvement, and that's in the design phase. Their construction phase is $2 million. When that design's done, they'll be coming back to look for that 50 percent on the improvements. But, you know, that's something that you'll have to decide next year. It's not part of their request this year. But if you read the letter -- if you read the back-up information for the City of Naples, it talks about -- and if you remember back when we had our workshop when some City of Naples speakers were here, I believe Page 62 September 21, 2006 they had their -- the person from roads here, and Mr. Lykin was here to talk about it. The executive -- the executive assistant for the City of Naples who's now the chief of police was here to talk about it during the workshop. And they basically said that they were asking for the first phase, which is design. And basically the project would be 50/50. Design's the first phase this year, and then in '08 it would be construction, and they estimated that the construction would cost about $2 million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, too, since I still have everybody's attention. Let's go back and take a look. What have I got left out of that money that I had, the amount that I had? You were figuring, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You lost me when you went to the CAT bus thing. I lost count. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'm hoping for is we can get the full 600,000 for Everglades City Hall. That would make a big difference and remain a landmark forever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Looks like 295,000 you have left. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I would like to apply another 75,000 for the full 600. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And which one; where's that going? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everglades City Hall, to the final number, if it's possible to do it that way. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would be pretty close on four votes. If you had 200 and -- let's figure it's around $300,000 left. If you divided that by four, that would come out with $75,000 more on that particular budget, and it would bring it to 600,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'd like to do that. MR. MUDD: That pretty much -- you've done everything you can with the money you have, sir. Page 63 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe I could borrow some from Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You want to give some back to the taxpayers? I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're going to be able to tour the city hall. MR. MUDD: Okay. Mike, can you tell me where we are right now as far as what the final total is? MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're at 18,388,125. We've got 2.2 million that is unallocated. I do, though, have Commissioner Coletta over slightly -- 29,647 -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ah, heck with it. Don't worry about it. MR. MUDD: Michael? Mike? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's only money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's a quarter of a million dollars? MR. MUDD: So Commissioners, you have $2.2 million left. Do you want to put that into reserves? COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about sending it back to the taxpayers? MR. MUDD: Sir, it's non-reoccurring money, so you get yourself in a little bit of a bind. If the board's willing to take that risk, we can roll it back 2 point, whatever it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion? Let's -- if you take a look at 111, you have some one-time costs things. Why can't you take those and apply these one-time non-occurring (sic) monies to the Ills and do exactly what Commissioner Coyle has stated? I mean, you have -- you have merit increases, that's a one-time; hurricane reserve fund; Fish Branch Creek Culvert; and resurfacing Airport Road. Those are all-- and the parks and rec. Golden Gate Page 64 September 21, 2006 Community Center. Those are all one-time things. Now, we want to make sure that we legally can do that. But with this new direction, maybe we can get down to the $4 million that we should be sending back to the taxpayers. MR. MUDD: Mike, you got any -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: A comment on the merit. The merit is for employees who are working at -- in the unincorporated area of the county, so you should not be using general fund money to pay for people who are working in the unincorporated area of the county. MR. MUDD: The hurricane reserve, I believe you could use general fund money for that particular item, but I don't believe I have consensus for hurricane reserve. I only have two votes for that particular item. Fish Branch Creek, it's a stretch. Resurface Airport Road, U.S. 41 to Radio Road, I would say you probably have enough people that use that on that arterial road that you could use general funds in order to do that; however, I only have one vote for that particular item. And the Golden Gate Community Park, that's 111 dollars. Commissioners, I will -- I will mention to you that if you -- and I'm looking at the sheet that's out in front. If you look at the votes that are -- that have been received -- and, Mike, Commissioner Fiala said it was $8 million on this particular item. Can you tell me what the total amount average is across? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For limerock road conversion is 5,861,300. MR. MUDD: Okay. And that's with that change to 8 million. Commissioner, I'm sorry staff missed that and didn't get it. And so I have a consensus on limerock road of a little less than $6 million. If you -- if you take a look at that, you have about -- what's left, Mike, on the consensus from the total? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. You've spent 6,331,200 between limerock roads, the merit, the Fish Branch Creek and the fencing. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have about $2 million left. Page 65 September 21, 2006 You could -- you could -- I'm trying to answer a question that Commissioner Henning brought up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. MR. MUDD: You have around $2 million that are left over that you could claim are reoccurring in this particular item, and you could -- you could send that back, is what I've got on the chart so far. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. The exact number's 2,097,800. You have 6,331,200 that you've spent. Nonrecurring is 4,146,400, which would mean you've spent 2,184,800 of the recurring dollars. The total reoccurring available is 4,282,600. The difference then is approximately $2.1 million that you could roll back the 111 millage of or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Okay. On the reoccurring dollars, forgive me, but I really would like to see the reoccurring dollars dedicated to the limerock roads, just so we can have some assurance that we've got a long-range plan to be able to take care of the balance as time goes along. Where else do you need the reoccurring dollars in that -- in that 111 general fund? MR. MUDD: Sir, it would be the -- it would be the merit budget increase. That's $365,900. They're marked by an X, they're right there, that are reoccurring, over to the side. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Left side. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Left side. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right here. Those Xs, reoccurring. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Right over in here. I see the number there, but I'm just -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: The two Xs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The two Xs, but it doesn't tell me the amount of the reoccurring dollars on there. Or the whole amount? MR. MUDD: Well, it would be the whole amount for the merit Page 66 September 21, 2006 budget increase. Now, you have around 30 percent of that money that will be a bonus, so it would not be reoccurring. It would be -- it would be one time. And I can do the math real quick. But the other part is that, when you get over to the side and it says $8 million, well, you know all of that isn't reoccurring because you only have $4,282,600 that are reoccurring dollars in the 111 revenue for the unfinanced requirements. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So it would be reoccurring dollars -- total amount of reoccurring dollars would be $4,282,600, less the 365,090 for the merit pay, then the balance would be used towards the limerock road; is that the way I'm reading it? MR. MUDD: That could be the way you read it, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope my fellow commissioners agree with me on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you take away the merit raise? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. If you remove the merit part from it, the amount of reoccurring dollars would be, you know, that amount less what's already dedicated to merit. No, merit is something I supported all the way through. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason for that is -- of course, there's a way to reconsider it again every year, but it just -- it gives us the ability to make a long-range road plan based upon reoccurring dollars. Also, too, I'm kind of hoping that when we get through and we have a balance on here, that we might be able to apply a healthy share of it to really get this amount up to something that will be meaningful for the Estates. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're going to have to Page 67 September 21, 2006 ask Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about it, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give me $4 million to go back to the taxpayers and I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What do you got in the front half there that we didn't spend on page I? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't do it. It's impossible. You can't do it. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can't -- it's very, very difficult to transfer dollars from the general fund 001 because the municipalities pay into that 001 dollar, so you really need to spend that money on stuff that's basically -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. MR. MUDD: -- general across the board. And the 111 is everything in the county except for the municipality. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no way I can do it without -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The next thing I'm going to do is ask you to pave the unpaved roads in East Naples too, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm for it. I'll support you on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I -- MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you looking for a recommendation? You've got $2 million left over. You need to tell me if that's reoccurring money or if that's one-time money. Ifit's reoccurring money and you have no other recommendations to apply that money to, then if it's reoccurring you have the opportunity to roll it back, and if you call it one-time money and you put all the -- what's left in the reoccurring into the limerock roads so you'll have additional funds in the out years for that particular item, then you can put that money In reserves. Page 68 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's give it back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go back to the first page for just a moment. What is your total, Mike, for that -- the total amount that was approved for expenditure for everything on that page? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Average, it's 18,388,125 of the available 2,606,400. The difference, 2,218,275. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two million two eighteen. So we've got roughly $2,200,000 that we could send back to the taxpayers out of that; is that true or not? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. In your general fund, Mr. Mudd, we sent a memorandum to the board. That was largely the one-time revenue due to your large fund balance and the interest earning differential that is higher than it normally would be because of bond proceeds and the like. And over time, as those road projects are completed, et ai, the interest earnings will not be there like they have been in the past. So in the general fund there was non-recurring dollars. That's why we showed the total amount of 2,606,400 as nonrecurring. The recurring dollars that you had available was in the unincorporated area, 111. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's the only place we can get something, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. And at this point it's approximately $2.1 million. MR. MUDD: I want to correct something. It's the only place that you can get it without taking risk in your out-year budgets. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay? I just want to make sure that we get the -- Commissioner, you can do anything you want this year and then we get to play with it next year to try to figure out how we're going to make things work. Page 69 September 21, 2006 I would -- I would give you a recommendation as your county manager that you not roll back on non-reoccurring dollars. It's like balancing the budget with trust funds in the State of Florida, okay? They do it, and it's a risky business. And so far it hasn't caught us yet but they're -- I think we're going to have a couple years that are going to be pretty lean. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much -- on $2 million, how much money does that affect each taxpayer in Collier County? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you're talking about the 111 fund -- not that I thought that you would have this discussion, but I thought you would have this discussion, and I have a series of what would happen to 111 if you decided to roll back any particular amounts to the full amount that was there. So in this particular case you have -- you have $2 million to -- that you could roll back and call it reoccurring. That would reduce the millage rate from the present millage rate, which is .8069, and you would reduce it to .7655 (sic). And, Mike, if you could help me exactly what that would mean for each -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, actually, I just did it in our millage spreadsheet. And with the exact change, rolling back that 2,097,800, .7635, the differential is $4.36 per $100,000 of taxable value. So you'd go from $80.69 to $76.35. Did that answer your question, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.) MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? MR. MUDD: So, Commissioner, I'm back to my question. The remaining $2 million that you have on 111 -- and I'm going to go -- I'm going to go down the list just one more time to make sure we don't have any changes to what's there like I did on the general fund. On limerock road conversion to asphalt, and it also says bridge Page 70 September 21,2006 construction projects, it has -- and I have four votes, and the total, Mike, is 5 million -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: 861,300. MR. MUDD: -- 861,300. Do I have any changes to the votes that you have put on this particular item? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I understand correctly about the reoccurring funds? MR. MUDD: Sir, we still haven't got there yet and we haven't made that decision. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead. MR. MUDD: I'm just trying to get the amounts that they're dedicating, and we're going to figure out if it's going to be a maximum amount of reoccurring or only a smaller piece of the reoccurring. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I won't be at all offended if somebody wanted to up their amount. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, which is merit budget increase, $365,900. I have four votes for that. On the ledger we have 365,900. Does any commissioner want to change their vote? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, it moves me to the next item that we have consensus on, and that is the Fish Branch Creek culvert, and there are four votes to allocate 77,000 to that particular project. Do I have any changes to votes? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Seeing none, it moves me to the next item, which is parks and recreation Golden Gate Community Center fence, $27,000. I have five votes. It's unanimous for $27,000. Do I have any changes on those votes? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Okay. Knowing that those four votes are standing, Mike, it brings us to a total of? Page 71 September 21, 2006 MR. SMYKOWSKI: 6,331,200. MR. MUDD: Okay. And there's how much left over, sir? MR. SMYKOWSKI: 2,097,800. MR. MUDD: About $2 million. So the question remains, is the $2 million that remains, is it non-reoccurring or reoccurring dollars? It basically gets down to, how do you want to finance with dollars the $5,800,000 for limerock road conversion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My suggestion would be, is that we use the remainder of the reoccurring dollars after we meet our obligation with the merit pay. MR. MUDD: Do I have -- do I have a second on this particular proposal? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. MR. MUDD: Okay. We're at discussion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta and -- the commissioners are spent out except for Commissioner Coyle and myself. Okay? So I don't see where you keep on -- we can keep on adding into commissioners' line items. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not. It's just the dedicated dollars that goes into that line item. In other words, we're not increasing it one bit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're not increasing it one bit, but you have spent out your money, Commissioner Halas has spent out his money, Commissioner Fiala has approximately $3 million left. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, actually I don't. I don't think you added that right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You spent yours out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner Coyle and I are making a profound statement, I think. At least I am. Page 72 September 21, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You're twisting the whole thing. We're. not changing the amount. We're just identifying what dollars they come from, whether it's regular dollars or reoccurring dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reoccurring -- I'd like to have the balance of the reoccurring dollars to be applied to that 5,863,000. In other words, it would be part of it. It wouldn't be added to it. I'm sorry if I didn't say that clearer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I disagree with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, what happens to the reoccurring dollars if they're not used on the limerock roads? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should give it back. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You can place them in reserves or you can change your tax rate and reduce the millage rate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By a tremendous amount, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: $4.30 per 100,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And meanwhile a need's going to go unfulfilled, and we're so close to being able to really take care of it for now and sometime in the future. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much -- let me ask, how much have we dedicated in years past in limerock roads and -- I mean, I think it's millions of dollars. And you owe me a conversation, because our understanding about any commitments on getting those done are different. I mean, it's changed. And I still have that document in the agreement, of the settlement agreement, so we'll talk about that later. MR. FEDER: Okay. I'm not sure where the disagreement, but by all means, let's talk at any time. Answer to your question, right now, we traditionally put about $400,000 of resurfacing dollars once many years ago, actually before I Page 73 September 21, 2006 came. The Avatar money was used up. We starting using about 400- of our resurfacing dollars to try and address the issue. Last year, I believe it was, you added a million to UFR request that we made, and then later you had some available funds and gave us about another 363-, if I remember correctly, bringing the total to just over 1.7 million, and that's where we are today ifnothing is adjusted as part of this process. I'm not sure on the other question, Commissioners. You want me to answer something now, I'd be happy to try to answer it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think it's appropriate. So the statement that -- the implication that we're not ever going to get this done, it's not true. I think the board has allocated money to this problem before, okay, the resurfacing of our limerock roads. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I was trying to be polite and wait for the light to go off. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak again. Yes, the commission has. And believe me, we're extremely grateful for that mile, mile and a half of roads that we've been able to do every year. And the people that were at the far end of the 100-some miles that were left to do, I'm sure they understand that 33 years or so is not really a long length of time, and their grandchildren could really enjoy this amenity, and the amenity they were promised by this very -- by other commissions, and this commission, too, came across every year with a budgeted amount for it. And that budget amount, regardless of the fact if it was $100,000 or $1,500 or a million and a half dollars, it still was a commitment to say, we are paving your roads. We understand that we have a responsibility to do this, and we accept that responsibility as something very serious, and we're going to take care of what we promised. An obligation has been made and an obligation is fulfilled. It's been a long time that these people have been waiting for it, and I Page 74 September 21, 2006 appreciate very much that we're at the point now where we've got some serious money here that we can do something. But the thing is, is now with the -- the future's uncertain and the next year is uncertain, and to dedicate the reoccurring dollars to it would be a plan to be able to meet this need and probably finish it off in what, about five, six years, Norm? And that would be a tremendous benefit. Now, think of it too this way, are you really taking and giving away something that we're going to lose? No. You're adding value to what's out there. You're going to get this back in tax revenue many times over. As time goes along, the value of the property these people bought with the understanding the roads would be paved, when the roads are paved, their values go up. The taxation on those properties go up. They come back into the kitty and they help the whole thing keep right on going. So I'm pleading with you to please, try to find a way to dedicate the reoccurring dollars that are left, after we meet our requirements for the merit pay, to the roads. I think I did it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You done? Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let me tell you why that's all wrong. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, man. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, seriously. You've made a good argument, Commissioner Coletta. I would just like to get from Norm Feder a little more information concerning what he's going to be able to do with roughly $6 million plus what already has been approved. And let's see if we can get a handle on this schedule. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Commissioner, basically lane mile cost right now, going out and not trying to modify driveways and culverts appreciably unless they're Page 75 September 21, 2006 creating more than 50 percent blockage, factoring that on average is about 362,000 a mile. We've got about 88 miles to go. So you can compute from that, and I've got some different items to tell you. But essentially what we're looking at is 1.7 million a year is getting you about four and a half miles. That's where I am right now, a year. So if I'm at four and a half miles, you can compute out. I'm a little over 20 years, or close to 20 years to get my just under 90 miles done. If, in fact, you're able to increase the revenue stream, then obviously that goes faster. I think what's being discussed is, if it is reoccurring revenue, then I've got more than a million seven a years or more than four miles a year that I'm addressing. If it's non-reoccurring, I can get a few more miles done, and then I go back to the, about four and a half year. And I think the difference is, if you went to the full amount that was being talked about, possible, then you're about five and a half years. If you do a one-time shot, depending upon how much it is, and pull back, then I'm somewhere in the area of about 1 7 years to complete. But even at 20 years, if you do nothing, I'm faster than I was before, but I'm still at about 20 years to complete. Now, on those roads, also we're out there four times a year grading, and so you're spending resources in the dry season to try and get the dust down, and the only thing for sure is the day after grade, it's dusty and we're getting complaints. And on the wet season, we're out there trying to grade it, and then, of course, new potholes, we're getting calls on that. So we are maintaining the roads and will continue to maintain them. The issue is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've got $5.8 million right now that the commissioners have agreed to approve for you, okay. Page 76 September 21, 2006 You add that to the $1.7 million you already have, and you've got roughly $7.5 million. Using your formula, I calculate that $7.5 million will get you finished in about four and a half years. MR. FEDER: That's if it's reoccurring, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me, how much reoccurring money do we have available that we can allocate to that road? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you could allocate -- and I just did the math, and minus the 30 percent, you could allocate $4 million of the recurring dollars that you have to that particular project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And if we did that, that gives you $5.7 million of recurring funds plus an additional million dollars of nonrecurring funds, I presume; is that what we're saying? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would give him another $2 million in nonrecurring money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how much of the repair that you were saying you wouldn't have to do would also being added to that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's -- it would be subtracting -- well, no, you're right, it would be added to that because you don't have to do the repair. And you've argued that the repairs are more expensive than if we had paved these roads, I think. MR. FEDER: Over a period, actually probably of about 20 years COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a long payback. MR. FEDER: It's not an immediate payback, no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'd be resurfacing them probably multiple times during that process. MR. FEDER: Yeah, you resurface one time in there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to say that all of the $5.8 million was recurring, where does that get you? Page 77 September 21, 2006 MR. FEDER: First of all, you've only got 4.2 that could be recurring, so then if I have the 1.7 and the 4.2, that's about 6 million. If again -- what I'm handing you out is the extreme example. If you gave all of the 111 s, and I know you're taking off 300 and something here and some other issues maybe, but basically if you did that, you'd have about 10 million the first year. We're giving you a graphic that shows you how far down the list. It's about the first 30 segments, which equate to actually, in this case, about the first 30 miles of the overall mileage, and then it's assuming 6 million a year. If you give the total maximum of the reoccurring dollars that you have today in 111, then I'd have, with the 1.7, about 6 million a year reoccurring, and those shows you those increments down. So if you gave me the reoccurring at 6 million a year, obviously you could look at it in that, and go down the list. It will show you. If you gave you me some of the non-reoccurring, it gets it to that point of what you've got on that graphic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I can't make sense of any of this. MR. FEDER: Okay. As you're going -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just tell me how long it would take you to get them all done total. MR. FEDER: Five and a half years total. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If you -- if you had the $6 million a year recurring funds? MR. FEDER: If I have the 6 million total reoccurring funds-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The 1.7. MR. FEDER: -- and the 10 million the first year, this year, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I doubt seriously if you can build that much in five years anyway. MR. FEDER: As I said, we came to you with a provision with three contractors claiming that they can do it. Our intent would probably be to take the top two because they're the really lowest Page 78 September 21,2006 bidders, pretty close, get them out there. One of them has an ongoing line operation where they're pulling it up, retreating it, putting it back down out there with the limerock, putting it down, the base, and getting done and going. We'd have to see how successful they are. But we've got strong commitments that they can meet this level of obligation. One of them is a contractor that does some paving in the county on our resurfacing but not on our major construction. The other one's not in our major construction. That's something we looked at as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And have you taken into consideration the stormwater problems and resolutions? MR. FEDER: We would be assisting some of the stormwater. In where you've got in there in that estimate of cost, it includes modifications of the swales and addressing them. What I haven't included totally in that cost is taking each one of the culverts and trying to get them at optimum height. What we have included in there, from what we've seen in spot cases, is where I have some that are over 50 percent out of -- in other words, not accommodating 50 percent of flow because they're that far out, addressing some of those. But it's minimal work on the culverts, very honestly, and we have some needs out there, but it is addressing some better swale and sodding those swales as well as the roadway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my -- bottom line, my point is, I understand we've got an obligation to get this done, but there's some realities that have to be dealt with. It wasn't done when it should have been done when it would have been cheap to do it. It's now much more expensive to do it. MR. FEDER: Five years ago. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a shortage of materials, shortage of contractors. We can't just make a decision to throw a pile of money in it and expect to solve all these problems in a very, very short period of time, but we can certainly start a program to do that, Page 79 September 21, 2006 and I'm willing to help with that process. But we must be realistic. And it bothers me -- well, I know it's more complex than we've discussed today. We're going to run into stormwater problems. We're going to have to deal with it some way. I don't know what kind of right-of-way problems we might have to build the roads that are essential. Maybe we own enough right-of-way there to -- MR. FEDER: We've got 60 feet of right-of-way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will do the trick. But you've still got the swales to deal with and stormwater runoff and stormwater retention and things of that nature, and I don't have the slightest idea how much that's going to cost, and I hate to give anybody the impression that if we approve this money, it's going to get you finished in five years. I don't think it will. I don't think we can manage that much construction and plan it, get it out for bid and get it completed in that period of time. MR. FEDER: I appreciate it, Commissioner. It's aggressive, but we feel comfortable. We did put a 15 percent contingency factor in there and cost. And obviously if I'm talking five years out, we both know the issue's there, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty percent won't do it. MR. FEDER: Well, 15 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I don't even think 20 percent will do it. I don't think 25 percent would do it. But in any event, I would be willing to help support a proposal that would make sure that the maximum amount of recurring funds was devoted to this particular property so we could assure that we could have an ongoing project and continue it towards its completion. I am reluctant, however, to say let's throw $10 million at it and we'll get done in four years. I don't think we can do that and I think we're deceiving people if we tell them that. MR. FEDER: Ifwe can maximize the reoccurring we're talking Page 80 September 21, 2006 about, at least 6 million a year ongoing, that, I think, is a very doable program and would be very helpful. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right, I'd be willing to support that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also would be willing to support that. I just think about when we first took office and we had a stinking landfill and we had sewer seeping, we had roads that should have been built years and years ago and they kept, you know, shirking their responsibilities. I think -- I think we should step up to the plate and do this. We have the opportunity now. Let's just go for it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have enough nods here? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I --let me try to summarize then. What I have on 111 is I have four allocations of dollars, and this is 5 million 800 and some odd thousand, Mike, and you've said it before for the record. It basically gives us an unspent amount of $2 million and some change at the bottom. And what I've -- what I've heard so far from three commissioners is that those dollars that are remaining are non-reoccurrIng. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reoccurring. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm pushing -- I'm pushing my luck here, I know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's reoccurring. MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. The money that's left over -- you haven't spent a total amount of $8 million, okay? You've only spent about 6 million and change. That gives you $2 million left over. And what you've decided, at least three of you have talked about, that said that you could support, you could support the $4 million that's after the 365-, which is -- I took 30 percent out, and that gets you close to 4 million. You can Page 81 September 21, 2006 support 4 million of the 500 and -- $5,800,000 or thereabouts, you can support that 4 million of that total 5.8 million is reoccurring dollars with the remaining $1.8 million being non-reoccurring. When you do that, you come down with your total at the end, and you subtract it from $8,429,000 that you have revenues in your unfinanced requirements. That gives you around $2 million left over that's non-reoccurring. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not going to ask for another penny for that, because I can't tell you how much I appreciate what you're doing. If an item's not on there, we can't even talk about it, correct? MR. MUDD: Sir, if the -- sir, as a board -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer is, no, you can't even talk about it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to say it out loud-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a reason that wouldn't come on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because I don't think anyone should have to live on roads, limerock roads, no matter where it is in the county, and Commissioner Fiala brought up something that I didn't remember early enough to bring it up, but the fact there is limerock roads outside of Golden Gate Estates in district -- in her district, and I don't know if there's any other districts that have it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Some in Coyle's district, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any way that that $2 million that is left could be dedicated to the conversion of those roads? MR. MUDD: Mr. Feder? And the reason I have -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I represent all the people in Collier County, not just Golden Gate. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and the reason I asked Mr. Feder to come Page 82 September 21, 2006 back up here is because some of those dirt roads are private. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I know private roads are different, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we take care of private roads, too. MR. MUDD: In emergencies. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. And there goes my merit right now. Yes, unfortunately some of the roadways we're talking about are periodically maintained based on prior agreements, but they are not county-owned roadways like the ones we've been talking about in the limerock program. I, therefore, put that to you that while there have been some prior agreements to provide some maintenance to them, we go out quarterly, they are not up to county standards, no -- not county owned, and, therefore, not county roads that I spend county dollars other than the maintenance I've been asked to do by prior agreements in the past. If that sounds real clear to you, then I -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I've got tons of private roads, too, that I've got to deal with, too. MR. FEDER: They're private roads, yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not finished with my deal yet. Since the remainder is nonrecurring, as I understand it, and you have cautioned us against turning back nonrecurring dollars because it might get us into trouble in the future, and suppose we put it into hurricane reserves, with the -- with the intent that if we get through this season and next year at this time and those reserves are not necessary, we return the money, the excess money, to the taxpayers. Now, tell me, what's the downside of that? MR. MUDD: Well, the downside is, I can't tell you what the assessed values are going to be next year because of the market that Page 83 September 21, 2006 we're having right now. It looks like we could have a devaluation, probably the first time in Collier County in a very long time. And the only thing that will save us from that devaluation are the new construction starts that we're seeing right now. Mr. Schmitt, as you know and I've provided in my -- at least my backup in my appraisal, has had a 40 percent increase in those particular permits, and about the same amount of new construction starts. I can't tell you what the appraised value's going to be next year. But, Commissioner, if you have those dollars and you don't need them and we can find reoccurring dollars that are there next year in the budget in order to do it, then you can roll it back at that particular time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my proposal. And then it seems to me that that's a compromise between most everyone's position with respect to handling this money. It doesn't get as much money back to the taxpayers as we would like and doesn't get them back as early as we would like, but it certainly has the potential of getting some back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was my light on? CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was on, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then never mind. I don't have anything to add about this budget process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We still have some more items here. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just wanted to see if there was any other discussion on the 111 funding before we move on to the next. Item #2D Page 84 September 21, 2006 BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS - UFR LISTS MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the next item has to do with special revenue funds, unfinanced requirements, and it has to do with community development's environmental services. And I heard from three commissioners that you want me to finish up the reorganization study in community developments ( sic) before you allocate any additional positions in community developments. And after that study is finished, if we need to come forward with any, we'll come forward with it. Those moneys are there and we'll decide that at a future time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, these aren't tax dollars. These are user fee dollars; is that correct or no? MR. MUDD: Sir, all money in county government is tax dollars one way or the other, but these basically come from user fees from people that want permits and land use items. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I was getting at. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. The first one, community development, fund 113, is principally supported by building permit fees, and your planning funds is fund 131, that secondary grouping there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, just to sum up, on your general fund -- and I went down the list, and we garnered all of those particular items. You have 2 million -- $2.2 million left, and I'm taking it because they're non-reoccurring dollars -- and this is the general fund. This is the 001 with the big list, that those dollars would go into reserves, remaining dollars. Now, in 111 there was a proposal that Commissioner Coy Ie just made that said the $2 million that are left over that you haven't put them against a project, that those dollars would be set aside for hurricane reserve, and if those dollars aren't used this year, that next year in the budget, that you would like those dollars to be freed up and Page 85 September 21,2006 the millage rate reduced. Okay. Now, that's a proposal, and you'll have to vote on it at the time next year in order to do that, but that's what I heard. Now, outside of getting three nods on this particular issue, you have $2 million that are -- that is non-reoccurring at this particular juncture. You can either put it in reserves straight up, or you can entertain the particular proposal by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I vote for Commissioner Coyle proposal. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. MR. MUDD: Okay. And now I know what to do with that $2 million. We put it in a hurricane reserve to be used during this hurricane season. And I'm going to try to find some real wood here. Knock on wood that we don't get any hurricanes, and that money will be available next year. We will try to find the reoccurring dollars to match it so that we can -- we can roll back that $2 million to the taxpayers next year in 111. Item #2E RESOLUTION 2006-243: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGETS - ADOPTED That pretty much takes care of the UFR list. If there's no additional discussion, that will bring us to -- that will bring us to 2E, which is a resolution to amend the tentative budgets. Mr. Smykowski? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct, Commissioners. We would need a motion to adopt a resolution to amend the tentative budgets incorporating the changes that I walked you through under item 2B as well as the changes you have made in allocating the UFR funds for Page 86 September 21, 2006 both the general fund and the unincorporated area general fund. And we would need a motion to that effect, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries, 4-1. Item #2F 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 MR. SMYKOWSKI: That brings us to, item 2F is a public reading of the taxing authority, levying the millage, the name of the taxing authority, the rolled back rate, the percentage increase and the millage rate to be levied. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you say 2F? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. And I have to read -- 2F, page 1 Page 87 September 21, 2006 is a listing of the property tax rates, and I'll begin. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't have 2F. We just go from 2E, page 40, to 2G, page 1. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was done on purpose. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We'll go from -- there's a listing on 2A, page 1. CHAIRMAN HALAS: 2A. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of the property tax rates. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those are the ones you read before, right? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. There's also -- and the millages to adopt is 2G, either one, because they're -- at this point they are identical, both in 2A as well as 2G. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't the numbers change? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. We did not change the millage. There was not a millage change. You allocated all your available recurring dollars to limerock road conversion and -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: The remaining -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- and the proposal was for the -- to set aside that 2,097,800 remainder in a hurricane reserve, and should it not be expended, the intent was to attempt to roll back the unincorporated area millage in next -- MR. MUDD: Next year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have roughly $2 million remaining in the general fund. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and put that in reserves. You still haven't changed the millage rate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Excuse me. On the public reading, 2G actually is the resolution, setting the millage rates. I just need to read that aloud before we vote on 2G. That is why there's not a 2F, rather than repeating the same pages multiple times. Page 88 September 21, 2006 So 2G, page 3 -- and I will commence with the reading. The tax rates to be levied for fiscal year 2007 for Collier County government, the general fund, the rolled back -- the rolled back rate is 3.1714. The millage rate will be 3.5790; an increase over the rolled back rate of 12.9 percent. Water pollution control, fund 114. The rolled back rate, .0284. Millage rate to be adopted, .0230; an increase of 12.7 percent. Unincorporated are, general fund 111. Rolled back rate, .6574; to be adopted .8069; 22.7 percent increase. Golden Gate Community Center, fund 130. Rolled back rate .1816. The adopted rate would be .1815; a decrease of one-tenth of 1 percent. Naples Park drainage, fund 139. Rolled back rate, .0067. The adopted would be .0077; an increase of 14.9 percent. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, fund 140. The rolled back rate, .0791, proposed .0537; a decrease of 32.1 percent. Victoria Park drainage, fund 134. The rolled back rate, .3949, the adopted would be .4328; an increase of9.6 percent. There is the Naples Park underground -- or Naples underground FP &L, fund 135. There is no proposed tax levied or no rolled back, as there was no levy last year. Golden Gate Parkway beautification, fund 136. Rolled back .3866, adopted would be .5 mills; an increase of 29.3 percent. Naples Production Park, fund 141. Rolled back, .0288, adopted .0284; a decrease of 1.4 percent. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU, fund 143, rolled back .4243, the adopted would be .5, or a half mill; 17.8, percent increase. Isles of Capri Fire, fund 144. Rolled back, 1.2420, adopted will be 1.5; an increase of 20.8 percent. Ochopee Fire Control, fund 146. Rolled back, 3.0238 mills; proposed, four mills; increase of 32.3 percent. Collier County fire, fund 148. Rolled back 1.4936; proposed, Page 89 September 21, 2006 two mills; an increase of 33.9 percent. Goodland/Horrs Island Fire MSTU. Rolled back .8585, adopted point -- would be .7734; a decrease of 9.9 percent. Radio Road beautification, fund 150. The rolled back rate, .2003; proposed .25; a 24.8 percent increase. Sabal Palm Road fund 151. Rolled back, .9977; proposed, .9975. That's 9 percent increase above the rolled back rate. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, fund 152. Rolled back rate, 1.6050 mills; proposed 2 mills; an increase of 24.6 percent. Hawksridge stormwater pumping MSTU, fund 154. Rolled back, .1324; proposed, .1263; a decrease of 4.6 percent. Forest Lakes roadway and drainage MSTU, fund 155. Rolled back rate, 3.2104 mills; proposed, 4 mills; an increase of 24.6 percent. Immokalee beautification MSTU, fund 156. The rolled back rate, .8120; proposed, one mill; an increase of 23.2 percent. Bayshorel Avalon beautification, fund 160. The rolled back rate, 1.3205 mills; proposed, 1.75 mills; an increase of 32.5 percent. Livingston Road Phase II MSTU, fund 163. The rolled back rate is 0; proposed is O. Conservation Collier, fund 126. The rolled back, .2045; proposed, .25; an increase of22.2 percent. Parks GOB debt service, fund 206. The rolled back rate is O. There is no proposed levy. Caribbean Gardens, fund 220. The rolled back rate, .1227; proposed, .15; an increase of 22.2 percent. Isles of Capri municipal rescue debt is fund 244. The rolled back rate is O. There is no proposed levy in fiscal year '07. Collier County lighting, fund 760. The rolled back rate, .0667 mills; proposed, .1036; an increase of 55.3 percent. Naples Production Park street lighting, fund 770. The rolled back is O. There is no proposed levy in '07. Pelican Bay MSTBU. The rolled back rate is .1452 mills. There Page 90 September 21, 2006 are no proposed levies; a decrease of 100 percent. The aggregate millage. The rolled back, 3.9207. Proposed; 4.4863 mills. That's an increase of 14.43 percent. That concludes -- concludes item 2F. Item #2G RESOLUTION 2006-244: A RESOLUTION SETTING THE MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED That would move us to item 2G, which is adoption of resolution setting the millage rates for fiscal year 2007. A strict reading of Florida Statute requires that dependent districts have a separate motion. The dependent districts would be the water pollution control fund, the Caribbean Gardens and your Conservation Collier. So we would need a motion to adopted the three mill rates for the dependent districts, and then a subsequent resolution for the balance of the millage rates to be levies for fiscal year 2007. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's for the independent -- or dependent districts. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, the three. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify Page 91 September 21, 2006 by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would then need the resolution for the balance of the millages to be levied aside from the three dependent special districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the millage rates established for all of the other funds other than the three dependent districts. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Item #2H RESOLUTION 2006-245: A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE Page 92 September 21, 2006 FINAL BUDGET BY FUND - ADOPTED MR. SMYKOWSKI: That moves us to item 2H, a resolution to adopt the final budget by fund, again. A series of two motions, first for the three dependent districts, and then for the -- a second motion for the balance -- the remaining funds aside from the three dependent districts. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion for the three dependent districts? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the budget for the three dependent districts. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle; second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those if favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Then we would need the final resolution for the balance of funds excluding the three dependent districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the budget for the balance of the fund excluding the three dependent districts. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. Page 93 September 21, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other -- anything else we have to cover at this point? MR. MUDD: No, sir. That pretty much takes care of the formal presentation today. The one thing I will say to the board is, you did, on the 25th of July, reduce your millage rate for the general fund and return $23 million to the taxpayers this year. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I did mention that to the media that we did lower the millage rate. It's not a turning back. It's not a taking. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You reduced the millage rate. And the millage rate reduction was 7.7 percent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no other further discussion, we are adjourned. ******* Page 94 September 21, 2006 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8: 17 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIA~~~.-:R ITS CONTROL FRANK HALAS, Chairman AT'IEST~ DWI9Hr:B~'~ROCK, CLERK dlJ60 , as / Atttst. II .... Mi. - / t 'i. .. .....WNI'..... TA~e~tftll~s approved by the Board on presented v or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 95