Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/28/2007 B (Budget Workshop) June 28, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 28, 2007 BUDGET HEARINGS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, 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 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION for Budget Hearings, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Michael Smykowski, OMB Director Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will conduct Budget Workshops on Thursday, June 28, 2007, Friday, June 29, 2007 and (if needed) Monday, July 2,2007 at 9:00 a.m. Workshops will be held in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida to hear the following: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2008 BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE Thursday, June 28,2007 - 9:00 a.m. General Overview Courts and Related Agencies (State Attorney and Public Defender) Airport Authority Community Development Transportation Services Public Services Administrative Services Public Utilities Debt Service Management Offices (Pelican Bay) County Attorney BCC Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:00 a.m. Constitutional Officers: Elections Sheriff Other Constitutional Officers requesting to address the BCC. Preliminary UFR Discussion I :00 p.m. Public Comment Monday, July 2, 2007 - 9:00 a.m. Wrap-up (if required) June 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Collier County Board of Commissioners' budget workshop. We'll start this meeting like we start all meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance. And Commissioner Henning, will you lead us, please? (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, let's get to it. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioners, just a -- just a couple of points real quick, and I need to get the board's guidance. Yesterday at the board meeting we talked about precluding fireworks to -- because of our dry conditions. The Board of County Commissioners has an ordinance number, 99-47, which we have -- we have found, and in that ordinance -- there's the ordinance number. And it has do with -- and it has to do with an emergency ordinance amending Collier County ordinance 98-74 as amended. It basically talks about outdoor fires, incinerators, outdoor fireworks and prescribing campers and things like that. And when it gets down to permits and approval on the second page, I bring your attention to paragraph three, parens ii. It says, notwithstanding the above provisions, for 30 days commencing with the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor of the State of Florida because of extended drought and the resulting potential for wildfires, which precludes all or part of Collier County, there shall become effective a prohibition against kindling, creating, or maintaining any campfires, bonfires, open -- open or barrel, burning of trash, discarding of lighted cigarette butts outdoors, smoking in county parks, and the sale and use of fireworks. I've had Mr. Summers with that ordinance, this county ordinance that stands, I had Mr. Summers contact the emergency center in Tallahassee to see if the governor has any proclamations at all. There are none. Any proclamation he did have for any kind of a fire has Page 2 June 28, 2007 been lifted because the fires were contained. So there's kind of where we are. You have an ordinance that basically says you can prohibit fireworks if you have a governor's declared state of emergency, and you don't have that. So I'm kind of at a loss at this particular juncture upon what the board wants us to come back with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if! may. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we have to depend on the experts on -- in these cases, and the governor has advised that -- ifhe should declare an emergency, and obviously he hasn't. But with the rains yesterday, and the forecast looks like we're going to have rains every day, I don't think we need to give you any direction. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think we have the ability to anyways. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I think Mother Nature's going to -- and God's going to help us out here. We're supposed to get two inches of rain starting at noon today. It's supposed to be -- it's supposed to be on for the next seven days or thereabouts. The other piece of administration that I need to bring to the board's attention -- and this is not a reading exercise, and I don't want it to be. So based on the new law as far as the tax reform that just got passed, the state Department of Revenue on the 25th of June provided the tax levies to Collier County for us to check on 2001 and 2006, and we received those. Your Property Appraiser's Office and your director of office management and budget have been going over those particular tax levies. There are some corrections that need to be made, i.e., they put the -- they put the dependent fire MSTUs into the calculation and they're supposed to be outside of the calculation. Your zoo debt is in Page 3 June 28, 2007 the particular issue. They need to be corrected. I want to bring your note on the next suspense date, and that is July 2nd. Each city and county and each property appraiser must report to the department of revenue whether the information provided on June 25th is correct. The county reports with the signature of the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. So today, tomorrow, we'll finalize that letter for the chairman to sign with any corrections that need to be made so that we can make the July 2nd suspense date. Some new things that we never had to do before, and I just needed to bring it to your attention. So, Mr. Chairman, you'll be aware that you're going to be needing to sign a letter here probably by close of business tomorrow so we can meet the suspense. That brings us back to the agenda for today -- that's the last of the admin. announcement -- and it's basically a general overview of the budget for me, and then we'll start with courts and related agencies, Airport Authority, community development's transportation services. Mr. Feder has made a request that he would like to go in front of community development because he has an engagement that -- he has to be in -- up in the northern part of the state by noon today, and with the board's indulgence, I'd like to be able to change that batting order a little bit and put Mr. Feder in front of community developments, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Happy to accommodate you, Mr. Feder. GENERAL OVERVIEW MR. MUDD: All right. The overview. Your particular -- the budget that staff and the constitutionals have provided, the summary is on page 2 and 3 of your -- of your notes. Now, we also received a tax reform legislation that was -- that was approved by both houses, and that happened after the books had Page 4 June 28, 2007 already been distributed. And what -- the budget you have in front of you is based on your budget guidance. So we all have a starting point and we also know what the board voted during the board meeting this week to have rollback minus 9 percent, and we're going to start from this point, known point, that you have right here, and make all of those cuts in order to stay within -- stay within the law. But as to how we did or didn't do with the budget guidance, I'd like to go over that a little bit as I do -- as I do every year. Your budget guidance was in the general fund millage. You wanted -- you would roll back everything above 10 percent on increased assessed value. We'll tell you our taxable value increased by 7 percent. Millage neutral was also guidance at 3.57. Now with the new rollback it will be quite different. Based on -- based on that guidance you have $22.4 million of un financed requirement funds available to be used in any manner that you so choose. Brings us to the MSTD general fund, which we call the unincorporated general fund, which is 111. Millage neutral .8609. Again, that was the guidance. It will be reduced based on the tax reform, and we'll talk about that in just a second. Millage neutral. We followed the budget guidance. There's $8.6 million of unfinanced requirement funds available, again, for your choosing that sits in this budget book. The general fund capital millage, .33. We kept it at .33. Stormwater millage, .15 mills equivalent. We kept it at .15 mills. Limited new positions, 25 in the county manager's agency, and we brought that at 24.3. Of course that will change dramatically based on my proposal to get within the tax program this year, but we kept -- we kept that particular guidance. General agency budget -- budget increases. You told us to stay at 6 percent. Everyone stayed at 6 percent except for elections, and I believe the supervisor of elections will talk about her particular Page 5 June 28, 2007 development with three different major elections in the '08 time period. Second part was to adhere in general fund budget allocations to board adopted, a budget policy, and this is -- and this is basically what we basically call the pie, the percentage of the pie. The road subsidy, stormwater, and reserves are all outliers to that particular pie in -- because stormwater and the road subsidy were growing as 2004 was there, and that's why they're outside, and then your reserves, basically a lot has to do with UFR money being looked at as reserves in this particular discussion. Providing budget metrics.' The sheriff and the manager's office have provided those metrics, and I'm going to show you my metrics in just a second. And overtime. The guidance there was, go for a 96 percent fill, and use -- and we'll fund you at 100 percent fill, and that 4 percent difference should be where your overtime is, and these are the agencies that have problems with that particular policy; the Airport Authority, EMS, fire districts, water, wastewater, fleet management, facilities management, elections, clerk, and the sheriff. I mentioned to you that I would -- I would talk about the metrics. This is -- this is the chart that I showed you last year. The reason I show you that chart is, this is basically employees per thousand population in the unincorporated part of Collier County or in those counties that we used. You've got Collier, Lee County, Manatee, Charlotte, Marion, and Sarasota. Those are basically the sampling populations that are most like Collier County. We were at seven employees per thousand population last year. And I -- and the reason I really want to kind of show it to you -- and again, I don't believe we changed the headings Manatee, Charlotte -- and they're all the same. I wanted to show you the difference between '06 and '07. And I guess I've got to go down just a little bit farther, and I also will go a little bit wider. Page 6 June 28, 2007 And what I want to basically show is that in '07, our population per thousand went down in just about every county. I can say in this particular case, every county went up in our sampling population that we basically try to benchmark against. So I believe this board has got the right things in place in order to keep staff from growing and providing best benefit for the taxpayers. '07 adjusted budget per capita again. We went to that same population pool that was in our guidance to go take a look at. And right now, Collier County, this is adjusted budget per capital. This is operational budget. This is not capital programs. We're about $1,500 per capita. You can take a look at what the other populations are. Marion County last year was around 851. They had a significant increase last year on that particular issue. So we're still -- we're still basically up a pretty good deal as far as the money that we put aside in order to protect the -- to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollar. Now I'll get into the nitty-gritty of what you told us to do. I remember Commissioner Henning said, let's blow up on the upper left-hand box, because that's what you approved, so let's blow up to the upper left-hand box. Okay. Earlier this week by a unanimous vote, this board decided to do the 91 percent rollback rate, okay, in our general fund, which is -- and when you made that vote it basically goes with and against all the other MSTUs, and I'm going to show you that slide in just a second. So on this particular note I'd ask you to remember the 3.1483 mills, and I'd also ask you to remember the cut of $35.5 million because I'm going to show you how that equates into the particular -- to the particular other funds. Mike, if you could give the commissioners copies of this, because this is a bit of an eye chart. Okay. On the piece of paper that you were just given, let's Page 7 June 28, 2007 concentrate on the general fund line 00 1. Your prior year millage was 3.579. Your -- and then I want you to go over outside the boxed area into the first column where it says, 91 percent of the rolled back rate. You'll see that 3.1483 that I just showed you in the previous slide, okay. And as you go all the way across that line, you'll see that -- you'll see that it's a 35.52040 cut on that -- on that line right there. So I just wanted to make sure what you voted on on this week you see on this slide because, indeed, that's what's going to happen. Then I'd -- you go to water pollution. Water pollution control is the next one on the slide. You had a millage last year of .032. The rollback now is going to be 0281. You go across to the far end, it's going to be a $320,000 reduction. The next big number without -- without just going through every one of these and boring you, and I don't want to do that by any stretch of the imagination, the unincorporated area general fund, your millage rate last year was .8069, but with the 91 percent rollback, it's .6926, okay. And it is a $6,160,900 reduction. You'll also notice that there's four millages in yellow. They are not on this slide, and these have to do with your dependent fire MSTUs, and they are -- they are basically looked at separately. I will let you know that the Conservation -- and I'm going to talk about Haldeman Creek and Rock Road, but I'd like to talk about Conservation Collier first, if I could beg your indulgence, and that's down here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you -- excuse me for interrupting you just one moment. We have Ochopee Fire, Isles of Capri, and then Collier County Fire. What is that? Which one is that? MR. MUDD: Collier County Fire is that part where the fire districts don't really have bases around, but it's that part that's in preserve, what we have to respond to, and it's got a two mill, if I remember, Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. In certain areas of the Page 8 June 28, 2007 unincorporated area of Collier County, some residents are not within the boundaries of a specific fire district; therefore, in order for them to receive fire service, there is a Collier County Fire MSTU in order to levy the millage and generate the tax dollars to make payments through a contractual agreement that's shared funds with Golden Gate, East Naples, Isles of Capri, and Ochopee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So it is for folks unincorporated who do not live within the boundaries of a fire district. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MR. MUDD: Okay. Voter-approved debt is supposed to be exempt from this rollback provision; however, Conservation Collier, part of their funds are being used for maintenance and management of the area so they don't really fall under that debt policy. So in this particular case, it's staffs opinion that they are not exempt for the rollback. So .25 mills was what was levied last year, the rollback will be .2199, and that will be a reduction for them of some $2,475,800. I want to bring it to your attention, and I hope some folks out there are listening. The next piece is Rock Road and Haldeman Creek, okay. Part of the new law -- and I want to make sure -- and you should recognize those MSTUs because you voted on those recently, or in the last year. Part of the new law says that whatever the size of the pie is, you've got to maintain that pie under a majority vote. So, therefore, if you want to add -- and this was put in there to preclude county commissions and city councils from taking general fund obligations and moving it over into MSTUs and to make sure that you know if you do that that there's no net gain. And so there's no net gain in that particular piece. Now, we are unfortunate in the fact that there's two MSTUs that the board has approved and will have, and based on what's -- we Page 9 June 28,2007 received from those two advisory committees, their requirement is that they would like to put those MSTUs into play this year. If you do so, you have to find something that you need to reduce in order to do that. And I'm going to -- again, Haldeman Creek, Rock Road, on your chart -- and I'm going to go over to the far right where you've got -- it's highlighted in yellow, 25,000 and 35,000. It's a total of$60,100. If you're going to institute those MSTUs, based on your vote, you're going to have to find something that you're going to need to cut. I told Mr. Smykowski that we should do that probably in the 111 account. And so you'll see in that rollback up there, that $60,000 has been added to that $6,160,900. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, let me see if I understand. What happens here, the MSTUs paid by a specific geographic group of people that agreed to be taxed, so in order to tax them, we have to give the whole of Collier County an additional break on taxes? MR. MUDD: That's pretty close, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow, that's pretty remarkable. I can tell you these -- I know the one on Rock Road personally, and these people have sweated, you know, blood, sweat, and tears for a number of years to put this together. It would be a -- it would be a tremendous disservice to them to tell them they can't tax themselves to repair the road, so I just had to mention that. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just needed to bring that to your attention so that you know. Now, that does have -- that does have some unintended consequences, for instance, in our stormwater policy, because one-third of the payment for capital projects was to be MSTUs. Now, if you're going to do that, you're going to have to find something else you need to reduce. Now, let me go on back to another way you can do it. I asked this question, too. I said, are we stuck with this -- with this -- how big is this pie? And what I can ascertain from the people in Tallahassee Page 10 June 28, 2007 that are supposed to know is, depending on the vote of what you want to do, you can increase the size of that particular pie unless -- you could go from where you are right now to something bigger depending on a -- depending on a vote that basically impacts the entire -- the entire population. So -- and I even asked -- Mike even asked if we could vote on these things separately, if you could vote on these things separately, was basically said, no, you vote on those as you have in the past. And you basically do those in one fell -- in one fell swoop. So -- and we're still looking at that because there's a lot of things in this 69 pages that are complicated in this tax reform act. So I just let you know that if you want to do that, you have to reduce something else, and we're bringing it to your attention this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's talk about these two MSTUs. Are you saying that we have to cut out, I think it's $65,000 out of the unincorporated general fund? MR. MUDD: My recommendation is that you roll back $65,000 and give an additional cut to the unincorporated and give those taxpayers that $65,000 back so that those people that want -- that have some benefit from those particular projects can tax themselves in order to fix it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we got -- I think that's unfair to the rest of the residents because you're creating a new taxing authority to do a specific thing, but it's on the backs of everybody else in the unincorporated area. MR. MUDD: No, sir. What you're doing is you're reducing the taxes of the unincorporated area so that you can increase the taxes on those particular people that need Rock Road fixed and Haldeman Creek dredged. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just the opposite then? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's just the opposite. Page 11 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So-- MR. MUDD: This is a zero sum game, okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, okay. Ifwe --let me --let me give you this scenario. Ifwe keep on creating MSTUs, we have to take away from everybody in the unincorporated area for that MSTU. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You start to chisel away. So it would be -- not be wise to create MSTUs. MR. MUDD: Depending on what your requirements are, and that's why I bring it to your attention. This is a -- this is a piece of that bill that's got some angst at least between Mr. Smykowski and I and F AC and other people that we've talked to, and we're still trying to figure out how this all works out in this particular process. But as we can read it and as we have asked the questions, the responses that we have received are basically saying, you know, this was put in there so that the boards couldn't offload -- because they had to decrease their -- roll back their particular taxes, they didn't want those rollbacks to become mysterious MSTUs that got created and, therefore, the taxpayers did not get a tax relief, and so they basically put a restraint in there, and that's a constraint. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about benefit units; would that be the same thing? MR. MUDD: No, sir. When you get into benefit units, you're talking about special assessments, and special assessments are not taxes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there is a way for us to -- if somebody wants some added service, you can do a benefit unit? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not as bad. Page 12 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: That helped me a little bit. I just could not, for the life of me, understand if people choose to tax themselves and only they are the ones that benefit from it, they are the only ones paying for it, how in Heaven's name it affects the rest of the county. It's still -- it's still foggy with me, but -- and maybe with somebody else, I don't know. But Commissioner Henning said then we can change it just by saying it's a benefit unit rather than an MSTU? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we -- what we have to do is -- it's more than just the change, but it can be done. That's the most important part. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Michael? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The -- for the record, Michael Smykowski, budget director. There is a fundamental difference between an MSTU, which is a taxing unit in which the costs to each property are based solely on the taxable value of each property within that respective district, as opposed to an MSBU, which is a benefit unit. But there is a much higher standard engineering-wise where you have to document, typically through engineering studies, the benefits accruing to each individual property as a result of whatever project you plan on implementing rather than solely on the taxable value of the houses within that district. So there is a little more stringent requirement toward proving benefit to each property, again, as opposed to the ad valorem levy, which is solely based on value of a house or land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You think there's a possibility that between now and whenever, somebody could check with Tallahassee and make sure that your interpretation of this is correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. We'll be working with them up and until -- when you adopt your proposed millage in July with the Department of Revenue -- Page 13 June 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Might be able to verify with them, and if you'd let us know as soon as possible by email. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We will, sir. But I will tell you, from everything we've done and we've asked, the questions we've asked specifically, this does hold true. The one thing we cannot afford to do is be outside of this tax reform, because if the department -- of that little time line that I showed you that by 2 July you have to do, and then they have to respond by a certain date, if what we submit is outside the guidelines of this 91 percent cut that you voted on and we miss it by an inch, you lose $42 million worth of sales tax proceeds and they're not going to be blinking about taking it away from you. So there's a penalty, and they seem to be pretty rigorous as far as their requirements and penalties if you don't abide. But we will keep continuing to ask. I had this conversation with Mike. I said, when we give our sheets up, our TRIM notices, you call them ahead of time to make sure everything is okay so we don't get our -- he said, I'm on the phone constantly with them in order to get that done. We'll continue to ask this question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last question is, if that affects these two MSTUs, we have, what, about 40 MSTUs? How many MSTUs do we have? MR. MUDD: No, you have lots of MSTUs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: These are the two that were created that didn't have a millage rate in place last year in your thing, so they're brand new and they kind of fall in a loophole. The legislation says, municipalities and independent districts, if they have less than a five-year life span, they are -- they get an exemption. But it said municipalities and independent districts. It didn't say counties, okay, and we were looking for that because prior legislative language had us Page 14 June 28, 2007 included. We weren't. So we kind of fall into a catch 22, and I just wanted to bring it to your attention. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You have been effectively handcuffed in terms of, you know, if you levied $100 and now you have an MSTU that needs to levy $3, you can't go to 103. You have to tax $97 in all the other districts to make up for that three and, you know, it's capped at the $100, the maximum millage rate, with your simple majority situation. So they have effectively boxed you in quite nicely. And as Mr. Mudd indicated, you know, at one point we thought creation ofMSTUs might be an option toward funding some of the services that are currently funded in the general fund, but that is not an option. Again, the five-year exemption does not apply to counties, so we are where we are and we're -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question has been answered. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How is this going to affect CRAs that are in place at the present time? MR. MUDD: We're going to talk about that, Commissioner, if you'd just let me proceed just a little bit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. MUDD: They will be cut too, sir, okay, and you'll see their reductions in a chart that I'm about ready to show you in just -- you have nothing to be sorry about. I just haven't got that far yet. It's a great question, because there is a lot of debt that CRAs have basically bet on in income that's coming forward, and they get cut by this particular proceed too. What I'd like to show you in this particular regard -- and there's a reason I'm showing you this so that I can -- because it's going to be part of my recommendation on how we cut in order to get what we need to for that $35.5 million cut. Page 15 June 28, 2007 Several years ago there was a -- there was a referendum that was out there that basically talked about a half penny for roads because there was a $257 million -- $257,225,800 shortfall in the road program that was basically what I call past sins that n impact fees that they weren't collected high enough in order to cover it, so this county had a backlog that they had to meet. The referendum went to the voters and failed. It seemed to be pretty clear cut at that time that the voters basically wanted us to fill that backlog, to fill that bag in order to get the roads up to speed, at least the past sins through the decade of the '90s, through some other kinds of revenue stream, and this board chose, with the recommendations of not only myself, but the previous county manager, to do that through ad valorem proceeds. People -- people want to talk and say, well, where did those additional dollars go from the county from 2003 through 2006? A lot of it went to this backlog in the road program that I'm about ready to show you. You, as a board, approved two bond issues in order to -- and that was part of the plan -- to make up for the 257-. Those were issued in 2003 and 2005, and there was an unmet requirement of some $62 million that we were going to pay as pay-as-you-go, so to speak, in order to put that into Norman's road program in order to do that. And then I'm going to try to focus you down on these next three lines below that says, general fund contribution to the road program, 313. Then it's -- the debt service payment is the one just above the line, and then the net cash by fiscal year. And I -- the reason I say that to you is, those headings will probably disappear as I move across the page. So in the first year in 2003, as we were ramping up in order to get where we needed to be with the first bond issue and we were paying interest that year, we basically put $5.9 million into Norman's program. We paid $2.3 million into the debt, and that gave $3.5 Page 16 June 28, 2007 million to Mr. Feder's capital program in order to start cutting down on this $62 million requirement that we have. 2004, you put in 13.6 million. You used 9.2 at debt, as the debt proceeds are going up. But again, you only have one revenue bond at that particular time. You don't have both in play. You -- and then it basically left $4.4 million to get at the 62. 2005 you put in 20.2 million. 9.5 went to debt service. That left $10.7 million for Norman's organization, Mr. Feder's organization, transportation, again, to get it to 62. And you kind of see how this chart works. In 2006 we were basically building up a smoothing account in case the debt proceeds and Norman was going to get the work faster and the bonds were going to come faster, so that we wanted to make sure that we didn't get -- that we didn't get blitzed in any particular year. In 2006 it became clear to staff, based on the revenue bond draw in 2005, that we wouldn't have to use that smoothing curve to get down to the peaks as the debt service started to come down. At that time recommendation to the board was to put that 38, that smoothing account plus your 24 million, into Norman's funds, pay the debt service at 14 million, left $24 million, which went against the 62. Same 2007. Yeah, we didn't have the smoothing account to pass over to transportation, but we had the 24.1, which we thought was going to be the consistent requirement that we would lay onto Norm, and $14.6 million was the debt service, leaving nine to get at. What happens through 2007, you basically put $52 million against that $62 million debt, so to speak, to get us -- and get at that backlog. I would recommend to you that Mr. Feder gets at least that $24 million spread this time to give him $10 million to get at it, 10, 52, gets it to 62, and we've probably got about a half million dollars that we can work with, and that -- as the years go on. But what I'm trying to tell you is in n according to this budget Page 1 7 June 28, 2007 book, you basically have -- in the 2008 program, you've pretty much got that $257 million monkey off your back. Now, you still have debt payments on the two bond proceeds that will go through 2023, and that will be $14 million or a little bit less. It goes down as the years go on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I think, has a question. Is it related to this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope. He answered my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Keep going, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: Okay. So where does that bring us? And it -- now it's -- and you know I've been leading up to it, at least I hope you've been knowing that I've been leading up to it, how do we get at the general fund $35.5 million? I mentioned to you earlier that you have $22.4 million on the UFR fund list. My recommendation is to roll back 20 million of that UFR fund list, first, as the first step to get at that $35.5 million piece. I would reduce $10 million off the UFR fund and I would -- and I would -- and what you have to do now is -- and you also notice in our transmittal letter that Mr. Smykowski talked to, he talked about most of that UFR money being non-reoccurring, okay? So I want to make sure you know that, because you have to now find sources that if you roll back on that UFR list, what are you going to have next year, and you've got to make sure those were reoccurring dollars that you rolled back on. What I would suggest is, on that UFR list that you give -- remember I talked about the $24.1 million for Norm Feder in '08? I would suggest that you take $10 million that you've been using as pay-as-you-go for Norman and put that in the reoccurring side into the UFR list and move the $10 million non-reoccurring off the UFR list into his account. So I'm doing a flip-flop on the type of money for Norman. It still Page 18 June 28, 2007 keeps Norman okay for '08, so you still get at the 257-. I believe you'll still have $24 million there next year because I believe your UFR list will still have monies in it next year that you'll be able to get at, and I will make sure that Norman has it there and we'll bring it up in discussion in '09. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want that guidance now? MR. MUDD: No, sir. I'd like to --I'd like to finish and see if we can -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. MR. MUDD: -- and see where we're at. Okay. The next -- the next piece is to reduce stormwater capital by $5 million by replacing non-reoccurring with reoccurring money. The stormwater account I mentioned to you, the stormwater account was .15 mills based on your resolution. Your resolution also says in it that it must be at least $7 million. Right now at .15 it's going to be about a little over 12. So you leave seven in there that's reoccurring, you move five out that's reoccurring money, move five that's non-reoccurring off your UFR list, and you've pretty much covered that transfer on your second line. It's kind of like what we did in Norman's account in the previous line. Next item is, you have the FY-'08 budget savings clerk as a fee officer of $5 million. You've seen that -- the letter that I've sent back to the clerk based on his submission, and basically said, you know, you basically told the board that this is mandatory to fund you, but Florida Statutes say differently, and I have not received a response yet to that particular issue, and I don't believe any member of the board has either. That leaves you $5 million which I really believe are reoccurring dollars in order to roll back on, so that would be a total of $20 million. What does -- what does that leave left? It leaves back 15.5 -- $15.5 million thereabouts, which is on this particular line right here. Commissioner -- and I'm going to blow that up just a tad now. Page 19 June 28, 2007 Commissioner Halas, you asked a question about the Bayshore CRA and the Immokalee CRA and the Naples CRA based under that guidance that we got at the minus 9 percent. These are the cuts in those CRAs, okay, as far as their budgets are concerned, and that's on the first three lines, okay. That's the mandatory slice that they will have to take to what's in this particular budget document. County manager's agency -- and now what I did is, once you got done with those three lines and you had the $15 million, I basically started to look back at your guidance as far as the pie in what would have to be the cuts in those agencies if you wanted to stay to the requirement. We basically have allocated dollars based on their percentages. Now it's time to deduct based on those percentages. And here's how that breakout plays out, and we're trying to get at the $15 million pIece. County manager's agency, 6.6 million; courts, 102,000; 38- from the Airport Authority; 72- from the board's agency; county attorney, 237-; $6.1 million from the sheriffs agency; property appraiser, 378-; tax collector, 982-; and the supervisor of elections, 236.9; brings you a total of 15.5. Now, I have one more slide to show you on this particular case. And what I'm going to -- what I'm going to do now is, I just showed you what the cuts are according to -- according to what's left over on the pie. I want to talk a little bit about -- yeah, I'm not trying to make it a read chart a little bit. You know, how do we really get -- now that you've got the pie piece, how do you really get at what the cuts are? My recommendation to the board is to -- for us to eliminate job bank positions in the general fund, we believe, over '08. If! do that now and work through '08, it will be a $2 million savings. Freeze our open positions starting tomorrow and work through next year. It will be a savings -- reoccurring savings of $1.5 million, Page 20 June 28, 2007 and the open positions I'm talking about are general fund positions, okay? That will affect the 001, it will also affect the road operation, 102, and that particular side of the house. Freeze on vacancies. Now, this one is a hard one to get your hands on. And I've -- and I've tried to do my best at trying to figure out what that is. If you went 6 percent vacancy rate across the agency, okay, and we could have all those vacancies for '08 already identified and those people out of their office on I October, which we won't, because some leave in November, December, January, February, whatever, and so it's a n it's a sliding benefit as the year goes on. That total cost savings would be about $3.5 million. Okay. So why do I have 1.3? Because that I've reduced by a percentage, that -- just a little bit above 40 percent, because if! start that open position freeze now, I'll get some benefit the last three months of this year, and I will-- and then I believe we will get that $1.3 million in the general fund throughout '08. What that also tells you is, starting in '09, my estimate on open, that we've saved, is $3.5 million. And remember I mentioned to you earlier this week when we were talking about exactly what cuts you wanted to do? I asked you and made sure that you looked at both years. You looked at '08 and '09, because this is a two-year tax reform package, and then it has consequences as it gets steady state, which is rollback plus salary or per capita income that you're going to be limited to on the years starting in '10. So you're going -- you have a potential cut in '09, and the severity of that cut will depend primarily upon how -- the amendment and what happens to the amendment, the Constitutional amendment that will go in front of the voters on the 29th of January, 2008. And I mentioned to you before, that will be anywhere from 20 to $25 million of additional cuts. All I can tell you is I won't know until after the election's over, and whatever it is, you'll see -- you'll see our guidance -- our Page 21 June 28, 2007 recommended guidance to you based on it coming back to this board. So I believe that we'll probably have another year of cuts. Probably won't be of this magnitude, but it will probably be in the $10 million range next year. So I wanted to make sure that the board's in good shape as we go into '09 so that they've got some savings on top of the 1.3 because -- and that's what freezing positions on vacancies will do for you. And I just wanted to try to explain that dynamic. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, Commissioner Halas has a question, and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till he's done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you want to wait or do you want to ask the question now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to go back to that previous piece of paper. MR. MUDD: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And over to the left, over to the left. So you're taking n which I can't see. I'm just trying to go by memory n $10 million out of Norm's 25 -- $24 million smoothing off or added value and putting that back into the general fund? MR. MUDD: What I'm basically saying to the Board of County Commissioners is we want to roll back on 20 of $22.4 million on your UFR list. In order for you to do that, you need to make sure that what you're rolling back on are reoccurring funds. So you have to do some movement in your mind, okay? Not necessarily with the dollars. This will affect you in '09. It will not affect you in '08. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're taking UFR fund money or non-reoccurring dollars to 22 million and allocating it back into monies that we're shuffling around. MR. MUDD: What I'm basically taking is, I'm taking reoccurring dollars that are in your budget, okay, and I'm -- and I'm swapping them, okay, with non-reoccurring dollars in your UFR list, Page 22 June 28, 2007 okay, so that what you're actually rolling back on is going to be reoccurring dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MUDD: Because you don't -- you don't want to give tax breaks, okay, like raiding trust funds, in order to balance your budget, and that's what I'm trying to preclude from happening. If you rolled back on straight non-reoccurring money in the UFR list, okay, in '09 you're in big trouble, okay. And what I've tried to show you, or at least tried to explain, is to give you a way so that you don't get yourself into that dilemma. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Norman will still have $24 million in the '08 budget with this change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I understand that one, but I'm concerned about upcoming years if those nonrecurring dollars are not there. MR. MUDD: Well, yes, sir. I'm not arguing that point, and I believe that's a discussion that this board's going to have in '09 as we go through our next budget cycle to see what happens with the amendment and where we sit in that particular issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- but if those dollars start going away -- are these -- the other stuff, are they reoccurring just like the $24 million? MR. MUDD: This stuff that I just went through-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right-- MR. MUDD: -- the 15? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that you went through. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That stuff is reoccurring dollars, and those are cuts that basically are from n reoccurring from employee accounts and things like that. Those things happen to hit you all the time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So if the tax collector wants to build another building, then those monies go away? Page 23 June 28, 2007 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Not there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not there. MR. MUDD: That's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if that's the best way to -- MR. MUDD: Not there in '08. Could be there in '09 depending on what you get and what your budget guidance is in order for the staff -- in order to bring back, and depending on what the -- what the constitutional amendment outcome is, then we basically go into. There could be severe cuts next year in order to meet this tax reform. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Your budget policy is typically presented late February or early March, so at that point the results of the election will be a known factor and we'll know the magnitude of what we're facing in '09, and our budget direction or policy request from the board would be based, obviously, on -- would factor in the results of that election. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this is real dicey myself. You're taking a gamble that it's not going to be there in upcoming years, and then what do you do? MR. MUDD: Well n COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll work -- MR. MUDD: You're going to deal with it when you get to it, okay? And you're going to either have to change -- if you're talking about the growth management -- or if you're talking about concurrency and you're talking about your CIE, I can explain. I've got a whole sheet on that that we can talk about at greater length today or tomorrow if you'd like, in order to do that, but that's $245 million of ad valorem proceeds that need to go into your CIE over five years in order to get to it. Weare going to have some issues as far as trying to meet those obligations with this tax reform piece. Page 24 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate that discussion, but now we're just talking about how to deal with rollback. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're replacing the rollback dollars for non-reoccurring dollars. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I am taking -- I'm rolling back on $22.4 million that are unspecified for use by this Board of County Commissioners. I'm making sure that the money that you roll back on is reoccurring in nature and trying to maintain the services and the programs that we have the best that we can in this particular time. And, you know, $22.4 million on the UFR list didn't come by surprise. It's a lot of hard work by this board as far as your guidance is concerned over the years. And that UFR, if you've been following it, has been growing for this -- for this board. So I would say to you that that's good planning on the board's part in order to have those dollars there to start this process with. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on. And I'm sure we're going to have plenty of time to discuss this in more detail, and possibly when we get a little bit deeper into it, more clarity will come to us. MR. MUDD: Okay. Brings us to this particular slide, which was the second one that I was talking about in the -- regard to that 15 point million (sic). What I did was show you the slices of the pie and how it would be broken out, and I've -- and I've basically come off of that particular pie slice to a certain extent, and part of that has to do with, you know, what happens if I've got the BCC and you've got to cut $72,000 in your particular proceed? That means somebody has to be fired in your particular agency, and your agency's pretty thin to win right now. The same -- the same thing with the county's attorney's agency and so on and so forth. Recommendation is to eliminate the job bank, $2 million. I talked about freezing existing open positions, and there's a total of 36 Page 25 June 28, 2007 right now. Freeze on vacancies of the future. Final at the end of'08, it will be 3.5 million, but the proceeds that we will see as savings over the year will be about 1.3. The CRA decrement, which I showed out on the previous slide, sums up to be 654,000. Retirement calculations, based on the percentages that the state legislators finally approved and the difference of what's in your budget book is some $682,000. I've talked to the sheriffs office, and he is -- he is willing to work with us on this particular case, and his share ofthe pie is 6.1 million and, indeed, the projection is $6.1 million in this particular case. Other constitutionals rolled up, the three that I mentioned before, supervisor of elections, property appraiser, and the tax collector, is a tune of $1.6 million, and we're going to have to work with them over the summertime to see how that finally works out. Additional revenue, 1.2 million. And I need to talk to you about the additional revenue, and that's why I have it on that chart, and I will blow up on that page. Expanded positions, reoccurring. What I've done is, expanded positions that were reoccurring dollars in your budget book, we've rolled those out, and that modified the number of head count that -- from 24.5 to some lesser amount, and savings there are some $426,500. Lo and behold, we've got the 15.2 that are sitting there. I'd like to go for this additional revenue and talk to you about what our recommendation is. And for the judges in the audience and folks, I beg your indulgence, but this tax reform thing happened and we have to explain it to (sic) some way, shape, or form in order to get through it, and it came in at the last minute, so I beg your patience in this particular regard. Explanations of additional revenues. Staff is recommending that we institute a $50 annual beach parking fee for everyone, visitor and resident. That will bring in $1 million. We still have anywhere from Page 26 June 28, 2007 400- to $500,000 that we pay the City of Naples for the ability of county residents to park on their parking spaces. That memorandum of agreement is still in place. Health department wants to increase their death certificate fees. If they do so, that will help offset their cuts and it will bring in $49,000 in revenue. We want to increase the library fines for late books, rental rates, and card fees for non-residents. That will bring in an additional $40,000. And institute emergency management plan review fee, and if that -- Mr. Summers does that, that will bring in proceeds of $99,000, and that's how that $1.2 million came up that was on my chart, and I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of that. And you can tell us not to do it, whatever, and then we'll go find someplace to find that money in order to do it. I will -- I will tell you that none of these budget books -- because you've had them for a while -- have been adjusted for that. So those personnel accounts will all be decremented based on that policy that I just gave to you. We will work through the summer in order to get that -- these books up to speed to reflect all of these particular issues so that you have them, and we'll have those by 1 September for you. If you want them sooner than that, we'll try to make that happen. But we're going to have to go through that and there will be some discussions with just about everybody that had any input into this budget proceed. Now, I'd like to talk about 111, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas, did you want to wait? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'll wait. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I'll wait, ifhe's not going to be too much longer. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have this last slide and I'm done. Page 27 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. And the big -- and the big piece here is, well, where do we find it in III? Okay. On this chart we talk about the FY-'O (sic) -- first line, MSTD general fund tax revenue with a-- with the new millage of .6926, which is the minus 9 percent -- 91 percent rollback rate of $36 million. The FY -'08 proposed general fund tax revenue at -- excuse me. It shouldn't be 3.5. It's .8069, I believe, millage rate, will bring in $43 million, and that will give you an MSTU reduction that you have to make between what's in your budget book and what the 91 percent is of $6,100,823. I mentioned before in the table where we were meeting the -- your policy direction for the budget that you had $8.64 million on your UFR list. Also mentioned in Mr. Smykowski's transmittal letter, $1.6 of that 8.6 was reoccurring money, okay? The other piece is -- I'm going to basically roll back -- my recommendation is to roll back on the UFR list on the UFR monies that are undesignated of $6.1 million. And how do you do that in order to make sure that you have reoccurring monies that you're rolling back on? In the FY -'08 budget reoccurring limerock road program, you have $5.8 million in reoccurring dollars, okay, and you've been building up on that over the last couple of years and putting more reoccurring dollars into that. It was -- one time it was around 500,000, then it went to about 1.7, and then last year we got up to 5.8 million. You've got 1.6 n you've got 1.6 already that's reoccurring in that UFR list. I'm recommending that you take $4.4 million, plus another 60,000, add them together, it's about $4.5 million out of this 5.8 that would leave Norman with $1.3 million reoccurring, and it would leave him $4.5 million in non-reoccurring money in order to do his limerock road conversion. So his budget and what he's going to spend for limerock road conversion out in the Estates is $5.8 million, and it Page 28 June 28, 2007 remams so. That gets us -- in the last line there is the 60,100 that had to do with your two MSTU s of Rock Road and Haldeman Creek. So that's how we get the $6.1 million. What you have left after you -- if you roll back on the 6.1, you'll have $2.4 million as your UFR balance for you to designate to particular projects or whatever you'd like to do in the 111 account, and that's my recommendation in 111. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Now, I think I've done all the charts, and hopefully I haven't confused anyone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Want to go, Commissioner Halas, now? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that, on behalf of yourself and your staff and Mike, obviously there's been a lot of midnight oil burned on this because we didn't get this finalized until about a week and a half ago. So I just want to commend you all for bringing this up to speed as quickly as you did. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just want to try to make a point without taking a lot of time for either the county manager or myself to try to explain this. But it's been reported that the total county budget exceeds $1 billion. So a taxpayer sitting in the audience or watching on television would logically wonder, what's the big deal cutting $35 million out of a $1 billion budget, and it has to do with the very, very inefficient way that government is required to operate under law. Much of the revenues and expenses associated with the $1 billion budget has to do with the fact that we cannot use those funds for any other purpose. For example, gasoline taxes have to be used on roads. It can't be used to make up a shortage somewhere else. We have numerous services and charges for water and sewer. Those can't be used for any other purpose other than for water or June 28, 2007 sewer. There are impact fees collected from developers. They can't be used for any other purpose except to create new capacity for water/sewer, EMS, and other kinds of capital improvements to accommodate growth. We have carryforwards and hundreds of millions of dollars of transfers. So it's a lot like saying, you have a personal budget for automobile expenses and you're also saving money for your children's college education, and you suddenly have an automobile accident. You can't take the money out of the fund that you're accumulating for your children's education and pay for the repair of your automobile. That's the problem we're faced with. All of these funds are compartmentalized by law, and we have very little flexibility to accommodate a cut of the type that has been forced upon us because it deals only with an amount that is approximately one-third of the total -- total budget, which is the property tax budget. So what we're talking about is the property tax budget. We can't, in most cases, take some of those other funds and make up the deficiencies, and that's where we're struggling with making a $35 million cut out of a billion-dollar budget. And I don't know if you want to add something to that or not, but -- MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hit the nail on the head. MR. MUDD: -- you're right. And you're talking about what people pay ad valorem taxes for. And this tax proposal was about cutting the tax revenues that you get from the taxpayers to give them a tax -- a tax reduction, okay. Their taxes don't go totally into this $1.3 billion budget by a long shot. And so what we're basically trying to describe to you is those places where people pay taxes and what we're supposed to do in order to roll them back to the rollback 91 percent level, is that particular cut, and that's what we're having to deal with in this particular case. I will tell you that this budget, based on our conversation that Page 30 June 28, 2007 talked about our capital element, our capital element, i.e., building roads, building water/sewer plants, libraries, everything else, is still on track. I mean, we haven't n we haven't budged an inch. I mean, there was also a corresponding article in today's paper that basically said, we're fifth in the nation, okay, of the fastest growing metropolitan areas, okay. I don't believe that's going to stop either. So as long as it stays warm here and we have palm trees, I think folks are going to want to come here. And I can't hold that for sure, but I will tell you that the last 20 years certainly wants to prove my point. So you have to deal with both of those. And to cut your capital budget, okay, to say, okay, we have a small downturn today in the market. It's a blip, I believe -- everybody seems to believe that it is -- in order to do that when it takes you eight years to go from buying the land, designing it, and building it, I believe, is shortsighted on the board -- if the board took that avenue, I believe that would be shortsighted on the board's side of the house. So your capital program is still in place, okay. We're still building the annex to the courthouse. We still have plans to build both libraries, and that's my recommendation to the board, that you still do. Your choice to man those particular libraries is a next-year choice that you have to make. But I believe you need to build those libraries because I don't believe you're going to get a cheaper cost of construction than you have right now on those particular facilities. So -- but we'll talk about that later in the thing. But Commissioner Coyle's dead on. There's certain things in here that you can't touch. You can't use impact fees for tax cuts and so forth and so on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one point I'm going to mention early on, and I've got to see how everything shakes out. There's just one point in here that's -- I find disturbing, and I realize that there's Page 3 1 June 28, 2007 elements that we have to deal with as time goes along, but to go from free beach passes for our residents to a $50 fee, man, that's one big jump for an amenity that people have come to accept. And I realize that that million dollars plus in the budget means an awful lot to even everything else out. But along the way we need to keep relooking at that. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to -- we're going to talk about that here over the next day and a half. I just gave you my recommendation. I was just -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and that's fine, and I appreciate your recommendation. It's just that part of it is a little bit of a shocker, $50 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, there's no such thing as a free lunch anymore. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Halas, Commissioner Halas, you push the little button, then you be recognized. But meanwhile we've got Commissioner Fiala, because she's smart enough to be recognized first. Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just wanted to ask, with the million dollars, that isn't only beach parking, is it? Doesn't it MR. MUDD: That $50 on the beach pass represents about a million dollars in revenue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I thought you had mentioned yesterday that there were other components in that million, excuse me. MR. MUDD: Well, you have resident and nonresident. That would be for both. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, Commissioner Halas wants to take everybody out to lunch, I think. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just saying, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We've been dictated that we're going to cut Page 32 June 28, 2007 taxes. And when you cut taxes, it's going to become a la carte, and I think that's where a lot of people want us to go. They want us to make sure that ifthere's services that were provided before by ad valorem taxes, we're cutting those ad valorem taxes and we're going to have other things that are going to have to be paid for by the citizens. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The people that use it, user fees. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the viewer audience out there, I'd very much like you to call the Collier County Commission Office and express your opinion as far as the $50 beach pass fee. I'd like to hear from you. Thank you. Mr. Mudd, we're back to you. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sheriff Hunter said that he would like to say a couple words when I gave my proposal today, and he's a busy man and I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do though, I just want to make sure that we're accommodating Mr. Feder so he can make that appointment, too. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You're going to -- he's going before Joe, that's what I-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MUDD: And that's what I promised that he would do. We still have courts before that and the Airport Authority, but-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I just want to make sure we didn't slip up -- MR. MUDD: We didn't slip up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and we don't have him where we need him to get the money we need for the roads. SHERIFF MR. MUDD: We didn't slip up, but I believe the sheriff wants to Page 33 June 28, 2007 say a couple words. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've love to have -- we'd love to hear from Sheriff Don Hunter. MR. MUDD: Or he can defer till tomorrow, whichever-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, he can talk today and tomorrow. MR. MUDD: I don't think he just came up and got all dressed up to sit here all day. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're always welcome in these chambers. SHERIFF HUNTER: I might as well be here tomorrow, the way things are going. I'd better say it today. No, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Don Hunter, Collier County Sheriff, for the record. And I want to first qualify my comments by saying what a difficult position the legislature has put all of us in, and nonetheless you. All of us seem to be suffering with this idea of attending to the governor's interest and the legislative interest. I did go before the Senate committees and tried to express to them what the consequences would be for a growing county such as Collier County, which I believe is a county that lacks comparison in the State of Florida. I believe that we have the very best county in the State of Florida, and I think it's difficult to get to our position without having spent the necessary energy and dollars and services to get us there. So I did want to join with the board in trying to find these dollars. I do believe that the legislature has taken a very grave step without consideration of consequence and without putting their actions in the context of that consequence, especially for these growth counties, and I join with you in expressing publicly that that is improper and irresponsible in my view, which is exactly what I expressed to the Senate committees. I think that the n there was some very clever maneuvering going Page 34 June 28, 2007 on in Tallahassee to avoid public comment. I witnessed that firsthand. I'm witnessing that in the immigration discussion. Some very clever maneuvering to avoid information gathering, and I think that the consequence of these actions in our legislature are going to be grave. I think this county is at risk. I wanted to give, for the record, just a couple of things, then I wanted to amplify on what Mr. Mudd has already stated to the board, and that is that the sheriffs office stands with you in trying to address this issue and try to come to some reasonable number that will still work for Collier County, I hope. But I believe, again, that there's a great -- a great exposure for Collier County in terms of becoming something different than what we currently recognize it as. As I said to the legislature before they took their action, right now today, there are two federal task forces moving into Orange County, Florida, that would be Orlando, Florida, one of the premier tourist destinations in the nation, but also in the world, and the reason for those two federal task forces is to try to put a lid on the violence that is occurring in that tourist destination. We also see the same things happening in Palm Beach County in terms of violence being spiked. I know that if -- and anyone can consult the Web and look at this, but the police executive research forum just published a document that is a two-year long study that is titled a Gathering Storm that documents a rising level of violence throughout the nation in most of our metropolitan areas, the centers of population. And we know from experience in our literature that what happens in the growth centers also will be evolving in the medium size to smaller jurisdictions. So I believe as a result of some of the indicators on the horizon today, that in looking at the uniform crime reports just published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, that we are going to see a significant increase in crime probably owing mostly to Page 35 June 28, 2007 gangs, which is one of the new or the newer iterations of organized criminal activity, but also some of the newer organized crime, ethnic organized crime that we're beginning to experience in the State of Florida over the course of the last couple of years. In the -- on the east coast it happens to be Eastern European. In our case it happens to be Latin prominently out of Cuba. I think that we are going to see, as a state, a very dire consequence for this particular move on the part of the legislature. I have worked with, through staff, the County Manager's Office. We're looking at a little more than $6 million. You know that we hit the number that you were looking for. Actually we came in a little below the number that you were asking for in terms of the original proposal for the '08 budget. We did that by tossing some items off onto the UFR list, realizing that we'd have an opportunity to express to the board the need for those positions. For instance -- and I think this is -- it's wonderful that the judges are here, our public defender is here, our state attorney is here, because as we've been discussing, Commissioner -- with Commissioner Coyle on the Public Safety Coordinating Council, everything we do seems to have a consequence. And at the local level we seem as to be attendant to that. Weare aware of the consequences. We attempt to roll that into the formula when we come out with a budget. We had asked for four bailiff positions with an understanding that judges would be coming to Collier County, clerk's level -- excuse me, the circuit level. We understand now that perhaps those circuit positions, those circuit judges will go to Lee County instead of Collier County . And at first blush that's four positions that we don't have to request of you, so that's the good news. The bad news is, of course, that the caseloads currently being attended to in the circuit, circuit courts of this county, will now spiral up, which means that we are not Page 36 June 28, 2007 going to move the inmates of this county through the system any quicker. In fact, we'll probably see some sluggishness and, therefore, we're going to continue to hold inmates within the county jail, and therefore, we're going to have to build bed space and add additional corrections officers, you know, and add, and, and, and; and we all know how that formula works, that anything that is done to adjust the criminal justice system has an impact throughout that system. The good news, again, is that I can remove $572,000 off the UFR list so I won't be coming before you there, and I would support what Mr. Mudd has suggested, that UFR monies be considered as an offset as some way to try to mitigate this very dire consequence that the legislature has put upon us. We have requested immigration and customs enforcement deputies be trained within the sheriffs office so that we can identify those people who frequently recur through the system and are causing us to use up very valuable bed space. I know Commissioner Coyle has already heard the number directly. I know that the rest of the commission has seen material. But we are looking at an estimated impact to our county jails of about $9 million that I can pinpoint for you. That's just the county jails. We're not talking about the cost of judges to process these illegally present foreign nationals, we're not talking about the Public Defender's Office having to defend them, the State Attorney's Office having to defend them. Ifwe were able within the jails to train members to identify these individuals, get them out of this country so they don't recur back through the jail, we believe we can save 9, 10, maybe $11 million, because that $9 million is based purely upon those people who are willing to admit that they're illegally present. That's on the UFR list. Well, the good news on that is that we applied for and received the largest grant award in the State of Florida from the federal government to offset that cost so, therefore, I believe Page 37 June 28, 2007 I won't be before you to talk about a UFR request again. And again, I'm punctuating a point that Mr. Mudd has made that if we're going to try to mitigate some of this impact laid upon us, then we're going to have to look at some of these other opportunities. We're willing to work on that and have been working on that for about a week. I also commend your staff, because they've been working very hard, very long hours. They've come up with some creative ways, I believe, to try to mitigate some of the people of Collier County, because that's what this is. It's an impact on Collier County. It's not an impact on the Board of County Commissioners, it's not an impact on the sheriff. We can cut our budget a hundred million dollars if you wish, the problem is the consequence, and the consequence is what the legislature decided not to wrestle with. They fit us with that responsibility . And I think you're doing a grand job of trying to wrestle with the consequence. I think your staff has done an excellent job with trying to find a way to try to mitigate that consequence, and we'll work with you to try to get there as best we can throughout the course of the summer. And that's purely what I wanted to say. I don't have a list of items for you this morning. I think -- I will say for the record, because I have a large group of anxious people across the way and throughout this county, 2,000 -- over 2,000 square miles of territory, members of this agency are very concerned about having to face the consequence oflayoff, consequences of their family, those consequences that I attempted to report to the legislature before they took their dire action. I do want to say for the record that I'm not intending on laying anyone off. I'm going to try to do what we can to avoid that. We're going to, instead, look at capital, look at operating, and cut where we can in those areas. We all know what that means, however. Just Page 38 June 28, 2007 taking fuel prices alone and looking at the spikes that have occurred in fuel prices, knowing what it takes to operate a vehicle, knowing what it takes to operate a patrol vehicle around this county. I think we have a risk there. We have an exposure there when we dip into or try to shave off operating costs, especially when those operating costs are based upon experience, and that's what we have done when we prepared our budget for you. It was based upon experience. So I'm joining with you. I hope the public is paying attention and I hope the public is aware of what's happened here. I hope the public can place the responsibility where it properly lies, with the governor and the legislature. And I want to say that we will do the best we can to try to preserve the services and the quality that exists in Collier County because I believe in the broken windows theory, that a lot of good comes from a properly maintained community, which this county is, and I think that the legislature's done a great deal to try to harm that, try to harm the image of the county, try to harm the image of this state, and whether that was intended or unintended, it's still the same consequence. And I can't support it and I don't support it, and I intend to take whatever action I can to make the governor aware and the legislature aware, again, of what they have done potentially to this county, and I intend to document as we go along what is occurring to this county and to place the responsibility where it belongs. So again, I commend you for the work you're trying to do. Mr. Mudd, we'll be looking forward to working with you to try to mitigate this. I do endorse the plan as it's been explained to me, as Mr. Mudd has explained it to you this morning. To the extent that the UFR list must be looked at for mitigation, and then we'll work with the remainder as best we can. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sheriff Hunter, we appreciate your efforts in your department, and I think we all share your concerns. Page 39 June 28, 2007 Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to briefly say, Sheriff Hunter, I echo your concerns. I believe that the actions taken by the state legislature and the governor over the past couple of years to micro manage local governments will be marked as the beginning of the decline of the quality of life in Collier County and many other counties throughout the State of Florida and, unfortunately, the taxpayers will not understand the consequences until it is too late. But thank you for the excellent job you have done in helping maintain our quality of life here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, let me just say, I'm going to enjoy that $200 savings on my tax bill. I'll probably spend it on one of those meals that Commissioner Halas talked about from the menu, but I'm just amazed at what we've done here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't forget to save a portion of that for your beach pass. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what he's talking about. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And remember -- remember, Sheriff, that couple of hundred dollars is the largest property tax cut in the history of Florida. SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes. That's what I understand, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we -- SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mudd, back to you. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think we're going to courts and related agencies. If those gentlemen and ladies could please come forward to the chairs of the desk. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just -- I'll tell you what, rather than Page 40 June 28, 2007 interrupt this proceeding as we get going, why don't we take a 10-minute break now rather than starting 10 minutes later, go ahead and try to accommodate the court reporter. MR. MUDD: You've got judges and whatnot. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. MR. MUDD: Why don't you finish them -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, go ahead. MR. MUDD: And then we'll take a break right after -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I was just thinking of the deal we made with the court reporter that every hour and a half we would have a break. MR. MUDD: I don't think this is going to last more than 10 minutes, sir. COURTS AND RELATED AGENCIES CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, these are judges, they're attorneys. Okay. We'll give it a try. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Good morning. Mark Middlebrook, Senior Deputy Court Administrator, 20th Judicial Circuit. We'll just go down the line, I guess, and introduce ourselves. County. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. JUDGE MANALICH: County Judge Ramiro Manalich. Good mornmg, everyone. MR. RUSSELL: Steve Russell, State Attorney for the 20th Circuit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that's you. MR. JACOBS: Robert Jacobs, Public Defender, 20th Circuit. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We submitted our budget proposal this year. We had a 6 percent cap. We came in at 3.8 on the court side, under budget. If you look we reduced many areas of our budget from last year to this year in anticipation of the legislature's actions. Pretty Page 41 June 28, 2007 much bare bones. We did the best we could at this point, and it's the budget we are submitting to you and asking you to approve. MR. SMYKOWSKI: There were also no expanded services. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We had zero n six new judges. We expanded zero -- we're doing a lot -- a lot of things with less, and we're trying to be good custodians here. MR. RUSSELL: On the state attorney's end, we're showing a reduction on the proposed 2008 of 13.4 percent net. There's a slight increase on the operating side, but a substantial decrease on the capital outlay, resulting in that 13.4 percent reduction. Ifthere are any other questions, I think it's outlined in your materials where that is. MR. JACOBS: The public defender, likewise, we have a 4.3 decrease at this time, and I think that's documented in your documents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Questions on the part n Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to make one comment. All of these gentlemen, the courts, the state attorney and the public defender, and the sheriff and others, have been working together now for, I guess, about two years through the Public Safety Coordinating Council to find ways to make the collective operations more efficient and to reduce costs for the taxpayers of Collier County. I'm -- as chairman of that council, I'm very pleased with the progress and the fact that they participate in almost every single meeting, and I think we've achieved a lot, and I would congratulate them on what they've been able to do to control their budgets. They're continuing to do an excellent job. They've implemented numerous efficient -- efficiency improvements that will reduce costs for us all, and I would suggest we accept their budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, Mr. Mudd, I need a comment as to what would be the difference between the guidance that we have before us and what this budget that's coming in from Page 42 June 28, 2007 court system. MR. MUDD: My recommendation to you in what I laid out, there would be no change to their budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. MR. MUDD: They might have a little bit, based on the retirement system fix, and we'll go through that and we'll make it a small piece, but that will be -- that will be a minor savings that will come back. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We would like to extend our gratitude to Colonel Mudd and his staff. This has been a very difficult year for everybody. They have made this as pleasurable as a budget process can be, and we're very thankful for their help and the help of the sheriff, as he mentioned, about the bailiffs. You know, going up six judges impacts his budgets greatly, and we certainly appreciate all his effort. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need a second to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: n Commissioner Coyle's? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we looking for that at this point? MR. MUDD: No. As long as I got three nods we're okay. You don't have to take a formal motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, you got it. Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you very much. MR. JACOBS: Thank you. MR. RUSSELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was a very nice, short presentation. We do appreciate that. With that, we're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd? Mr. Mudd, before we go, Page 43 June 28, 2007 proceed on, I want to take just a few minutes to hear a speaker that we have, Janet Vasey, who's given us guidance for many years now. Ms. Vasey? I hope she didn't step out. There you go. MR. MUDD: There she is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Still here. Thank you. MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much for this opportunity. Janet Vasey, for the record. I did want to have an opportunity to talk to you just a minute before you started the process because I've done some work on looking at the budget where we might be able to take some reductions and have gone over some things with Jim Mudd, and we're talking -- we had a lot of the same items we came up with independently, so I feel good that he's looking at the same things that I think are important, too. But before you start the review, I wanted you to think of one other thing. What's been presented has been looking at what your unfinanced requirements, your UFR funding availability is, and then kind of spreading things on a piece of the pie. And I think that one thing you could also look at is trying to identify programs that are not working, that are inefficient, are costly or maybe wasteful. And instead of just spreading the reductions over everything, look to identify those and eliminate them, and that way you can ameliorate some of the cuts that you're also talking about or maybe reduce some of the revenue increases that you're talking about. In particular, I wanted to mention one as an example. You just -- on the economic incentives for businesses, that's a program that you started when you had some extra money in one of those year-end funding things, and just pulled back a million dollars of incentives from two companies that would have created 60 jobs. If they had been able to expand, they would have gotten the money, but you pulled the money back. But what would they have gotten the money for? Two years ago Page 44 June 28, 2007 one of those companies, high velocity, was supposed to get over a half a million dollars to move within Collier County, and they were going to create 63 high-paying jobs, and that high-paying job was 37 point 9 thousand dollars. That's not really very high. And then they said they would have an economic impact of $13 million. Well, what is the $13 million economic impact, what is that made up of? Those are the support people that would be supporting the high-paying jobs that would be moving then to Collier County, and those would be low-paying jobs and they would be contributing to our affordable housing problem. So that's not a very good use, I don't think, of a half a million dollars. And then to add insult to injury, the high-velocity president, Steve Compasano (phonetic), two years ago said that he never considered moving outside of Collier County. So we were going to pay him $500,000 to create jobs that would have then created more affordable housing problems and he would have stayed in Collier County anyway. And then recently we saw where the program had provided a million dollars for impact fees to four companies, three of which would have located in Collier County anyway because that's where their clientele is. That includes Anchor Health, Guadalupe Center, and Advanced Medical. So I think that this is an example of a program -- it's $2 million now in the budget -- and this is a program that you could eliminate and then -- and then reduce the problems in taking the rest of the cut, or increase -- or not do some of these revenue enhancements that you're talking about with the parking stickers and that kind of thing. So if you look for those kinds of things in addition to reviewing the programs as you go forward, try to find these ones that are -- that are low priority or inefficient or wasteful, you can save some money. And if you also cut the half a million dollars out of the EDC, that's two and a half million dollars that you wouldn't have to cut elsewhere. Page 45 June 28, 2007 And I've given you a copy of some potential funding reductions. And like I say, a lot of them were also on the county manager's list, too. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, one of the recommendations is, evaluate a need for full -- a .10 mill for stormwater management, and of course, the current policy to share the stormwater to minimize the ad valorem funding, and I think that was MSTUs? MS. VASEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you -- are you okay with the county manager's recommendations or his explanation about MSTUs? MS. VASEY: Yes, sir, I am. That was done independently and before I saw some of the impacts, but he is taking $5 million out of the program and, you know, it was going to generate 12 million and you were going to keep 7 million. So he is taking 5 million out of that program, and I think that's a good thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we could cross that one off. The other thing about EMS, try to use existing stations. And I think that's prudent guidance that I thought we were -- I thought we were doing. My concern about EMS is for them to be able to hit the target. Commissioner Coyle was bringing that up. But as far as the other ones, I think it's good guidance that the board should adopt and ask the county manager to implement, my personal opinion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I might suggest that, you know, we've taken it just on blind trust that this is the absolute way to go, and to make that decision based upon one person's testimony, I Page 46 June 28, 2007 think, is a little bit premature. I think it's wonderful guidance to give us as we go into it, but I think we're going a little -- you know, I'm very reluctant to say, okay, yes, we're going to follow all of these recommendations sight unseen before we get to hear from everybody. I think it's wonderful ideas, but I'm concerned. We're talking about an incentive that's mainly in the eastern part of the county that has been productive in bringing jobs here. It's been productive in doing a lot to bring Immokalee up by the bootstraps. I hate to see us cut it loose at this point in time. Be it as it may, let's go to Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle, then back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that -- I think our staff has been burning the midnight oil for a number of days trying to figure out the best way. I believe that we -- next year as we move into this -- into the next budget cycle, I think there's a lot of these that we could probably look at very carefully and institute them then. But just to go ahead and say that we're going to look at each and every one of these and go in that manner, I think that we're on the right track of where we need to be, and I think next year is even going to be even more painful. And I think we'll keep this as potential funding reductions for next year. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your recommendations, Ms. Vasey. I think they are all good ideas. I think some of them are going to require more research and analysis than others, and I think there are probably three that I can -- I can see right now that I would be happy to try to -- try to get guidance given to staff for, and the first is -- hopefully the county manager's already looked at -- restricting nonessential travel and training, but certainly that's something if you haven't looked at, I would encourage you to look at. The other is something that the county manager and I have Page 47 June 28, 2007 discussed in the past, and that is to identify the last three years of unfunded state mandates with the objective of withdrawing that money, because I don't think in many cases the state has the right, under law, to mandate things unless they provide the funding. And I would like to get a definitive answer from that, and if there's sufficient support on the board to at least pursue that issue to see if we can, in fact, do that, it would be helpful. You've given me the answer on the Supervisor of Elections issues, but, you know, we need to look at some of the other kind of things that we have done. And the one that I wholeheartedly endorse and I think is directly to the point and we should not delay a moment in implementing this one, and that is to charge the state legislators for the office space that they are occupying in these buildings, including utilities and other services. If they find it too expensive, they could probably get free space from NABOR or CBIA and be closer to their employers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ooh, ooh, ooh. With, that we're going to go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners Fiala, did you have your light on first? Well, how about if we do this, just go down -- go down the list and see if we have three to give that guidance; is that fair? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I think it's premature, myself. I mean, you can go ahead and bring anything up you'd like, but I mean, it doesn't mean you're going to have agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, freeze on new hires? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Consider it done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've already done that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Restrict nonessential travel and training. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we do that, too, don't we? MR. MUDD: Well, it's part of my reduction on the people that Page 48 June 28, 2007 you've got what they're going to use for training and whatnot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you already said you're (sic) implemented restrict nonessential travel? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. First of all, nonessential travel and training, we don't do things that aren't essential in order to do it, and if I find it, I'll cut somebody's throat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Evaluate contract to determine if it could be reduced or deferred, take a hard look at deferring, canceling contract studies. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. We could look at -- we've got a couple of projects, I think, that are looming, and if we don't have the personnel to man those facilities, maybe we ought to think about cutting them out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we still have to do the-- stay within the CIE. That's a mandate. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we're -- if we're over on some of our CIE requirements, then maybe we should look at those real carefully; then if you want to take a look at that, evaluate some contracts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that -- is that the guidance from the board? Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be willing to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Identify programs that don't really direct (sic) support services to Collier County residents and suspend them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't support the example that's there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anybody else? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't see anything there. Take a hard look at discretionary funding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, some of these Page 49 June 28, 2007 things, I think we have to study a little bit. It's hard, for me anyway, I need to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I need to look in depth at them just a little bit. I'd love to sit down with Janet -- in fact, I will -- and ask her about these and maybe she can give me some background, because I hate to just -- these are very, very important. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait till next year's budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to learn a little bit more before I make a decision. But go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it doesn't sound like there's enough support to do it right now, so why should I continue? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let's go to Commissioner Fiala. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you know, there is nothing on her list that won't be in my recommendation in '09, and plus, in order to make the budget that we're going to have to make in '09. I tried to mention to the board that this is a two-year issue, okay. Let me -- let me go down this and read for you just a little bit just so you know where I think n I think they're going to go. Your amendment's going to go in front of the boarders on the 29th of January. If it passes, fine. You're going to take your cuts and you're done, and there will be no more statutory requirements upon your ad valorem for next year. If it doesn't pass, I'll guarantee there will be more cuts to your ad valorem in order to get those cuts out of you that didn't happen because of those amendments that didn't pass. So you're going to get another cut next year, and I can almost guarantee it. I will be very -- I will be very surprised, okay, totally flabbergasted, if that does not happen next year, okay. So you're going to have another cut next year, and I was just talking to the sheriff on how we're going to try to get that thing through. Page 50 June 28, 2007 All of these particular issues are on the table. I promise you, over a two-year period of time, there's nothing on this table -- on these lists that you won't get to see, and then some, in order to do what we have to do. I described to you about freezing positions, okay. And I didn't say it, but I say it now. Freezing positions -- oh, by the way, if -- if those vacancies are there and they're in libraries and I don't have enough libraries (sic) to run that library full time based on what it is right now, we're going to have to go with reduced hours, we might have to cut out a day. There might be a point in time, based on the recommendation -- all of these are going to come back to you as we get to that point in time where it looks like we have to reduce a service because of the vacancy cutback or the part-time employee cutback job bankers. We're going to have to come back to talk to you about it all as far as what that reduced service is going to be, reduced hours in parks, libraries, all those things. It will have an effect. I believe Sheriff Hunter will have an effect on -- if he doesn't fill vacancies on number of patrols. Now, he's going to -- he'll meet with you one on one, but he's not going to tell anybody in public about that, but he will have a problem doing the same number of patrols that he's doing right now with a reduced workforce, reduced deputies, because of vacancies and not being able to fill them. That's the only way he's going to be able to get at his particular issues, too. So it will have an impact, and it will be an impact over time as those vacancies don't get filled and we go through that particular process. But I believe -- my scenario that I've just painted for you, will be one that will play out next year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One thing we heard repeatedly from our constituents, getting emails and so forth, when we were talking about cutting these services is, they could spend it -- like Don Hunter just said at the podium. You can spend the $200 on dinner that Page 51 June 28, 2007 night and you don't even notice that it's -- you had a big tax savings, but you do notice when the libraries aren't open at night or on a Saturday. You do notice when you don't have the services in the parks. And I think one of the things our residents have stated very clearly to us is, yes, they want to keep a hold on taxes. They don't want them to run willy-nilly. At the same time, they still want to enjoy these special things that we have in Collier County that makes us distinctive and different. For instance, landscaping in the medians. Our people expect things like that. Our people expect to have high-quality libraries and parks and a great EMS service. We all expect these things. And they've told us of that repeatedly. The people that are permanent residents have stated very clearly they would rather continue their taxes as they are, even though we've had no control over that because of the state mandate, still, because they expect those services. And you can all equate it to things that are happening in our outside world, like in hospitals, for instance. They've cut back the services; they've cut back the staff. People are complaining because they don't have the care that they used to have, but the bottom line -- and so, I think we have to be very careful as we travel through this journey of reducing our taxes and what we fund and what we don't, that we -- that we don't cut our nose off to spite our face. Thank you. And by the way, I have to say, I love this idea, this one, stop all legal suits between government entities. Boy, is that well said. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It takes two to tango. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, it does. We're willing to settle at any time in front of a judge. Commissioner Halas? Page 52 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to say again, Janet, I want to thank you very much. I know you put a lot of time and effort into this. And as I said earlier, I think that a lot of these things are going to be coming back and we're going to be looking at this in the 2009 budget. But I also want to say that, of all the email that I get from residents in regards to their -- if they're paying too high of taxes, I have -- very, very seldom I get any email in regards to -- that my taxes are too high. Now, I hear that from the nonresidents that have three and four different homes throughout the United States and they're all looking for something for nothing. But I think the most email that I get from people is in regards to the property insurance. That is probably where I get my -- most of my email from, and that's one thing that the legislators are afraid or haven't really tackled, and I think that's probably the biggest problem that these people have. I think when they look at their tax bill and find out how big of a cut they're going to have on their taxes and then look at what they're going to -- the services that they're not going to have, I think there's -- I think there's going to be a message, and I don't think they're going to be very happy at all. So I hope that our legislators are listening, because I think they're going to have -- I can tell you that when we get through budget cycle, and if there's any complaints, I'm immediately going to have that email sent right up to those people up in Tallahassee just to let them know the pain that they've endured not only in this county, but through the whole state. And I think a lot of my other commissioners are going to do the same thing because that's what -- one of the things we've discussed at the Florida Association of Counties convention. And every one of these counties is hurting. So I thing there's -- hopefully we'll get the Page 53 June 28, 2007 message back up there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now let's get back to the business at hand. MR. MUDD: That brings us to Airport Authority. MS. COOK: Commissioners, Theresa Cook, Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority, with Robert Tweedie, Marco Airport Manager, Deborah Mueller, and Randy Greenwald. Just a couple of items. Our operating budget is up due to an increase in fuel prices, but our revenue is also up due to the increase in fuel sales. We've benefited from fire fighting sales -- fire fighting fuel sales this year, and our services at Marco and Immokalee have increased. Our expanse service, we have budget directives not to increase our overtime, but we have three airports that we operate 24/7 and we operate after-hours services, and we're only closed one holiday a year, so there's a small amount of money that's allocated to those overtime servIces. But overall, we have a decrease in our general fund transfer request of 19.5 percent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, I'll just say something. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've done an outstanding job. Boy, have you turned that whole department around, and you guys have worked together. We used to have some painful times. Man, everything's just running so smoothly and you're making expansions and getting things done that we've wanted to get done for years. Page 54 June 28, 2007 You've done a great job. MS. COOK: Thank you very much. We do have an excellent staff out at the airports. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I recommend approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, just nod your heads for that point in time. No objections on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to transportation services. You want to talk about capital real quick so you don't have to come back? MS. COOK: That would be great. MR. MUDD: Okay. This would be your capital. Tell them what page it is in their books so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looks like it's going down. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, under your Board of County Commissioners' tab there's a pink sheet that says Airport Authority capital, and the pages immediately thereafter outline the projects, and Ms. Cook is probably the best person to address those. MS. COOK: Our capital requests this year have decreased from nine million to about two million. A point I want to make is that most of our capital expenditures are grant funded, and we use a two and a half, sometimes up to 50 percent grand fund match from the county. Predominantly there's a two and a half percent match. So this year's general fund match request is 120,000 to match our 480,000 plus grants we anticipate over the next fiscal year, '08. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Any questions, any objections? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did a good job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, thank you very much. We appreciated what you're doing. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will let you know, just so you Page 55 June 28, 2007 know, on page 3 of their capital program -- I just want to make sure you're aware, where it says down there, revenue, it says, transfer 001, this is -- this is the second year that you're transferring $750,000 of that four-year $750,000 increment to their -- to their capital program, and the -- and your intent was to build up your cost share amount so that we could expand the Immokalee Airport when the FAA gives us our 95 percent. Did I miss anything, Ms. Cook? MS. COOK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Cook. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to the transportation division's presentation. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I want to thank you for the indulgence in moving us up in front of community development. First of all, to present to you on operating budget, your budget guidance -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second, if you don't mind, Mr. Feder. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager, the budget we have clearly doesn't indicate any changes as a result of our decision on Tuesday of this week concerning the reduction of $35 million in ad valorem property taxes. Is there a need to go through these budgets in detail until such time as you have incorporated all the changes? MR. MUDD: Well, if you're comfortable with the changes that I basically gave you on the proposal notice, knowing that Norman and his expanded positions is, anything that's reoccurring has been cut off -- I did not cut off the expanded positions for their CAT. They have some expanded CAT routes. They have some -- what do you call them, counter routes where you go in the opposite direction? MS. FLAGG: Reverse. MR. MUDD: Reverse; counter, I'm sorry. Reverse routes that are there. I've left those in there because we have -- you know, that just exacerbates our situation. It puts more cars on the road when Page 56 June 28, 2007 Norman's trying to keep up with them. Why would we want to decrease the number of people that are riding mass transit? So it just didn't make sense. I left them in, okay. But Norman had two or three expanded. I think he had a tech that was going in traffic signals. He has two vehicle operators. There was a program manager or something that was going in engineering, if I remember, something like that. It was three or four. Those positions are gone, and that was part of that reoccurring expanded cut that I made that was to the tune of about $500,000. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, consistent with your question, my intent was to present very briefly our program here, acknowledge how it's changed from what you have and have already looked at, and then to open it to any questions. I was not planning for myself or the directors to go into detail on what you have in front of you that's already been provided. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. FEDER: Only to identify how we understand it will be changing, unless you give us further guidance for change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that what we are looking at is not what the budget is going to be -- MR. FEDER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because we just made a decision on Tuesday the changes that you prepared, and you're going to have to have some time to deal with those changes and implement the things that we, just this morning, ratified, that the county manager -- MR. FEDER: And that's what I was going to identify is those things that we feel that we're going to be ratifying for that, overtime, and to see if there's any further question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we'll get a -- will we have a detailed budget breakout before our meeting in July? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Page 57 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. That-- MR. MUDD: We will at least have a change sheet of what changed on that particular budget. We'll do our best in order to have that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's all -- MR. FEDER: With that said, I do plan on being brief, but again, we're here to answer -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Touch the high points, Mr. Feder, and MR. FEDER: That's exactly what I intended to do. First of all, in our operating budget, again, the guidance was to be no more than 6 percent over the '07 adopted. Our submittal to you is at 3.6 percent below adopted fiscal year 2007, so we're well within that; as a matter of fact, to the other side. We did have about 81.3 percent increase in MSTUs. As you heard earlier from Manager Mudd, that will be reduced based on your actions under the 91 percent and will be reflected. But in our operating budget without the MSTUs, as I said, we're at minus 3.6 percent rather than to the plus. So in our operating budget, we feel that we've been very cautious on that and tried to address it. What I do need to note is, as was presented to you by not adding any expanded positions -- we did have four in there. We had a person for locates for -- basically in support of our IT in the fiber-optics, we had one in traffic ops. relative to our signal systems and the expanded technology there, and we had two operators for equipment. All four of those will be removed and that will make us minus 4.3 in our operating budget. In the capital side, I think that, from our meeting that we had with you, to go through our work program to balance that out, and you gave us the opportunity to go after 50 million of grants to keep the program moving, we basically have, with the '08 submittal, with replacement of 10 million of recurring with non-reoccurring from the Page 58 June 28, 2007 UFR, the same budget that we presented to you and, therefore, the same program to move forward on. I will note that obviously we're very comfortable with that and also with the storm water conversion as well and in the limerock. But I will note that, consistent with how this board has treated us, as, again, Manager Mudd noted, the 62 million was addressed and addressed well over time for us to keep the program going. We're hoping that we can appeal to you when we face what we have to face in '09, because obviously that puts us in the position where, to maintain our program, we're going to need to find some replacement for that non-reoccurring funds. But having said that, the capital program is solid, as we have presented to you previously. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it's a little bit of comfort to you, Mr. Feder, we still recognize the transportation element in county government as our number one priority. MR. FEDER: And I appreciate that. It's using ad valorem, and we're very comfortable with the proposal that's been made for you for '08. And as I said, we'll be looking for your assistance in '09. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Norm. In regards to the cuts that you had for proposed positions, what's your intention in regards to normal attrition rate in your department? MR. FEDER: Right now I have about seven vacancies that won't be filled. I'll have to move people around, do what I can on that. We've always tried to work with the best but not with the many, and we'll maintain that effort and go forward. We won't have overtime. We won't have job bank as any relief valve. And as the manager has noted, as we have to, we may have to look at program areas, bring that to the board and say, I have to ship people to maintain these items because of vacancies, and this is the area I'm proposing that I may have to cut back in activity. Page 59 June 28, 2007 But right now, the budget we have and where we are, we're going to try to maintain everything as we have been doing, at least in '08, and then look for your relief to continue doing that in '09. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said that you won't have any overtime. What happens if we have some type of event, a natural event? MR. FEDER: The board will have to work with that. And I think the manager can speak to the fact of what he's doing to try and address some budgeting issues for that eventuality. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: But, again, we're working with a standard budget here for this program here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I'm not mistaken, we have a reserve for emergencies, contingency reserves, don't we, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That we can -- MR. MUDD: We have -- we have not rolled back on our reserves are still steady. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't need any discussion on this issue, but I'm still very interested in finding out how we're going to get a financially feasible capital improvement element approved by DCA and what we have to do in order to accomplish that. So is there some time frame when we might have a -- at least a report from staff about how we're going to achieve that? I'm not asking for it now, just a time frame. MR. FEDER: I think with your AUIR will be the time frame that we'll get to address those issues specifically. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When are we doing that? MR. MUDD: Norman is absolutely right, that is a time period that you're going to do it. I mentioned September, October, Page 60 June 28, 2007 November. I said -- I said October, November. We're in that ballpark because we're going to start with the Planning Commission, Productivity, and then get to the Board of County Commissioners for this continuing dialogue. But I think you're going to address it before that. I think you're going to talk about it on the 24th ofJuly. You've told this staff to come back with a planning moratorium reso. or ordinance, and we're still planning to do that, and we're going to have to talk about it at that -- at that particular meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That will be fine. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Last thing I'll ask, with your indulgence, is just to make sure you're aware, when we went through -- and this is part of the capital portion. The only real change in service at this time is, we did take the gas taxes that we were moving on landscaping and pull those into the capital projects, the multi-Ianing. We have not pulled back from our commitment to landscaping, but I do need to make you aware that by doing that, now it's relying on the fund 111 or the MSTD funding and, therefore, there will be a little bit slower implementation. It won't be immediately following the end of construction, and that was some of what we did to try to balance, along with your help, the work program. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder. I think that concludes it, unless you have something else to add. MR. FEDER: No, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. MR. MUDD: Brings us to community development's environmental services. I will tell you that Mr. Schmitt's budget, outside of code enforcement, is not very impacted by the general fund. He does have some general fund projects and whatnot like that, but as far as staffing is concerned, he basically works out of 113 and 131. Page 61 June 28, 2007 Am I correct, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. Get my directors up here. Well, good morning, Commissioner. For the record, I'm Joe Schmitt, your community development/environmental services division administrator. With me this morning, certainly not in order of importance, but in alphabetical order, Michelle Arnold, Director of Code Enforcement Department; Tom Kuck, Director of Engineering Services Department; Randy Cohen, Director of Comprehensive Planning Department; and I would like to introduce Roland Holt at the end of our table. Roland is our new Director of Building Review and Permitting Department; Susan Istenes, Director of Department of Zoning and Land Development Review; and Bill Lorenz, Engineering -- or correction, Environmental Services Department. And I would note that this budget does reflect the combining of the engineering review and environmental review into the one department. Mr. Kuck is retiring first of October, so this is his last budget meeting. And it will be sad for Tom to retire, but he's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can always come here and sit in the audience. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't look so happy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why he's smiling, right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. He said to reserve the front seat here for him though because he'll come every Tuesday, every other Tuesday; right, Tom? MR. KUCK: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to miss you. MR. SCHMITT: And also Jamie French, my Manager of Operations Office; and Gary Mullee, my Manager for the Business Management and Budget Office. Before you today is a $5 million budget that will provide needed funding to continue to provide effective government oversight and regulation of development within Collier County through competent Page 62 June 28, 2007 professional enforcement of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the Collier County Land Development Code, and our Codes of Laws and Ordinance, and also the Florida Building Code. First and foremost, I wish to point out that we -- in order to bring our operation in line with the downturn that the development industry has experienced, we aggressively reviewed all operations and reduced our budget by 26.5 percent from last year's $61 million budget. Key points in building review and permitting. The fund budget is down 28.1 percent. In zoning and lands development review, engineering review, and environmental review, that's fund 131, the budget is down 38.2 percent. As you are aware, the preponderance of the funding in this budget comes from fee revenue. The principal demand for ad valorem in my organization is for code enforcement and for state compliance with the long-range planning requirements, community planning requirements associated, and the state requirements associated in the comprehensive planning department. As an overview of this budget, the services it is projected to provide are predicated certainly on your guidance regarding the programs and studies identified under the respective departments and our assessment of a return of a more normal level of growth, and we're really looking at a growth level commensurate with about 2004. We believe -- I think that's where we're pretty much going to steady out. I'll also note that this budget is well within your guidance. And, again, I want to highlight that it does represent a 26 percent -- 26.7 percent decrease. It also reflects a hiring freeze that currently notes 25 FTE and is budgeted for up to 36 full-time equivalent positions. The actions we've taken this year so far; we have a full hiring freeze. Again, 20, 25 positions. We're reallocating staff wherever possible -- we're relocating staff wherever possible to positions where the work demands it and the revenue supports it. Page 63 June 28, 2007 We have a full freeze on all capital expenses, including a freeze on purchase of all vehicles. We greatly tightened controls over all operating expenses. I have a full freeze on all special pay increases, bans on overtime, and we released all temporary employees, and we do have even a voluntary reduction in work hours for those employees who want to reduce their work hours. And we certainly have milestones to continue to do and make those kind of cuts in FY-'08 if, in fact, deemed appropriate. As I am certain you're aware, this budget and the associated commitments was reviewed and unanimously approved by the Development Services Advisory Committee. We share the DSAC's goals in meeting the existing workload commitments, preserving the financial stability of the division, utilizing existing fee levels, and maintaining existing service levels. Both the DSAC and CDES agree that any further downsizing, if needed, will attempt -- and we will attempt to meet those commitments. So we will keep the DSAC informed because the concern here is, of course, level of service, find -- sustain and maintain an accepted level of the service that the industry expects, but at the same time, I need to ensure that the income comes in to pay for the staff that I have. This budget was also reviewed by the Productivity Committee, subcommittee, and on a larger scale, the Productivity Committee budget subcommittee recommended significant larger staff reductions in FY-'08. But given the volatility of the construction industry, we believe that committing to any further cuts, at least right now, may be problematic, and certainly I have to make cuts if the revenue doesn't-- do not support the positions. That's clear. So in conclusion, my staff remains committing -- committed to leading, managing a division that continues to be appropriately sized -- appropriately sized to meet the workload. Page 64 June 28, 2007 Subject to your questions of either me or my staff, that concludes my opening remarks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The downturn in the building industry, it's undoubtedly had an effect on your revenue stream. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your reserves, have you been tapping them on a regular basis? I mean, is there -- how far are you into your reserves at this point in time, or are you holding your own at this point in time? MR. SCHMITT: Well-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As far as your revenue-- MR. SCHMITT: -- to answer your question, yes. We've been in the reserves. That's, frankly, what the reserves are for. Just so you understand, the reserves are monies that may have come in and they're for prepaid services. I may have gotten the building permit a year, year and a half ago, that I still have to have inspectors go out to a job site today. That permit a fee a year, year and a half ago, has to pay for that service. So yes, my intent is that both accounts we're targeting at approximately $4 million. When we start -- if it looks like we're going to go below that, I will make more cuts in order to preclude going into reserves any further. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But under no circumstances do you see any need to tap into the general fund for money? MR. SCHMITT: No, not right now, certainly not. And certainly, if! do, the manager would know. The concern as well is, many of the positions, and Mr. Holt certainly can discuss -- a building inspector. It's a licensed inspector, it takes time to train, and you just simply can't just go out and advertise and try and get a licensed professional. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. Page 65 June 28, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: So there's a balancing act. If! reduce, then I don't want to get caught short if, in fact, we see a gradual buildup again. And in fact, though the residential program is down, the commercial industry -- commercial building program right now is pretty strong in Collier County, though we do expect that will begin to have a slowdown as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you anticipating any increases of fees? MR. SCHMITT: Right now, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said you're tapping into reserves. Can you either give us a percentage or what -- your balance of reserves and what you're pulling down, how much? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Let me turn it to Gary. Gary Mullee, my budget manager, has that, and we can put a chart on the visualizer. , MR. MULLEE: The reserves on the planning side on the fund 131 side, are -- the reserves on the planning side, the 131 side, started this year at approximately $8 million. They're anticipated to go down to approximately $4 million at the end of the year, at the end of the fiscal year. That $4 million represents approximately four to five months worth of operating funds within -- within fund 131. On the building side the reserves are starting the year at approximately $6 million, and those two are going down to $4 million for about a $2 million decline. And I'm quoting those numbers without looking at the graph, so I might be -- I think I'm right. We're monitoring those reserves -- actually we're at the point now where we're monitoring those expense levels and those reserves levels actually on a daily basis now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. The construction that we had this year, was those SDPs from last year? In other words, you get Page 66 June 28, 2007 an SDP review and approval and you build a building. A lot of that is coming online as far as new values, property tax values. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It's hard to say. I mean, a normal SDP, if it's in for different reviews, may take four to six months. And yes, one would assume what's being built today was an SDP that was reviewed -- reviewed and approved maybe six, 10 months ago, 12 months ago. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how many permits have you got for commercial? Has that gone up substantially from 2006 to 20077 MR. SCHMITT: We -- I have permits -- if you look at individual permits -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just commercial permits. Do you have that? MR. SCHMITT: For building permits or -- I have building permits, which is the actual physical building, FY-'06, 255. We project 195 for '07, the current year we're in now. The -- but the significant issue there, we really look at square footage as well, because it -- you know, it's -- could be a gas station versus a Super Wal*Mart. So it's -- we look at -- we look at the square footage, and the square footage usually is a more telling statistic because it would indicate the size of the plan set. MR. MUDD: Joe, I think I put -- I put it on the visualizer, I think, is what you want to talk to the commissioner about. This is what -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There I see commercial. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. You said commercial applications, sir, and then it's by square footage, and then the bottom one is new commercial building permits. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- okay. You had a peak in your commercial in '06. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 67 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We expect that -- though it's been strong, we expect '07 has come somewhat of a straight-line projection. We still have, what, about two and a half months, three months left in the fiscal year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, could I just interject something here to make this -- I believe there's something here that's a bit misleading. And the projections, it's really not projected on this chart, at least in the document we have. You only have seven months of data for 2007. MR. MULLEE: That is -- that's just a -- that's just for -- right, it's just a cold extrapolation, just taking the amount of time in the year and the amount of time left and multiplying it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the square footage figures included in here are shown as a total for 2007 yet they only include seven months of 200 -- MR. MULLEE: And that's-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't want to take Commissioner Henning's time. I just wanted to make sure that you explained that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because he -- you're not giving him the full picture on what these -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. That is just an estimate for 2007. In fact, this week alone I had, Susan, was it seven -- six or seven preapps. scheduled this week alone for submittal. So we know the work is commg m. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you say six or seven preapps., that doesn't mean anything to us up here because we don't know what the norm is. MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes -- I don't know if this is on. I use preapps. as a leading indicator of work coming in at the worst. So Page 68 June 28, 2007 preapp. requests, there's a $500 charge for a preapp. request. If you're wanting a preapp. and you're willing to pay $500, you're probably pretty serious about putting a project in. The preapp. requests have actually remained fairly stable, surprisingly. And, in fact, we just got requests for nine of them within the last 48 hours. So it's really a strange time to try to be monitoring this. But I don't know if I'm answering your question, Commissioner, or even what your question is, but those are kind of the leading indicators for us that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what you said is, it's pretty stable? MS. ISTENES: It's pretty stable, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So when do you want to talk about the Productivity Committee's study? MR. SCHMITT: Anytime you want to ask, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Obviously you don't agree with it from the correspondence that I've seen? MR. SCHMITT: Right. I -- the information that was given to the Productivity Committee did not come out of Gary's office. The information that was used by a member of the Productivity Committee, we had a discussion that that information and the charts that were produced was based on faulty data. And after -- I was not at the first Productivity Committee meeting, the subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mullee was. They spent probably four hours discussing again that data. And, again, the issue there is that the data that was used to produce those charts was -- is --in fact, was, is incorrect. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: If you want to go into further how that data was acquired -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had three meetings -- the Page 69 June 28, 2007 Productivity Subcommittee had three meetings with your staff. So at what point did you disagree with them? MR. MULLEE: The first meeting we had prepared charts and information for the subcommittee, and we provided those to them. As the meeting begun, the separate set of information was provided to us at that time and we had no time to review it in that meeting. We went ahead -- the second meeting was focused on code enforcement, and we did go ahead and express some of our concerns about that data. We certainly, at the first meeting, also in general terms, expressed our concerns that, you know, why -- we agreed with a lot of the Productivity Committee's recommendations in terms of where things were now and where we think -- needed to move into the future. We certainly disagreed with their basic concept that business had been steadily declining since 2001 and that -- and it was the recommendation that business had been steadily declining since 2001, and in an inverse relationship to staffing and CDES, we felt that was, just from a common-sense standpoint, anyone who's been in this community the last four or five years would understand that there was a building boom. It happened. And our statistics that we had been tracking a long time had shown that. So while we certainly under -- we accepted and we appreciated their input. As far as actions we could take in the future, we thought that interpretation of data was incorrect. We -- at the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: All the data? You disagree with all the data? MR. MULLEE: I disagree with pretty much a good set of their data. We disagree with some of their data. Some of their data is simply not doable in this system. Tracking review times is simply not a doable thing in CD Plus. Page 70 June 28, 2007 Now, what happens is, the system was designed initially in the early '90s. It was based on an architecture that was designed to save memory space because people didn't have large hard drives and it overwrites data, and it does not keep any historical log or historical table of activity. Basically the system tells you where the status of something is now, whether it's approved or not approved. So that set of data is simply not doable, and their data in terms of building permits in terms of SDPs over history was done by staff who didn't have familiarity with the database, didn't understand where incomplete data was and was not pulling from correct fields. We're very confident about this data that we've provided you. We've pulled it out and QC'd it, and I have no problem providing hard copies of each one of these numbers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're supplying it. I'm sure you don't have any problem with it. And I understand that. But let me ask you, why can't you track the time an SDP comes in until they get final approval for SDP? MR. MULLEE: The one -- the one thing in the system that is possible to track is when it came in the front door and when it goes out the back door. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MULLEE: That is the one thing. As far as individual review times and individual times in there, no, because that information is overwritten in the system. This -- the data that was provided -- just from a common-sense standpoint, again, the data that was provided on review times, one of the assertions was that CDES had been increasing review times despite the fact that business had been declining. And if you look at some of the base review times on there, you know, they're saying we're double from six- and seven-days reviews. And clearly, six- and seven-day turnaround times on an SDP is a -- is detached from Page 71 June 28, 2007 common sense. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the data that was used for review times, especially in the early years, when a review came in over a second or third review, it overwrote the data field that was on the first review. So if a first review was 45, 50 days and a second review was 20 days and a third review was four, the data that was in that field reflected the last review posted. That county system was never designed to track that kind of information, that's why we're scrapping it. That's why we have a contract to purchase a new software system, currently under contract right now, in order to provide that kind of information to manage both productivity and manage the products as they move through the building. MR. MULLEE: And what I'd just briefly like to add is that certainly was not the Productivity Committee subcommittee's fault, that they were provided information outside of our office by staff who wasn't that familiar with the database and they were provided incorrect information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you something on your database. Eight months ago you provided the Board of Commissioners through an email some data, historical data, on permits, housing permits, and in that you said that you couldn't rely on it because you didn't track -- you didn't differentiate new permits versus somebody putting up a fence. You couldn't -- you couldn't do that. MR. MULLEE: I don't -- I don't exactly recall that as being said. We can differentiate it with a great amount of work. I think a lot of the context was we quoted overall building permit numbers, up to 46- or 47,000, and then we certainly got some feedback, which was very legitimate feedback, that that included a lot of temporary -- a lot of alterations and that kind of data, and we took that feedback that the board provided us in terms of getting better numbers and better Page 72 June 28, 2007 reporting and have really spent a lot more time working with the IT department to really kind of go in there and do that. We generate a monthly report, which you've got a copy of, that tracks these statistics, and we're trying to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We get a monthly report? MR. MULLEE: We -- you get a monthly report with this budget presentation and we will -- we do an internal report, and we'll be happy to provide that to you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, could you sum it up and we'll come back to you afterwards? I've got three other commissioners, too, that want to speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's fine. I mean, this is a yearly budget. I think we need to spend some time on it. So the data that you provided us before is different data that (sic) this is, and you feel comfortable on this historical information -- MR. MULLEE: The historical information that we provided we're comfortable with now. I don't know that it's that much different. There may be a small difference between the information we've provided you, and that's only because we've become much better and much more focussed on making sure that this information is accurate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, I just want to get this straight. A reduction in your staff doesn't impact taxpayers; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: The only way it would impact them is if they were a person coming in to pay for a permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: But it's not ad valorem, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I mean, it doesn't -- right. It doesn't have anything to do -- Page 73 June 28, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: CBIA, I would think, I would just think, that maybe the people you really want to review your budget and work with you on your budget would be the people who are paying your salary, so maybe you ought to have people from CBIA rather than Productivity because they're more concerned with the taxpayer and you're more concerned with your fees. It just seems that maybe CBIA would work with you. I think that sounds like a good idea. MR. SCHMITT: Comment on that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. MR. SCHMITT: The CBIA -- members of the CBIA are members -- also members of the DSAC. The DSAC is the committee that you charge as the committee responsible for oversight of development services. We brief them thoroughly both on the operation and on the budget and, of course, that was -- as we noted, it was endorsed unanimously by -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- the -- and I also meet with Ms. Talbert and her staff every month, we review operations, and we discuss anything that impacts either the cost of a permit or any of the operational aspects of processing a permit through the organization whether it's a building permit -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, what you're really telling me is, the -- your funds come from the development community? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your budget meets with their approval and you meet with them? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lastly, I just want to say that I would hate to see the staffing level fall and get back into the Page 74 June 28, 2007 predicament we were in a couple years ago where you were letting your people down who were paying these fees. It wasn't -- didn't hurt the taxpayers at all whatever staffing level you were at. It was, you needed to have people staff it. The people who were paying for it were asking you to do it, and I think that that -- I think your budget is really very different than most of the other budgets because yours doesn't come out of the ad valorem. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just had asked to speak to clarify that issue about projections for FY-'07 that I addressed when Commissioner Henning asked the question to you. I think it is misleading to put in their charts in the book a figure for 2007 when, in fact, you're only including seven months of history in 2007. So if you -- if you're going to compare what you have year to date in 2007 with what happened in 2006, 2005, 2004, it would be better if we had an annualized figure for 2007. MR. MULLEE: Those figures in 2007 are annualized. They are, in fact, extrap -- in some categories they're low, but that's what's going through the system right now. Those are extrapolated out, the figures. They're -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MULLEE: In terms of the infor -- the graphs that we provided you. If -- you're looking at the budget book or the graphs? Those are annualized figures, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I have monthly permit totals of755 for the entire fiscal year, 2007. MR. MULLEE: Which -- I guess I have to ask which -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's residential. Well, it doesn't make any difference. We've got residential permits issued, residential permits applied, commercial -- Page 75 June 28, 2007 MR. MULLEE: There's two sets of data there. If you're looking at the monthly report, those are year to date, so those are year to date comparisons on the bottom of those graphs in that -- in the May monthly report. So those are not full-year numbers on the previous numbers. Those are all year to date through this time. So those are year to date compansons. Yeah, we wouldn't -- we try to keep a consistent data set across time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what you've indicated is for FY-'04, FY-'05, and FY-'06 and FY-'07, they're all reported as of April for seven months of data? MR. MULLEE: If it's the May report, yeah, as the end -- MR. SCHMITT: I believe -- you're looking at the April report, which was provided to the Productivity Committee. It's as of April. MR. MULLEE: Right. So those are the end of the month. Those are consistent sets. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here's one that just came across my desk. MR. MULLEE: That's the one that -- in response to some of the questions of activities since 2001, we provided that, and those are -- the '07 numbers and that are annualized. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the -- Commissioner Fiala's point is a very good one. This is a perfect example of a major portion of the government that is not paid for by ad valorem property taxes. They're paid for on a fee-for-service basis. The people who demand services from this department pay for their services, and that's mostly the developers, and the developers have a right to expect cost effective performance. And I think it is probably a good idea to maybe have the DSAC involved more in looking at budgets and projections and how people are utilized and give them an opportunity to make some Page 76 June 28, 2007 recommendations about how they perceive their money could be used more effectively. But I'm troubled by the fact that the Productivity Committee spent apparently a lot of time analyzing data that was inaccurate. I would at least like to get an understanding, not here, but get an understanding and report from the county manager to tell us why the Productivity Committee got incorrect information, why it wasn't corrected before they made their final report, and if you have correct information, how does that correct information change the Productivity Committee's recommendations? And I would like to have answers to those questions. I just think it's a bad thing for a volunteer committee that does an excellent job to spend time analyzing data that is incorrect. And if it was incorrect because they didn't select it properly or because we provided it improperly, at least we should understand that and get it corrected because we shouldn't waste their time, because they're a very valuable advisory board. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got a couple of things here. One of the things that Commissioner Fiala basically brought up, touched on, and that was, we don't want to go back to where we were in 2000 or 2001 when we had staff that was not trained properly in our Land Development Codes and Growth Management Plan, and we ended up with things like the Bellagio, the Manatee and the Cap d'Antibes, and I sure don't want to go back to those days. We're still digging ourselves out of the hole. So what we need to do is make sure that the people that are employed in your shop, that have a lot of experience in this -- in these concerns are there. I don't know if any of you have any idea what the population here was in 2000, roughly, the population figures here of Collier Page 77 June 28, 2007 County. MR. SCHMITT: I think I'd have to -- by recollection. I don't have those figures with me, but it was -- what was it? MR. MUDD: About 261,000 people. MR. SCHMITT: 261? MR. MUDD: That's what my memory tells me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In 2000? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, around 261,000. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what do we have today? MR. SCHMITT: About 320-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we've grown quite a lot, and I know that there's been heat put on code enforcement, but I can tell you that I'm not sure how many positions that you have presently and how many positions that you've gained over that period of time, but I think that I sure don't want to see code enforcement take a cut, serious cut, because I think we've got problems in East Naples -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know we've got problems in Naples Park, I think we've got problems in Golden Gate City, and I think there's problems in Immokalee, and we've found those to be pretty prevalent when we toured that area last year. So can you tell me where we stand with the amount of people in code enforcement today? MS. ARNOLD: We currently have 52 people on staff, or I have 51 people working for me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what did you have in 2000, do you have those stats? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. I have those numbers actually. Give me a minute here. Okay. In 2000 I had 31 people working in my department. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-one, and today you've got Page 78 June 28, 2007 52 you said? MS. ARNOLD: Fifty-two, correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how many do you have -- do you have those people divided up in sections of the county, or do you have them wherever the biggest problems are located? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have an investigator by territory, and we do have territory maps, and I do have those maps to show you, that make a pretty large geographic area for one investigator, and then we do have investigators by specialties as well. We have different programs as well. We have -- for example, over that time period between 2000 and currently, we had evening shifts started for the county, so we have employees working from 2:00 to 10:30 and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many of those people do you have employed in code enforcement for an evening shift? MS. ARNOLD: We have one supervisor and an administrative staff and four investigators. So only four personnel out in the field that's taking care of the entire county in the evening. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's for the whole county, correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: We also have a property maintenance specialist program that was added between that time period, and that program involves two investigators, and they take care of the -- primarily the residential inspections of properties throughout the county. And, again, that's only two for the entire county. And then we had, during that time period, the addition of the special master program, which has been very successful, and we hired personnel for that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is your workload -- what's happened to your workload the last few years; has it increased Page 79 June 28, 2007 or decreased with the increase in population? MS. ARNOLD: Well, our numbers have stayed pretty in line. There was a slight shift -- decrease that was identified to the Productivity Committee this year. And, again, that number was extrapolated out. We don't have an actual figure for this current fiscal year. But I don't think that it's a true measure of our workload, the number of cases that we're handling, because the type of cases that we handle are a lot more complex now and take a lot more time to address as opposed to, you know, the quick litter case or something like that. So it's not a true correlation on the amount of workload that we have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that your administrative time has gone up? Is this what you attribute it to, to follow-up administrative time, writing up -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And we're actually in hearings more. We had only one hearing a month for the Code Enforcement Board. With the special master now we have three hearings monthly, so that's taking investigators out of the field and, you know, in hearing processes, which is a reflection on the numbers that are noted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: When we had -- about a week or so ago, we went through a PUD review, and I was quite startled to see that there was a serious violation or a number of violations at one particular property, which was basically all rental property, I believe. What are we doing in regards to making sure that the codes are adhered to? Do you go out and investigate those, or do you only go out there and investigate them when the citizens call? MS. ARNOLD: Well, in relation to the PUD monitoring program, we're working with that staff and, of course, they're referring cases to us when we they find them as part of their monitoring program. With the rental registration program, that property maintenance program that I talked to you about, we are proactively going out to Page 80 June 28, 2007 these rental properties and doing inspections and finding violations. We do, however, get complaints as well from rental tenants. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're going to go back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whether it's an enterprise fund or whether it's a general fund supported agency, it still has effects on all of our citizens, and I don't want to pass this one up. I hope you prove me wrong this year, unlike you did last year, because I'm more in a tendency to believe what the Productivity submitted, but there's not enough support. And it clearly shows, even in code enforcement, that investigations is down, permits are down, and I recognize that this, your department, Joe, is an enterprise fund. I won't support any increase of fees. But I do -- I'm hearing more and more things -- things that require more intensive review than they have in the past, and I trust that won't be happening in the future. Your -- to give you a compliment, your ombudsman program is absolutely wonderful, and I want to thank you for that. That truly works. So with that program, I'm sure I'm going to hear more praises than complaints. So I'm in the minority, so I guess we'll move on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll move back on to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way, Michelle, you can give us an indication as to how your workload changes as a result of decisions we make? In other words, if we make decisions about prohibiting people from parking in swales on streets or putting boats in driveways and things like that, is there a direct relationship between the workload and the laws we either make or don't make? MS. ARNOLD: Definitely, because with the additional laws that are increased, we have to do our research to make sure that we're imposing the right laws on the proper jurisdiction. Page 81 June 28, 2007 There may be an overlay district that gets incorporated for a particular area. My staff has to make sure that, you know, we apply the overlay district in the current -- correct area, and so there's additional research that is required. Instead of us just going out and assuming that the rules that are in the Land Development Code or in one particular ordinance applies to countywide, we have to do that research, and it takes time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you or anybody else, Joe, have any recommendations about how we can make that process easier? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I think what you asked is, basically, if you direct staff -- let's say the rental registration, or the other program would be the housing inspection program, what we need to do and what we try to do is in the fiscal impact point out the impact it will have on the county as far as staffing and costs for the program. If you -- those are ordinances you direct, so we try and inform you that these programs are, in fact -- this is what it's going to cost me in order to implement that program or parking restrictions or wherever else. So I think, Commissioner, if you ask -- what the question framed, then the answer would be, we need to point out very specifically, specific in the fiscal impact on the executive summary, the program you're asking us to enforce, this is what it will cost, and we owe that to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's very important, and you're absolutely right, that's what the fiscal impact is for. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would be very helpful to assist us in making decisions of that nature. Now, my final question has to do with how you can most efficiently manage fluctuating workloads over which you don't have a lot of control. Is there any correlation between the skills of a person conducting Page 82 June 28, 2007 a review of a permit, a person who is conducting an inspection of a property, and a person who is on -- is enforcing the code? Is there any way to create some cross training among all of those three departments to permit you to shift personnel from one place to another as workload changes rather than taking the chance of laying off people when it goes down and then having to hire people and retrain them when it goes up? So is there a way that you can do that? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but I need to differentiate. Code enforcement enforces the Land Development Code. Now, with the building code -- and we're already moving in that direction -- the inspectors to be -- through the career progression program, to be graded and have the same skills as the plan reviewers. As inspections go down and if I have plans, I can move them from the field and do the plan reviews. There's a tremendous opportunity there to create a program for career progression and, frankly, sharing of job requirements. Likewise, ifmore inspections are needed, I can pull people off of plans. Because normally it is a progression. You start as an inspector and you go to a plan reviewer. One of my managers, one of the positions I created this past year at your approval, was a manager. Bob Dunn is in the audience. And Bob is -- now oversees the entire technical aspect, electrical, structural, and mechanical, and we're trying to integrate that whole program. So definitely there's very much room for that to happen. Code enforcement, in reality, becomes almost a training ground. We have a lot of code enforcement folks who come into code, and then they begin to work their way -- frankly, they apply for positions over in Susan's organization because they become very familiar with the Land Development Code. But the problem is, I can't take code investigators and have them go out and do building inspections because they have to be licensed. They have to be properly certified. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, but let me draw Page 83 June 28, 2007 an analogy here. We're taking firefighters and we're cross-training them as EMS personnel -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to provide assistance with advanced life support services. We should be able to do the same sort of cross-training between your three agencies -- MR. SCHMITT: I can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and over time, not only prepare the people who are in Michelle's department, perhaps, for moving up and getting promoted into some other areas, but actually creating a pool of people that can help you out whenever the workloads get tough. MR. SCHMITT: And there is opportunity to do that, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can we get a commitment that you're going to be doing that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that okay, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Absolutely. MR. SCHMITT: My position is to look at the core and then figure out what I need for the minimum. And, of course, then ensure that I have the staff, because what I need to do is exactly what you have referred to, is be prepared to handle those, the rush, sort of the run on the bank and when we deal with those kind of -- the permits that may come in, so, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I might also add, I know that the federal government has a policy for FEMA. When they have a disaster, they can never have enough personnel on hand to be able to handle the demand for their services, so they bring them in from all different parts of the government. It doesn't matter if it's the treasury or the enforcement part of it. They bring everybody into FEMA to be able to get through that. Page 84 June 28, 2007 Now, I don't kn'Ow if that would be an application that we could apply here, but I like Commissioner Coyle's thoughts, and maybe somewheres along the line, there might be something we could do to cross train some people that are serving in a capacity that isn't overdemanding and they do have free time where they could serve in some of the lower end of your echelon there at a time of need, when vacations come up, to be able to pick up the slack. Also, too, I just want to reaffirm some of the things I'm hearing on the budget itself and how the breakdown goes for money. Fees that we collect don't count against us as far as taxes that we charge; is that correct? MR. MUDD: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So down the road, Commissioner Fiala and some of the other commissioners expressed some concern over the fact that your department might not be able to run at the efficiency that it has run in the past because of the lack of personnel and the lack of ability to be able to work overtime when its necessary . So I have no problems with looking at the possibility of a fee adjustment as need be, maybe a surcharge put on at a point in time when it's necessary till you get to another level of people coming back in and demanding services. We're going to have people that are going to be looking for services on a -- at a rate at least what they were getting before. Now, we're not -- from what I -- from what I see, I think it's going to be difficult to make that promise to be able to be supply the same level of service, especially if business starts to pick up. Am I correct? MR. SCHMITT: If business picks up, the revenue comes in the front door; the positions that I have frozen right now, I can turn around and submit a budget amendment -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- add that money back into the budget. The Page 85 June 28, 2007 positions are already on the book. It would just require a budget amendment to bring that staff back onboard. And I -- we -- my directors and I monitor that closely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to tell you that I like the way you run your department. I think you do a wonderful job. I think code enforcement's doing a great job, too. You're all doing a wonderful job. I think that probably concludes this part of it. Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it does, but I just want to make a correction for the record. I told you that in 2000 it was 2,000 -- it was 261,000. This is based on -- this is based on a 1 October, 2000, estimate, and if somebody goes and looks at this piece of paper and they say, well, it was 257,926. But if you take a look at what it was April 1 st -- and this is the April 1 st from the top corner of 2001, it went up to 264-. So at the end of 2000, it was around 260-,261-, so -- and I looked at Mike Smykowski and I said, okay. I'm off by 4- or 5,000, but I'm in the ballpark. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for clarifying -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't take that -- don't take that off yet, County Manager -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because I want to show you where you were way off. MR. MUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Look at 2007, estimating -- we estimated at that point in time a population of 357,000, that puts us about 25,000 higher than we actually are. So although your estimate was within tolerances in 2000, we're a little bit off for our estimates for 2007. MR. MUDD: Well, I'm not arguing a point, but if you look -- if you look at the print date -- and I know you have to -- Page 86 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I know. MR. MUDD: If you blow it up -- but this was done as of October 2005. And when I went back and grabbed it, I didn't give you the most recent one, but I'm assuming that the 2000 estimate that they had was checked because it was past tense, not future tense. So I believe our estimating for the future could be of question, and I believe your AUIR has decreased-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. MUDD: -- our projection, the aggressiveness thereof-- MR. SCHMITT: It has. MR. MUDD: -- but in the past tense, I think we were pretty close. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, I think that concludes this part of the business. We're going to take a break for lunch for one hour. We'll be back here at one o'clock. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. And I have before you today the budget that -- as it was proposed. And what I'd like to do is just go over some of the changes as they're affected by the legislative vote that we had a couple of weeks ago. I wanted to start it off a little bit with a couple of the reductions that we've taken out of it other than the job bankers and some of the other things that you've seen already. Weare cutting from our expended request on this budget one full-time housing service representative and one parks and recreation program leader representative. We're suggesting to increase some revenues, increase revenue with the health department about $49,000, Page 87 June 28, 2007 and increase the revenue at the library of $40,000. And then we're suggesting that we charge an annual pass to park at the beach, a $50 annual pass, and I will talk a little bit about that. One of the suggestions that we've had in the past is stickers and how many we give out. We give out about 60,000 stickers a year. That takes staff time as well in order to do that. This $50 annual pass would be kind of like a -- like the handicap sticker where you can hang it up on the rear-view mirror, this is the process that we're looking at for this one, where you then could take it to any other vehicle within your family, because a lot ofthe residents currently will get two, three, or four stickers, depending on how many cars they have, and this would then allow them to move the sticker from car to car within the family. It would be a $50 per family fee, not necessarily a $50 per car fee. So that's the -- that's the suggestion on that end of it. Also in the vacancies that we have currently -- and when we're talking about freezing the vacancies -- we currently have 16.5 vacancies at this point in time. One of the -- one department that has quite a few vacancies is DAS. There are six vacancies in that one out of the 41 that they have currently, so we will have the opportunity to get a little creative on that particular end of it in order to continue to do the level of service that we're currently doing. Okay. With that, I guess those are the major changes that I have. Oh, there's one other thing. I almost forgot. This budget does reflect -- and it's not really clear in here, but I did want you to be aware of it -- that this budget reflects that we're planning on closing Sun-N-Fun on -- November, December, and January when it's the coldest months, which is the time that we were having a hard time meeting our payroll with the number of people that were coming in. We were averaging maybe 50 people a day, and so it was getting tough for us to maintain it. So we're suggesting in here that we would be closed those months totally, and then weekends September and Page 88 June 28, 2007 October, March and April and May, correct? So it's about 150 days of open time at Sun-N-Fun versus the 200 that we were open this year. MR. MUDD: What about Christmas? MS. RAMSEY: We would be open Christmas break. We're going to be open anytime the children are out of school, so at those holidays. So Christmas break we would be open. We'd be open spring break. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanksgiving? A lot of families come m. MS. RAMSEY: We would be open -- no, we would not be open Thanksgiving weekend because it's kind of cool. That's the numbers that we had that showed that. But those are -- that's our suggestion on the budget we have in front of you, and if you'd like to give us some other direction, we'd be happy to look at it for you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to talk a little bit about the $50 beach pass, if! may. MS. RAMSEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're thinking of something like a hanger that would go on the car mirror so, I mean, it would be transferable between cars. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Will it be registered in some way? I'm just -- MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what I'm thinking about is the misuse that could take place with it, like as far as a hotel going, buying two of them or three or four of them and then just issue them for their guests as they want to use it. MS. RAMSEY: No. We would still do the registration, the car -- everything would have to be the same as the way you would get your sticker currently. I mean, you'd have to show registration, car Page 89 June 28, 2007 registration, et cetera. We wouldn't be selling them to businesses. That's not part of the system that we have currently so we still would not do that. But if you have a personal vehicle, car registration, et cetera, or own property and all the other stuff that we look at, we would continue to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I kind of hope in our deliberations we find another way of doing it. But meanwhile, I'm concerned a little bit about -- how we doing with grant writers that we have within your department, especially for affordable housing? MS. RAMSEY: Well, let me have -- I'll have Marcy talk a little bit about the grant writing. We don't really have specific grant writers in the division itself. We have different people within the department that take that as part of their responsibilities, but we have none that are specifically just grant writing. They do grant management, which is more than just writing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my concern is, is, you know, we have an effort underway as far as affordable housing goes within your department, and we're making some headway. And I'm a little bit concerned with some of these cuts what's going to be the implications of it as far as getting the product out. I recently had some concern come to me from Rick Heers from Immokalee. He doesn't think there's enough people there now able to be to maintain the level of service. Any comments on that? MS. KRUMBINE: Well, one of -- Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services. One of the vacancies that we have currently is our affordable housing management manager, and I'm not quite sure what we're -- MS. RAMSEY: That's not cut. MS. KRUMBINE: That's not cut. MS. RAMSEY: That's not a cut. MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. So we have the go-ahead to hire for Page 90 June 28, 2007 that. And then I believe that for our grants position, if they're fully funded by grants and 55 percent of our budget is grant funded, then they'll be able to be hired as well. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MS. KRUMBINE: So we'll be maintaining that level of service for our grants staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the Sun-N-Fun park, how labor intensive is that? MS. RAMSEY: Well, right now I think we're running 20 lifeguards on the deck, and maybe Barry can give you more of that. But 20 lifeguards on the deck and probably 15 or so in the concession, but -- MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. That is correct. As Ms. Ramsey's stating, we typically run 20 lifeguards when we're in full season. We do have a number of concession workers that also work in the concession. That varies depending on the demand if we have a large number of people in the park. This past weekend we had 1,800 on Saturday. We would include more concession workers just to manage that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County Manager, how would that fit into your plans as far as not hiring temporary personnel in regards to manning the water park for lifeguards and such? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is totally fee based and they're self-supporting. What Marla basically told you is, we're going to cut out the part where we're losing money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay MR. MUDD: Because you don't have any money to subsidize it to keep it open. So she's basically giving you the days that they're making profit. As long as they're making profit, they've got employees to man the stations. They start losing money, they don't have the employees, then we've got to close, and that's what we're Page 91 June 28, 2007 basically trying to get to the board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What -- presently what is the-- your yearly fee charge for a family? MS. RAMSEY: For the annual, for a family, I think it's 190. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So would that be a possibility of something you'd look at there also or what? MS. RAMSEY: We have looked at that. As a matter of fact, we have the capability in our system to see how many times people are coming on those passes, and then from that we can get some kind of a determination of what that is per time. And some of them use it a lot, some of them not as often. So there's probably a break in there where you probably could go up a little bit, maybe another $30 or $20 of it and still have a good project for them-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: -- and still make it worth their while to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's down the road? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. We do not have that in -- as part of the increase in this budget, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. I think that pretty well covers it. Go to Commissioner Coyle, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not finished with the whole department or division, are we? MS. RAMSEY: Totally up to you, sir. What would you like to know? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. All right. How are we supposed to determine an appropriate level of the budget if we haven't gone through the process of examining the way the levels of service standards are established? MS. RAMSEY: When we're talking about the level of service as part of the AUIR? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. Page 92 June 28, 2007 MS. RAMSEY: Well, we use all of those instruments that we've been talking about before, door counts, usage of the fields, number of people coming to the beaches. We use that on a daily basis in our operations. It just hasn't been reflected as a document within your AUIR, but it's not like we're not using those -- that data to help us make a good business plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- you have capital improvement expenditures here; do you not? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. There is a capital budget, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are determined based upon your assessment of the level of service standards we're required to achieve and what we have to offer. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm uncertain as to how we're going to give approval to a budget if we -- if anyone of us has concern with how the levels of service standards are established. And I do, by the way, I have concerns with how those levels are established. So how do we go about resolving my level of concern when we haven't really gone through the AUIR process? MR. MUDD: Can I -- can I help with that real quick? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. MR. MUDD: Let's talk about the AUIR process, and that's basically a projection, current year and five years to the future. As you get, as the board, get to take a look at those levels of service -- and Commissioner, in the past you brought up, why am I building a tennis court when everybody and their brother in the PUD has tennis courts all over the place, things like that, and to draw some correlation to those. And I believe in that AUIR packet that you got the other day, there was some discussion about that, and Marla still has a do-out in order to come back with those particular issues and how it's going to impact. Page 93 --~--~- -,"-- June 28, 2007 And as we go through this AUIR process this year, okay, it's going to have a bearing on future facilities that you want to build or you don't want to build based on whatever you determine you want as a level of service. I will tell you, based on the freeze for vacancies that's there, I believe we're going to be ramping down, and if you decide you want a lesser level of service, we're going to ramp right into that, okay. So I believe based on the hiring freeze for vacancies and the vacancies we have right now, not -- future vacancies and vacancies that we have in this particular division, I believe we will be someplace less than we are today. And if this board chooses to make it a -- to take a lesser level of service, to have something less significant than it is today, that this staff will be where you want to be within the next year. So I believe you're pretty safe on that one. Now, I did mention earlier -- and I'll mention it again because that has to do with this department. You have two libraries on the books right now. We've done design for the South Regional Library and we are about ready to give a notice to proceed on the Golden Gate City Library, okay. I would recommend -- and I really still mean this. I would recommend, based on, you know that article, that correspondence that's saying we're booming as far as the country is concerned as far as new people are coming in, that we're going to need those in the relatively near future. I also know that we're not going to get a better price to build those particular facilities. Now, we will probably have some debt service we have to carry on it. We will probably have to air-condition it to a certain extent, okay. But are we going to stack it full of books and are we going to put people in it? I believe that's a decision for this board in the '09 budget. I believe the decision of this board is to still -- my recommendation is you still build those facilities because you're going Page 94 June 28, 2007 to need them, and you're not going to get a better price for it. That's my cut at that one. And so, as far as AUIR is concerned, that's really the only two things you got on the table that talk about, you know, building it now and recouping some expansion. As far as that's concerned, everything else that Marla's got in her capital budget pretty much is repair and maintenance -- MS. RAMSEY: Correct. MR. MUDD: -- of those particular things, and maybe a storage shed at Eagle Lakes Park that she's building, and that was part of a phased three- or four-year process that she was getting done. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have some very dedicated and committed citizen advisory boards or citizen organizations that are supportive of museums, libraries, and parks and rec., in general, I would guess. To what extent can we depend upon those organizations perhaps to provide some voluntary services to help us? MS. RAMSEY: We do have quite a few hours that are provided by the public. I mean, an example of that is, our youth sports program would not survive if we didn't have volunteer coaches. And a lot of people don't realize that, but all those people out there helping those, you know, 10 or 15 kids are all volunteers. We have a huge number of them. DAS has a huge number of volunteers coming in walking dogs and doing volunteer work for us, and human service has the RSVP program, which is all volunteer based. And the museum, of course, has a number of docents that come in and help with the gift shops, et cetera. So we are a division of volunteers and we're continuing to impress upon people to come and help us so that our level of service can stay high and do that via volunteer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. MR. MUDD: But Commissioner, I believe, based on what I've supplied to you earlier this morning, we're going to need to have a Page 95 June 28, 2007 heightened awareness and ask for volunteers through RSVP, you know, Marilyn getting a little bit hotter on the Library Advisory Board to get them tuned in because, you know, she could be short librarians that she can't hire, and somebody's going to have to check books in and out, and I believe she can train those folks how to check books in and out and how to put books back by the Dewey Decimal System where it belongs and what shelf and do that, and they don't have to have a Ph.D. or a masters degree. And I think there's a lot of things they can do with volunteers to keep our libraries at the high state of customer service that we're presently providing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just going to ask about the libraries, but I think you've mostly answered my question. We're going to be voting on whether to proceed with these libraries, right? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I gave you a recommendation on what to cut in order to do it, and I'm telling you, in your budget, those libraries are being built, and I have not made a recommendation to cut that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I just wondered, will they be -- do we need to apply for books or people, or is that going to be next year's budget? MS. RAMSEY: That would be next year's budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next year's. But they won't be built in time for people to be in there this year? MS. RAMSEY: No, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: I think we're looking at like January or February of'09. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: So we're in next year's budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that pretty well concludes it. I see no more questions from the commissioners. Page 96 June 28, 2007 Thank you very much for what you do for Collier County. MS. RAMSEY: Thank you. MR. MUDD: Do you have any questions on her capital projects? I think we pretty much hit them on an overview. But if you've got specific questions, Marla and her folks will be here, so -- MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I don't see any here. MS. RAMSEY: Just a comment on that. All of the ones that are listed in the -- as far as growth related are either a Margood, North Collier Regional Park, and an additional slide, and the South Park in Immokalee, which is something that we're asking the feds to give some additional funds for, and Sugden Park needs another rest room over by the water ski area. So those are the projects we have on the expanded list for you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, one more question. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking about upgrading, a little bit, Eagle Lakes Community Park, a while back, I don't even remember, but you were going to add -- I don't think they have a community center. They don't have a -- MS. RAMSEY: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait -- I mean a-- MS. RAMSEY: It's not in this budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. RAMSEY: It is not in this budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next division that you'll hear from is admin. services. That was a major water break yesterday that we saw going out. We hit it dead on the head. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought -- it was in the paper this morning, and I thought of you right away. I was just riding the wires. Page 97 June 28, 2007 MR. MUDD: Okay, Len. Go. MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The budget that is before you came in at budget guidance as set forth prior to tax reform. The specific cuts that the county manager laid out for you will impact us in terms of one expanded position and whatever the hiring freeze is going to yield for us. What does that mean for services to the departments? It means that we're going to have to do a good job of prioritizing, handling the most important things first, communicating with our customers so that they know what to expect from us, and I'm afraid it may mean that people are just going to have to wait just a little bit longer for some servIces. But we are going to look very deep within organizations to try and do things a little bit better, a little bit quicker, so that the pain isn't felt tremendously. Other than that, I would open the floor up to any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: In what areas were you going to make budget cuts? MS. PRICE: We're not actually cutting anything. It's just wherever the vacancies fall. Right now we have six vacancies. A couple in IT, a couple in facilities management, one in purchasing, and I can't recall where the last one is, maybe one's in fleet. But we're not going to replace those people right off. We're going to move folks around to try and make sure that the most -- the highest priority functions are handled. In some areas we have some very good cross-training. In other areas we may have to cross-train. And like I say, that's where our budget sits right now. Turnover is really going to be the key for us in this next year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Barry, how many openings do you have in IT? Page 98 June 28, 2007 MR. AXELROD: I believe we're going to be sitting with two openings. Barry Axelrod, IT Director, for the record. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have you ever looked at what the cost -- if there would be a cost effectiveness if we contracted IT out or whether we kept it in-house? MR. AXELROD: Yes. We've -- we have benchmarked with a number of communities in the area. As you know, Lee County has a completely out-sourced IT department. There are other IT departments that have parts of their IT staff that are -- that are out-sourced. But I've had this discussion with many people here as well. The problem is, is that in certain skill areas, for instance, you know, when we made a decision years ago with janitorial services, you actually saved direct costs because the government salaries could have -- you know, with benefits, were higher than the direct salaries and pay. F or the skills that we have, the commercial fees that you pay are multiples of what we pay staff. So there's no cost savings and it costs more, although there was a UFR request that we had this year that's been cut because we have users now that use our services in excess of the hours we support the network. We're basically a Monday through Friday, eight to five, one-shift operation, and we have people who depend on the network services beyond those hours, and that would be an area where we would -- as opposed to adding staff, we would look at contracting out. Again, that was -- that was not a possibility this year due to the budget situation, but we continue to look for effective ways to add and augment our staff with contractors. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will you be able to keep the system up 24 hours a day as you do now? MR. AXELROD: We don't keep the system up 24 hours a day now. We have -- we have a maintenance window in between 11 o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning where we do maintenance. Systems go down. And we don't have too many times Page 99 June 28, 2007 where we have to tell customers about critical services that go down in between those hours. On weekends, we don't have any means of supporting a break fix at this point. It's kind of a courtesy best effort. Again, we just recently surveyed our customers about that, and we're going to be talking with some of our customers, especially in the utilities division where we're starting to provide service for mission-critical areas there where we will be looking at extending services, but they will be, you know, given essentially what the cost and service trade-offs are there, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In-house contract, basically? MR. AXELROD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I was going with this is that there's a lot of time that, on the weekends, I can use my computer and get onto the network and download my email. That's, I guess, where I was going with this, is that will be still available as long as the system's up and running? MR. AXELROD: Yes. You know, the nice part about this is that unless something goes wrong, you know, or somebody touches something in an inappropriate manner, the systems are stable and they stay up. But we do need those dark hours, those maintenance windows to make changes to the network without affecting the productivity of the rest of the county staff. So generally speaking, things are -- things are up. But when they break, we have a limited capacity to respond. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean like when I'm on there at one o'clock in the morning and all of a sudden it stops and -- that's when you're adjusting it? MR. AXELROD: Yes, absolutely. Page 100 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know all of a sudden I'm not talking to anybody anymore. Thank you. Just playful. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Strange that you mention that. I mean, occasionally late at night I'll be at work at it and I'll send an email to a staff member and I get a reply back. You wonder what in the devil they're doing up that late at night. Yes, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This question is directed to Skip. Skip, how does your budget look as far as maintenance of facilities and also making sure that the buildings are properly secured? MR. CAMP: Sir, I think we have an adequate budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good answer. Good answer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Short, sweet, to the point. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, it was. Is there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Your services are very valued. MS. PRICE: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MUDD: That brings us to the Public Utilities Division. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, is public utilities considered fee driven? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Except for Mr. Smith and pollution control, and they are -- and they are run with a millage rate that was voted in, but they will also roll back, and you can ask Mr. Smith about his particular issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what's the good news, Mr. DeLony? MR. DeLONY: Sir, we're wherein your guidance. That's the good news. You gave us a guidance to be at 6 percent. Page 10 1 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Roy, there's more down here. MR. DeLONY: This budget comes in at 5.2 percent on the operating side, the aggregates with reserves at about 5.88. But we're below that. Even though we have got increased demand for our services both in -- on all three functional areas, but accommodating for that, we still are going to be able to stay within your original budget guidance that you gave this division in February. That's the good news, SIr. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning has a question, then Commissioner Halas. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got an increase of 12 and a half personnel, 12.5? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, that is in this budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page can I find that on? MR. DeLONY: Tom, expanded would be in the individual department budgets, and there's a roll-up on page -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or maybe -- maybe just give it to me orally. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We can go through it by department, if that's the way you'd like. Would that be good? MR. MUDD: Place to start. MR. DeLONY: Would that be a way to start? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tell me what each person -- MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is going -- MR. DeLONY: Okay. Start with water department, Paul. Yeah, your expanded positions, commenting on what they are. MR. MATTAUSCH: Sure. For the record Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. And let me go to the four expanded positions that this is being proposed in the budget. And if you would go to -- let me make sure I get the right page for you, Commissioner. Page 102 June 28, 2007 Page 24 is the first of the four additional requested FTE positions. It is for a wellfield maintenance specialist, and the cost benefit ratio of this position is 3.6 to 1. And I'd be glad to take any specific questions about that position. It's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. MATTAUSCH: -- a wellfield maintenance position. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate it. I wrote it down, SIr. Thank you. MR. DeLONY: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next one. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. George with wastewater. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's just one. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah, that's one. Let me -- the second and third requested positions are found on page 25. That's for a senior crew leader and an operator at the recently expanded South County Regional Water Treatment Plant. The cost benefit ratio for the first of those two positions is 2.7 to 1. Cost benefit ratio of the second position, the operator position, is 2.2 to 1, and both of those positions, as I said, are for the recently expanded water treatment plant. The expansion was a 60 percent expansion, in fact, of capacity. The fourth, the final requested position, also is on page 25. That's for an additional senior operator at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. Cost benefit ratio of that is 1.9 to 1, and we have a significant project in expansion that's coming up that I need to have staff ready to go to operate that facility, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MATT AUSCH: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That does. Final question for you, what's the effect on the ratepayer? MR. MATTAUSCH: The overall effect, the four positions cost $208,800 to the ratepayer. The net effect, I think I would have to refer Page 103 June 28, 2007 to Mr. Wides on. MR. WIDES: Yes, sir, Commissioner, to answer your question, the ratepayers -- these positions were contemplated in our rate study that we brought to you last year on June 6th at that point in time, so there's no additional effect. MR. DeLONY: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. You'll just get CPI? MR. WIDES: Correct, essentially. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is that true with sewer? MR. DeLONY: Essentially, yes, sir. All that rate study included these types of these positions. We figured at that time, or at least we estimated at that time that we would have some need for additional staff when we wired that into that rate study at that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you answered my questions on those two services then. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Okay. Then we'll go to Mr. Y onkowsky, which is also answered the same way, but he had some expansions in his shop as well, unless you -- unless you -- that answers those questions as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That answers those questions. What's -- really I just want to know what's the effect to the customers? MR. DeLony: The effect on the customers is in the existing rate structure, which this board's already approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So those answers are all there. MR. DeLONY: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what about solid waste, do we have -- MR. DeLONY: Sir, we have one expanded half -- 1.5 FTE there, and that was covered in -- is being covered in this year's solid waste fees. And if you would, Tom -- John, excuse me -- John, if you'll go to that page with the -- with the solid waste fee structure, please. Page 104 June 28, 2007 MR. YONKOWSKY: That page in the -- MR. DeLONY: Go ahead, John. MR. YONKOWSKY: -- budget, Commissioners, will be-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 35. MR. YONKOWSKY: It's on page 37. MR. DeLONY: Three seven. MR. YONKOWSKY: And that starts the mandatory budget. MR. DeLONY: You need to speak into here a little bit better, okay. MR. YONKOWSKY: On page 37, Commissioners, is where the fund 473 or the mandatory trash collection budget starts, and the fees will be -- the fees for next year will be on the back on page 38. COMMISSIONER HENNING: '07. They're actually going down? MR. YONKOWSKY: No, sir, they're not. They're going up 4 percent. MR. DeLONY: Four point one percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I see this. MR. DeLONY: Page 38, John. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see how it's laid out. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, page 38. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next would be Commissioner Halas. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Basically you're just catching up with the spurt of growth that took place the last three or four years; is that correct? MR. DeLONY: Sir, we are sustaining compliance at this time, and we're also sustaining demand. We caught up in that regard, yes, sir. What is critical for us is to stay there, and not only to stay there, Page 105 June 28, 2007 but to improve our position relative to that demand and then posture ourselves correctly for the future. And yes, sir, I believe we've -- I'm not going to say we've turned the corner, but I feel a lot better than I did five years ago when I came here, I can tell you that right now, with the posture that the facilities and the staff is in today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We all do, too. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, ma'am. I know you do, and I appreciate you saying that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And whereabouts do you stand as far as reserve capacity; do you have any idea? MR. DeLONY: Sir, I have that. We look at that every single day, for lack of a better term, but we particularly pay attention to it as we do our annual utilization inventory report. And as you know, we -- it's a simple, you know, math test of how many people we project to be served -- to serve, time and level of service standard in the case of water. It's about 185 gallons per day per person. We do that math, that's the demand. Look at our current and planned online capacities as dictated and laid out approved by this board in our master plans, and then we make those adjustments and come back to you through AUIR. From that AUIR, then we reroll our master plans, if necessary, and then we will set in motion the financials associated with the rate studies, the impact fee studies, and the financial plans. I don't know if I answered your question directly or not, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, you answered it. The other question I have for you is, where do we stand with reclaimed water and trying to preserve that commodity? MR. DeLONY: We're selling everything we can. That's not the answer you want to hear though. I think the answer for you is, I owe you a policy, and I'm going to have that in here before the first of October recommending to you a policy on how we go ahead. And the policy's going to be predicated on some guiding principles, primarily Page 106 June 28, 2007 looking at the offset savings and potable water demand, going after high payoff customers who would be using potable water instead of reclaimed water. That's the -- that's the short answer. From that we will move then to see where we are in terms of the market, in terms of our ability to serve, and then how can we look at that in terms of best value. One of the ways we would probably do that is look at -- potentially look at -- potentially you're looking at supplemental waters where we'd either have an arrangement to get additional raw water from shallow wells on a nonroutine basis, problematic from right -- given today's drought, and some of the permitting conditions in South Florida, or withdrawal from surface sources. What will be critical to all this is continued progress of our underground storage capabilities whereby when we have excess treated effluent, that is wastewater from our plants and it's rainy season and nobody wants it, instead of us discharging that, putting it in storage capacity, then leveling that supply against the high demand periods during the dry season. As you know, sir, we have five of those planned. We currently have one in the ground. We're just now starting operational testing for permitting of that, so I think that's a critical linchpin. But in front of all that, to really get this right, I need to layout for you a recommendation of a go-ahead policy, and from that policy, receive direction on how far we take this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you also looking at the aspect of pulling water out of the Golden Gate Canal? MR. DeLONY: Sir, I think surface water supply that would augment is certainly something that we've -- going to look -- want to look into and have looked into. Weare currently -- Mr. Anderson is serving with a task force of folks that's looking at how we might do that in the water quality park, maybe have an intake structure there. Clarence Tears from South Florida Water Management District Page 107 June 28, 2007 has been very ably ready to work with us in how we might tap into that, but to date, I have nothing cited, and without that policy, I really have no go-ahead plan that I can come back to you that's meaningful. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that would be included, your policy program, would also -- would that include distribution system for this type of water so that -- MR. DeLONY: That's very challenging. As you know, the City of Naples is going through that, as is the City of Cape Coral, of going through and retrofitting old established neighborhoods and bringing in new lines. And I would just submit to you, that's going to be highly problematic and be highly expensive. But within the policy context, if it's the decision of this board to begin to do that and we can find a cost feasible way to do it, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think it would save on our resource of good, clean water. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, but it's just -- you know, it's a matter of he who benefits pays, he who pays benefits, and that's got to be done at best value, and that's the Rubik's Cube that I believe that a good policy will help us arrive to, and that's what I owe you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I think you guys -- everybody there is doing a great job. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a very minor issue so that we won't have any misunderstanding in the future. I really like the idea of quantifying the benefit of having expanded positions. The formula would be more accurate if you called it the benefit to cost ratio rather than the cost to benefit ratio because -- MR. DeLONY: I understand, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the way you're using it now -- MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you've got it backwards, okay. Page 108 June 28, 2007 MR. DeLONY: I got it. I got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: I'm a little embarrassed, but I got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. DeLONY: I guess, you know, in the utility business, we do look very, very quickly at our cost, and then we assume, by the value of the services we bring, we're a benefit. But I understand exactly your point, sir. It's more businesslike in our approach. I understand, sir. Thank you, once again. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's just -- MR. DeLONY: I got it. I know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- putting the denominator in the right place, that's all. MR. DeLONY: It's a way of thinking. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that exhausted all the questions the commissioners had. Thank you very much for being here. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to debt service, and Mr. Michael Smykowski will handle that particular item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon. For the record, Michael Smykowski. There are 10 active debt service funds, and debt service represents the payment of principal interest on either loans or long-term bonds that the county has issued to finance long-term capital projects. Overall debt service budgets increased 6.8 percent. There are a few noteworthy highlights. Within the Caribbean Gardens, on the zoo debt, we are aggressively paying down principal to retire that as quickly as possible. We would anticipate repayment in full would occur in fiscal year 2010. In the fund 215, which is a sales tax bond issue, there's one element of that in the forecast that includes CDES cash defeasance of Page 109 June 28, 2007 their portion of outstanding debt. That has gone to the board via separate executive summary. The Pine RidgelNaples Industrial Park. We went to the board this year. We talked about it last year. We have paid off in full all the outstanding principal and interest on that. So where there was a -- an adopted budget for debt of only 4,500 -- we've actually paid $5.6 million. That has been paid off. The issue there, we talked about it with the executive summary we brought to the board before the payment was made, is the use of the outstanding residual cash in that fund. That was initially used to finance improvements within two industrial parks, the Pine Ridge and the Naples -- Naples Production Park debt. We will -- are working currently with bond counsel to determine the appropriateness of the use or disposition of the residual cash within that fund. And that's principal -- there's little financial latitude here. Obviously it's not unlike a mortgage where you have principal and interest payments for financing a home. The county is no different except that it is financing capital projects rather than a personal residence. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, what's the -- on your -- the top chart, you have debt service, the principal. What is -- do you know off the top of your head what the total amount of that loan is? MR. SMYKOWSKI: For which bond issue are you referring to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it doesn't have a -- it says, debt service principal, and you're applying $42 million to it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is the sum for each of the outstanding principal payments. Each of the bond issues has an amortization schedule. If you would like the specific principal and interest payments -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no. I just want to Page 110 June 28, 2007 know what the total debt is. I don't expect you to give that to me today. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that's a lot of information. I just want to see -- looking at the interest that we're paying on it, I just want to see -- and I know we're getting good loans, but that's a combination of $65 million a year that we're paying between principal and interest. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. Yes, it is. Now, large components of that though are tied up in your gas tax bonds and long-term sales tax bonds. You have $11 million budgeted in '08 for principal on the Caribbean Gardens loan. Commercial paper is about 11,7-. The Conservation Collier debt principal is about 3.9 million. 2005, the sales tax bond issue is 5. -- 5.3 million. So the leaders are commercial paper and the Caribbean Gardens. Again, we're aggressively paying that down to retire that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And taxpayers will receive a benefit of that. Currently that's at 8.15 mill. We'll levy that in '08 and '09, and in '010, we just -- we'll have a minor increment remaining, so there will be an automatic tax reduction because that will be virtually paid off in 2010 as well, and then in 2011, in its entirety, that millage will disappear from the countywide tax bill. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The commercial paper debt, most of that is -- or all of that is capital improvements, I assume. But if you could just get me what the breakdown on the debt service, what -- I mean, what capital improvements or what the loan is paying. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, sure. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You just -- you just want him to basically give you a consolidated table. You know, if it's debt for 232 or -- and I'm on page 10 or 11, which is 272, 287, 290. We'll get all of those locked down for you and let you know what the quantities are. But Page III June 28, 2007 every page is a loan that you have and it breaks it down on those particular pages that follow, and we'll -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: For example, on page 4 is a 2002 capital improvement revenue bond. At the very bottom under -- there's a short little block that shows the purpose, and it shows the major projects that were financed with that bond issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it doesn't give the total of that capital improvement. MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, it shows the -- MR. MUDD: It shows you what the debt is that you borrowed to do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: You're paying off on it, so the principal outstanding as of September 30th, this is how much you owe on that particular piece, is $34,780,000, and it tells you when the final maturity is and what the interest rate is, so -- and that's what we're paying on and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on page what? MR. MUDD: That's on page 4. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Four. MR. MUDD: And it's n COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: It's a revenue done, 210. And every page-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right on the bottom. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we do that just to get at the question that you're after right now is, what do we make the loan for, how much do we have to pay on it still, and when is it going to be completely paid up? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Does that help you, or are you still looking for something separately beyond -- above and beyond that? I'd be happy to do my best to provide you whatever you're looking for. Page 112 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I know you do, and I appreciate all your help last year. That answers my question. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We don't have any other questions. Go on to the next item, Mr. Mudd, MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would bring us to management offices, and if I could have those separate directors please come on up to the table. Jack Wert, John Torre, Dan Summers, EMS, fire. And I'd direct your attention to the management offices tab in your book. I guess I'll start this one off. On page 2 and 3, you've got a layout of manager's office, and what I'm going to do is I'm going to spend my time on my two lines which are appropriations by department, middle of the page on page 2, county manager. I've stayed within the guidance as far as the related costs and for the management of my office. I have no expanded in my office. And then on page 4 and 5 and 6 and 7, it breaks out the specifics of those two particular line items. The operational piece I brought in at 5.5 percent, and I brought the -- the related costs in at 5.7 percent. The related costs are itemized on page 7 at the bottom of that page in a table format. Subject to your questions, Mr. Smykowski will do office of management and budget. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Office of management and budget overall has an increase of 5.6 percent, which is consis -- is within the policy guidance and is reflective of the budgeted salary and benefits allocation for the upcoming fiscal year. Operating reflects a decrease of one-tenth of 1 percent. So overall again, an increase of 5.6 percent. And there are no expanded services requested. MR. MUDD: Mr. Wert? MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Good afternoon, Page 113 June 28, 2007 Commissioners. For the record, Jack Wert, Tourism Director. And I just want to take a second and thank all of you for all of your support over the past year in our tourism efforts. They certainly have paid off in a lot of very nice increases and expenditures by our visitors coming to the area, and I think the most important figure that I can report is that because we have visitors coming to the area, our households in Collier County saved $546 in taxes, and I think that's an important issue and an important fact that we certainly need to communicate to all of our citizens. Our tourism budget, as all of you know, it's -- when you served as chairman of the TDC, know that it's split into seven different funds which includes our beaches, our beach park facilities, tourism advertising and promotion and administration, and emergency advertising. And this budget this year does include a request for an increase of one and a half full-time equivalent employees. That amounts to increasing from part time to full time one public relations position and adding a part-time public relations assistant and a part-time sales assistant. We're also including a request to designate $500,000 in the emergency advertising fund to be set aside for emergency advertising that we could use as needed so that we don't have to wait for a county commission meeting to come back, and we'll designate that in our paradise advertising and marketing in their contract when we do renew that, and so that will be all handled contractually. And I just wanted to report that all of our budget was presented to the Tourist Development Council, and they have recommended unanimously both the budget, the one and a half FTE increase in staff, and the $500,000. That was a unanimous vote. So I'll answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have you looked at this to see if Page 114 June 28, 2007 there's any places that you can cut? I know that tourist development funds basically are paid for by bed taxes, but just wondering if you could look at some areas to adjust costs accordingly. MR. WERT: Actually we have, Commissioner. In a couple of areas we have made some -- quite -- what I would call substantial cuts. That has been in our trade show budget. We have looked and have cut out some trade shows that just either -- didn't have some interest to our tourism industry folks. We've also looked at travel, and we've been able to cut back in some areas in travel as well. So overall, yes, we have looked at some decreases. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You answered my question. MR. WERT: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I think that does that with questions. Next? MR. MUDD: Okay. Now just -- I just want to make sure that you understand that the TDC budget did not come in at 6 percent, okay, and it has to do with the revenues he received in that particular Issue. The other thing that I want to make sure the board understands is that all the reserve accounts, i.e., the beach renourishment account that there have been -- that you've been building so that 10 years from now you can do a major renourishment because you've got cash on hand. And the reserve that we need for emergencies for different things based on your ordinance, they've been putting those dollars away. So it's very specified where those monies go, and they've been diligent by following that ordinance to the tee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. MR. MUDD: The next person to present is Mr. John Torre, communications and customer relations department, and you can find his budget on 19. MR. TORRE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The budget I Page 115 June 28, 2007 submitted this year came within your budget guidance. It's an overall increase of2.8 percent, and that does include the BCC operations at North Collier Government Services Center where we have three people serving as customer representatives there. So with that, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a 111 expense? MR. TORRE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't in '01. Are we just -- we just service the unincorporated? MR. TORRE: Well, historically I think it's been 111. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that's fine. MR. TORRE: I think the theory has been that the city has its own TV station that we are -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. TORRE: That there is sort of a specific area that we're servIcmg. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when the phone rings, we just answer the questions ofthe people in the unincorporated area? MR. TORRE: Not at all, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you seriously need to look at this in the future. I mean we're serving all the citizens in Collier County. The people within the municipalities watch the channel, they request services, they get beach stickers, so on and so forth. MR. MUDD: We'll take a look at it, sir, and see if we can separate it out, but it isn't -- it isn't real clean because there is the city municipality issue. For instance, they have a waterline break, whatever, Mr. Torre wouldn't be answering that question. He'd be calling the city utility folks, and their folks could take over in that Page 116 June 28, 2007 particular regard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's just something I think that we need -- MR. MUDD: We'll take a look at it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to take a look at, and there could be some cost shares in the general fund. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The next one is emergency services. MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services, emergency management. I'll take a second and introduce the team here. I have Chief Rod Rodriguez is here from Isles of Capri; acting chief at Ochopee is Alan McLaughlin; Chief of EMS, Chief Jeff Page; our good friend Dr. Marta Coburn here who is our medical examiner; we also have staff here from EMS, emergency management, and Capri, Barbara Shea, Artie Bay and Christine Chase. Commissioners, you're generally pretty familiar with all of our emergency services and public safety activity. I do have a few comments. If you'd like, I'll hit those highlights. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. SUMMERS: Briefly we'll talk about emergency management. We have -- emergency management has met your budget guidance. We do -- we are holding a freeze on a current vacancy for a public information coordinator and trainer. That is one position. Weare also planning to implement a fee for review of emergency plans in accordance with some authorizations that are on the books within general statute. As you know, Commissioners, we excel in many cases with our vigorous pursuit of grants. Our grants and our grants management activity will continue, but as a sidenote, we continue to see more state and federal grants in emergency management and Homeland Security Page 117 June 28, 2007 going to the larger what they call the standard metropolitan areas, the SMAs. That's just primarily a federal change; however, we're going to continue to vigorously pursue all the grant applications and opportunities that we have, but those grants continue to maintain a very highly competitive nature. Regarding the fee for emergency plan review, we're go -- this is new turf for us. We're going to initiate this fee and an improved business process to review the various emergency plans that do come through our door. We do think that other Florida counties, other emergency management offices that I've talked to are also going to institute fees at various levels. But, again, this is new turf for us and we'll get started on that process and see how well we can do. Our medical examiner is a contractual organization. We contract for those services. There are some increases there, primarily due to a renovation and the installation of a much-needed new air handling and air purification system on the campus. So our electrical costs have increased to improve the working environment there. EMS has an increase over -- a slight increase over the budget guidance, which was justified in light of the new units that were directed by you to be placed in service somewhat as a mid budget cycle opportunity this year, as well as rents that are now due to EMS's primary administrative offices on Horseshoe. And again, that is because of our emergency services complex getting off to a late start. EMS is going to reduce the number of job bankers which are funded separately from 001. Our level of service consultants are on the ground today. We've had that kickoff, and staff has done a great deal of work in preparation for that level of service standard, and that work is ongoing. And as you know, we owe you a report on that. Today, and we're very proud of this, EMS presently has zero vacancies. As you are aware, our EMS workforce is a very fluid workforce of young men and women and, fortunately, we are at 100 Page 118 June 28, 2007 percent today. Recall also that we outsourced our billing efforts this year. That was a reduction in force of five staff members. That outsource billing, although just getting started, is going very well. We're making very good progress with that, and that seems to be working very well. Chief Page and the staff will continue to address cost effectiveness of disposable supplies and medications so they'll continue to address operational issues as long as it doesn't affect patient outcome and our high levels of standard of patient care. Ochopee Fire has met its budget guidance, however, is subject to the MSTU legislative budget cuts. Those are under review. We expect no changes in the services to the status quo. There is one firefighter vacancy that will be frozen in this effort at Ochopee. We do have a bargaining unit contract obligation this year that needs to be completed no later than October 1, and we do feel like, at least until things settle, we need to place any discussions on hold for any substations until we can get a handle on that situation. Isles of Capri has also met its budget guidance, however, subject to the MSTU legislative mandated cuts. Those cuts are also under review, but primary -- I'm sorry -- preliminary indications with this cut may include deferring the purchase of a utility vehicle and the termination of an ALS engine program at Isles of Capri. The ALS engine program will not impact the ambulance that's currently stationed at Isles of Capri. The ALS engine program operates with qualified job bank personnel for the augmentation of the ALS program at Capri. Collier County Fire Control, that is a district unto -- of itself, has a contractual relationship with surrounding fire districts for coverage primarily in our rural areas, so those fees for service are based on collections, so that will be simply a contractual change. Goodland/Horrs Island Fire District, that's a contractual relationship with Marco. And again, that is some -- based on the Page 119 June 28, 2007 amount of funds available. We don't anticipate any level of change in service. That will be a contractual obligation. So -- or I'm sorry, a contractual adjustment. So I'll stop right there and see if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dan, just one question. Do you feel that what you're going to have as far as the budget goes will meet the needs of the safety and -- health, safety and welfare of the residents of Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, what I would like to say to that is, today I do. You know, we have a constant evaluation of our level of service. And, again, we have that report going. We're doing a very detailed analysis, and we obviously have to be in a position to react to growth. I will tell you that I think what we have here today is doable. I would also tell you that you can count on our vigilance to monitor that, bring you reports, and I wouldn't hesitate to let you know that if I'm running into some challenges, I'll bring that to you for open discussion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiala, then commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You had mentioned something about they're trying to hold down overtime, but here we have about -- oh, a little over four and a half million dollars. Is that something that in this particular department is mandatory? MR. MUDD: It's mandatory and there's discretionary overtime in the union contract with the EMS folks and with the fire -- and with the fire services, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what -- I thought I recalled that. MR. MUDD: The stuff -- that stuff that we can -- what I call the discretionary part, you bet you we're going to hold down. Now, Mr. Summers started out to say that Mr. Page's Page 120 June 28, 2007 organization is full and he's got his folks trained, and they were going through a six-month training up in those kind of programs and everything's locked in. But when we put this freeze on, based on the board's decisions tomorrow, you know, based on the recommendations, then Mr. -- now it's a mark in time. He loses a paramedic, he doesn't fill that paramedic. And when -- and as we go along, there will be a degradation to the service that's provided, and we will keep you up to speed if we have to take an ambulance off service because we've lost that crew or when it gets there. So it's something we're going to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not going to do anything to harm any health, safety, or welfare issues by a hiring freeze, are we? MR. MUDD: Ma'am, there -- ifhe can't hire paramedics, then you can't hire paramedics. And if you don't -- if you've got vacancies, you can't run an ambulance, he's going to have to run the -- he's going to have to run the issue and he's going to have to report back to this board about what degradation of service that's there, unless the board wants to do something else. If you want to, the sheriffs going to come back to you and say, okay, I'm going to have to not hire deputies to go patrol streets, please, I want to have the same deal that Mr. Summers is about ready to get, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's true. MR. MUDD: -- you've got to be careful where you are here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. MUDD: This is going to have some pain. Everybody said that, you know, nobody's going to -- nobody's going to get hurt and everything's going to be great and all the libraries are going to be open and all the parks are going to -- I've provided a recommendation today to do the minimal amount of pain as far as service to this -- to this community as I could possibly do in this budget so -- and again, it's a two-year issue. Next year you've got to take a look at what we're -- the cards we're dealt with again, and I'm preparing to be in another cut Page 121 June 28, 2007 mode. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners, the changing dynamic, too, as a result of the tax reform legislation is, there are a whole host of other communities that are going to be faced with similar issues, and you've already read fact bulletins, Tampa Bay, the mayor's talking about handing out notice of termination of jobs tomorrow effective October 1 st. So mobility across from one county to another or -- it may also be severely limited by hiring freezes or job eliminations in other municipalities, cities, across the State of Florida as well. So that's something that, you know, hasn't been part of the dynamic in the past but will be something that we'll also be faced with. MR. MUDD: What Mr. Smykowski -- job shopping is not going to be one of those things you're going to be able to do in the State of Florida. If you're going to job shop, you're going to have to do it out of the State of Florida because everybody's either got a freeze on or they're actually firing people. So there's no positions you can actually move into. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner -- is that your phone? COMMISSIONER HALAS: CIA. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, we were going to call Coyle, but since his phone's ringing, we're going to call Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's interesting; Commissioner Fiala brings up a very good point. I was talking to -- this just gives you an idea of some of the things that are being impacted by other counties. There was a county commissioner from Glades that I was talking with up at F AC, and as soon as the proclamation basically came out that was passed up in Tallahassee -- they have two ambulances that cover 700 square miles, and he just -- when this tax relief came through, it ended up that he was going to have 1.2 ambulances instead Page 122 June 28, 2007 of two ambulances to take care of 700 square miles. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd hate to have to drive that .2 ambulance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what he said. He's trying to figure out how -- whether he's either going to use the front or the back of that ambulance. But I guess the case in point is, he said that they don't have any hospitals in that particular -- in that particular county. They either got to come to Lee County or they got to go to the other side. So that one ambulance, when it's out of service, they don't have any assistance. So I guess that just goes to show you, some of these counties are impacted even more than we are, and most of these counties are at 10 mills. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask you a question? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why did he choose to cut the ambulance? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I believe that their budget was to the point where he says, I don't have any other place to cut, that I'm going to have to cut that service. And I forget what the sheriff was going to have to take, the cut in Glades County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the recommendation, he had to cut the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was the recommendation, that they were going to have to probably cut EMS. COMMISSIONER HENNING; yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's keep moving forward. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me about reserves and when we're likely to start adversely impacting reserves. If we were to have a hurricane of the type of Wilma this year or next year, are we adequately positioned to deal with it as well as we were the last time? Page 123 June 28, 2007 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- you ask a hard question, okay. We haven't touched the reserves that we have, all right. We've tried to keep them. And part of our -- part of our budget preparation is, there's a statutory requirement to keep 5 percent, I believe, Mike; is that it? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. There's a 5 percent on the revenue side. That's mandatory by statute. You can only appropriate 95 cents on the dollar. In addition, you have your budget policy rules within the operating funds for contingency purposes and cash flow purposes within ad valorem tax supported funds because you need cash on hand prior to the receipt of ad valorem. Our fiscal year starts October 1 st. Tax receipts do not begin to come in until late November, so obviously you've got to cover that gap period with available cash on hand. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I will tell you is -- for instance, when we did Wilma, okay, even though we were picking up debris and we were working through those particular issues, we didn't go to Mr. DeLony and say, out your -- out of your enterprise fund, I want you to fund that. We took it out of our general fund revenue sources in order to get that done. And then we got repaid -- we're still getting repaid from Wilma. We haven't got it all back yet. And so we got it back in increments. What I will tell you is that we hope the repayments, based on what we're doing right now -- it makes things a little bit tighter to do. Okay. Our window of having any kind of -- where you could wait a couple extra months before you got your reimbursement, that window is getting tighter, okay? So I will tell you you've got the reserves that you need, okay. When you keep nibbling the budget, you keep moving it down, your ability to be flexible in your budget in order to hold on and give somebody a loan where they're not paying you interest, those opportunities seem to fall off. Page 124 June 28, 2007 And so I would -- I would ask, if the people up at the state or federal agencies are watching this or somebody knows a friend, that they are quicker bringing the monies to us as the expenditures go out recovering from any kind of a natural disaster. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What I'm really getting at is the point of whether -- whether we have much flexibility with using reserves to cover other essential services if we feel that, for some reason, the health, safety, and welfare issues are beginning to arise. After the vote in January, if the -- if the constitutional amendment passes, the reductions will be substantially more severe. Now, tell me what your best guess is at the present time, what that would do to our ability to maintain essential services as well as an adequate reserve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Get your crystal ball out. MR. MUDD: Yeah, I'm trying to get through that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me rephrase it just -- MR. MUDD: I guess what I'm going to say to you is, Commissioner, there will be -- if you say that you have to fund EMS and you needed to bring it at a certain level on your level of service, remember you asked a question earlier, you said, how do we do the level of service thing? I said we're going to -- if you were going to make an adjustment at a downward side of the house as far as level of service is concerned, then I believe staffing's going to be there by the end of '08 in order to meet your expectations. But what I will tell you is, if you decide you want a high level of service in EMS or in the sheriffs side of the house and that's where you want to do it, then you make the cuts elsewhere in your budget in order to get that done. That means you can raise -- you saw in the library side in one of the revenues, you charge -- you charge a fee for out of county -- out of county people that want to use our libraries because they don't pay the -- that particular issue. That's the thing. Page 125 June 28, 2007 Well, it might be where everybody pays a library card. There's something un-American about that, but at least in my -- in my book, but that's my opinion, or you raise your fees in parks and rec., or you do other things, or you close down some facilities that you've got out there and you take the cuts from some other place that doesn't have the priority that you're putting on those particular areas. It won't be something that you're not going to see, okay. You might say, hey, the choice is, I'm going to run two extra ambulances or I'm going to cut out maintenance of the medians, or you might say, hey, I don't want to have, as Ms. Vasey was recommending this morning, you might not want to have -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I get it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I think we're getting real far out in left field with this. We're trying to procrastinate something in the distant future. Let's try to stay a little bit closer to home where we are right now. Do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope, that's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I see there's no other questions. MR. MUDD: No, I think we have a couple more departments here that we have to cover, one of which is Pelican Bay. Mr. Smykowski? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on just a minute. We've got, in general fund reserves, over 10 percent right now; is that correct? So it -- to me it looks like you have -- if you want to get at a 5 percent level, there's about $20 million there, more than $20 million. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The general fund reserve currently -- and this in the general overview section, page 6. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 6? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was looking at 3. Page 126 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's eight six mean? When you say eight six, what does that mean? MR. MUDD: I said page 6. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 6. MR. MUDD: Page 6 under general overview section. It says, general fund, 001. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 6 is a summary of general fund appropriations, and the right-hand side page summary is a summary of general fund revenues. But the middle of the page, there's a highlighted area. At this point the general fund reserve is large because it is inclusive of the $22 million worth ofUFR funds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- oh, okay. You're saying that's $20 million of the tax collector's funds? MR. MUDD: No. He's basically saying, on page 6, if you see the highlighted area in the middle of the page that says -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mine's not highlighted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here, on the other page there and it's just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, right there. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you go below there it says, the subrevenues reserve is $38 million, but that $38 million is inclusive of the $22 million that you have on your UFR list. MR. SMYKOWSKI: You have a cash flow reserve of $8 million. The contingency reserve of7.8 is 2 and a half percent of general fund appropriations. The attrition is a negative number. That is the 4 percent attrition. And then there is a fuel reserve. Obviously at this point, with the fluctuations that we've seen in fuel this year, Mr. Mudd wanted to be sure that we could fund our operations and have enough surplus available should fuel rise above an average cost of 3.50 per gallon. Another element of the general fund or -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have a $17 million Page 127 June 28, 2007 reserve? What is the reserve? MR. MUDD: It's a little less than $16 million, sir, in the general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the figure on page, I think,2? What's that -- page 3, what's that represent, where it says revenue reserve? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The revenue reserve is a statutory requirement to protect against overly aggressive revenue estimates and to recognize for the fact that ad valorem taxes, people typically pay during the height of the discount period which affords you a 4 percent discount. When you pay at the end of November, you do not collect 100 percent of your tax levy. So this is a safeguard that is required by statute recognizing that those discounts occur. You may have some nonpayments in things like sales tax. And revenue sharing are obviously subject to market volatility and economic conditions within the State of Florida. And ultimately our tourism is probably a function of, you know, market conditions within the overall U.S. economy and the level to which people -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is that a carryforward each year, or does that fluctuate, or is it adjusted mid year? MR. MUDD: Do we ever see that $40 million, okay, that we're cutting out of the budget? And if we do, where does it come back? Is it a rollover, is it a carryforward, or do you see it as reserves for the next year? He's asking about the 5 percent cut, Mike, just describing it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. No, for the most part that revenue, in large part, is not received. In other words, if your tax bill is $100 and you pay in the discount period, Collier County will only receive $96 in tax revenue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. MR. SMYKOWSKI: So that 5 percent reserve is a safeguard and June 28, 2007 a recognition that those discounts are provided. In the case of a sales tax, if we budgeted $30 million and collected 31, that would roll in carryforward to the subsequent fiscal year. But if you only collected 29, your carryforward into the next fiscal year would be, likewise, short by a like amount. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thanks for the correction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Dan Summers, where do we stand with the EOC building and as far as outfitting that? Have you been able to garner up additional funds from either federal or state? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I will tell you that we are making progress on the construction of the building. The furniture, fixtures and equipment activity for that is still under some review. We have some -- our facilities management, administrative services folks are working on that. We did receive word today, as a matter of fact, that we have met an eligibility for our first draw against the 3.1 million of federal and state money, so we're going to be coming to you in about 60 days. There's three draws for that state portion. There's 3 million in total. We get to do the first draw against the 1.2. And we're still aggressively daily calling Tallahassee to see what other options are out there. Our congressional delegation has also been working with Homeland Security to see ifthere's any grant money to help us with some of the technology on that particular building. So we are -- we are locked in very well on the 3.1 that we brought to you about 60 days ago and already eligible for the first draw. The other activity we're still monitoring, but we are in touch with Tallahassee frequently for grant -- other grant activities. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And Washington? MR. SUMMERS: And Washington, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the land's already cleared, Page 129 June 28, 2007 right? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never saw so many trucks on one property. They're all trying to get that infrastructure in before the rams come. MR. SUMMERS: I'm going to try not to smile and bust here at the table, but I'm pretty excited myself. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to go to Pelican Bay, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Sir, we need to do Pelican Bay, and Mr. Petty from Pelican Bay is here. If he could come to the podium, and between Mr. Petty and Mr. Smykowski, I think we can get through that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure, okay. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, Chairman; thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Pelican Bay budget has been revised slightly since your books were prepared. This is the third revision they've made. I will tell you their advisory committee works very hard scrubbing that budget, and this budget probably has abrasions from all the scrubbing it gets. Like I said, this is the third revision since the initial copy I have received in mid May. There is no ad valorem tax levies. The special assessments that fund capital projects and the community beautification effort are projected overall at -- '08, it's 382.30 compared to 422.98, so it is a reduction of almost 10 percent in the special assessments to be levied on Pelican Bay residents. Again, they have a citizen advisory committee that works very much in concert with Mr. Petty, and they monitor their budget very closely. Like I said, this is the third revision to that, and it has been Page 130 June 28, 2007 voted upon and approved by that advisory committee to this point. MR. MUDD: Now, in our budget books, Mr. Petty, it basically talks for '08 proposed at being $2,760,400. Where does it stand right now in relation to that total? MR. PETTY: It is above that total right now on this fiscal year. So the assessment level is going down. And as Mike talked about there, this is decrease of about 40 some odd dollars per unit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. MR. MUDD: This does not -- this is an assessment, so this isn't an MSTU. And it has no bearing on that pie that we talked about when Commissioner Henning was alluding to earlier as a benefit. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. These are typically extraordinary services that the Pelican Bay citizenry chooses to impose upon themselves through this special assessment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's very well run. You never hear a complaint. I remember we used to hold the annual meetings in Pelican Bay. We'd go there and it'd be just us and the staff, and maybe one person from Pelican Bay would show up. And I think Commissioner Halas paid them to show up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The annual discussions typically focused on, some folks liked the ad valorem who were probably in the lower end units, and the higher end units, those folks liked the special assessments, and that was an annual battle. But at this point all of their budget is funded with special assessments. MR. PETTY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I think that covers it. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very, very much. MR. MUDD: That concludes the management offices. We've got county attorney next. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good afternoon, Mr. Weigel. Page 131 June 28, 2007 MR. WEIGEL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Having reviewed the county attorney budget, I'll just -- your having reviewed it, I'll make a few comments and I'm certainly available for questions. As you can see, the budget comes in well within the guidance direction of the board and county manager. Additionally, I would note that we've had a position that became vacant. I did not fill it. We're not expanding any positions, and that position is unfunded going into the -- going into the new fiscal year. Our budget typically, for many years now, has had some what I call riders with it. One, of course, is the municipal code -- code book responsibility, formerly a board responsibility but moved to our office years ago, and it has a $10,000 function for the upcoming year, which is essentially a statutory requirement to keep it updated. Additionally, through the Article V legislation of the recent years, we have both a $40,000 budgeting requirement related to -- related to the funding of state attorney and public defender for indigent -- indigent criminal matters, and we also have a legal aide society function, which is on the last page of our budget, which is funded in part -- I should say funded totally but through one-quarter of a $65 fee that is assessed through the court system, and the Board of County Commissioners, by statute, has kind of a backup function to fund any under coverage that might occur through the -- through the fees that are paid into the court system. Thus far, it's run rather well though, and so we don't think there will be a problem that way. If you were to have any questions, I'd certainly try to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give us just a second here. MR. WEIGEL: Sure. MR. MUDD: Do you have any? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any questions, but we've got a couple people who are looking very hard at the budget, and I just -- they may have some questions. I just want to give them a minute to Page 132 June 28, 2007 do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't. Looks fine to me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yeah, no questions, Mr. Weigel. Good work. Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that, we're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a hot mike. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Commissioners, on your agenda we just finished the county attorney, and it goes to the BCC. Before we do that, we have some folks that represents CRAs here, okay, and you had questions about CRAs earlier. We have Mr. David Jackson, your Director of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, and Mr. Fred Thomas, I believe, represents at least the advisory board for the Immokalee CRA -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on up, Mr. Thomas. We need you up at the table. MR. MUDD: And they can talk to you at least about whatever impacts they have on their particular budgets for '08 and answer any questions that you may have, sir. And Tom Greenwood is your comprehensive planning person that basically is d-- your staff coordinator with the Immokalee CRA. He's also at the table. MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. David Jackson, Bayshore Gateway Triangle component of the CRA. Just a real quick summary, is that the people that live, work, and play in the Bayshore Gateway area are very appreciative of the fact that you created a CRA to help them remove the slum and blight that was designated back in 1999. The local advisory board is also very appreciative of the CRA and all the tax increment revenue funds that they do receive, and they Page 133 June 28, 2007 don't look at it as a gift horse in the mouth. They know it's a tool to use to remove slum and blight, and they're working on it. We accept the budget cuts as they are entoned from the legislature and as we see them, and we will work within that budget to do the projects and programs that we plan to do to execute the master plan. A message from my local advisory board chairman is that, his pledge to you is to be very frugal in the recommendations they make to the CRA board for projects and for funding of certain other programs. Other than that, I'll have -- answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go to Mr. Thomas. MR. THOMAS: I ditto all the remarks he made and you all are making it possible for us to find ways to do some things in Immokalee. One of our critical concerns is, right now, is trying to make sure we protect the industrial base or increase the industrial base in Collier County, especially in the Immokalee urban area, in the Immokalee area. One of the ways of doing that is to take advantage of our state enterprise zone. I need to find a way where we can use either our CRA funds or get some money budgeted so we can increase that effort. We have let that effort slide for the last two years because of our work on the master plan envisioning and some of those kinds of things to make it possible to increase our industrial base. Because the more we increase our industrial base, the more money we will have for the other soft projects, like the FSU project and some of the other things that were done in the community. So we just talked to staff about, maybe we can find a way or maybe we can contract with EDC and come back to you with a budget amendment, the contract with EDC, to handle our state enterprise zone. If we can do that, then we can get those incentives working, get Page 134 June 28, 2007 them piggy-backed with the things that we're doing with our Chamber of Commerce, with our CRA, to increase our industrial base, make it easier for the people to develop, because the more monies we get in the industrial order, the more monies we will have to work and spread out throughout the community. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you understand how these state legislative actions have changed -- MR. THOMAS: Oh, yes. I just found out when I came here that that 9 percent rollback would affect us. But he hadn't budgeted all of our money anyhow, so that means we'll have a little less carryover to next year. But if we're aggressive in getting more businesses here, that would have a negative impact on us in the future. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Just so everybody understands how this is coming together. MR. THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to know, David -- I commend you for buying up all these dilapidated flophouses and dilapidated trailers in the area. I think that that's a wonderful thing, but we've taken out a lot of money. Will you still have enough money to pay -- to make those payments on buying those things? Number two, will it change your program any? MR. JACKSON: The answer to the first question is, yes, ma'am, we put that in the budget. We've put in the budget for debt service for the entire amount of money that we have in the available line of credit, even though we have not taken the whole line of credit, but it's budgeted there that if we did max it out, we have -- the payments are covered. And from that, then we cut out our operating and personnel side of the budget and then our programs. So we are within budget and we can handle that part of it. And those properties we expect very much sometime by this time next year hopefully we'll have houses coming Page 135 June 28, 2007 out of the ground, then they will be turned over to owner-occupied residents, in which case then we can take that money from the land and the building, put it back against the loan, and our debt service will reduce. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there'll be essential service workers that you're building those house for? MR. JACKSON: We're -- we have dialogue now with the housing department in the county to work with finding eligible people to work in there, and we would love to have essential services people in there if they can afford to be there and they want to live in that area; otherwise, we'll find people in the gap/workforce housing area and try to turn the neighborhood around. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. It seemed there was another question I was going to ask you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can come back to you, if you want. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay, fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Thomas, are you -- sounds like you're in a partnership with -- further partnership with EDC. Are you replacing some operation to partnership with them or -- MR. THOMAS: No, no. We have been working closely with-- EDC has been working very closely with us to help us attract businesses to our community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. THOMAS: The more business we have, the bigger the tax base with a lesser demand on residential will require. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. THOMAS: They are familiar with all of the incentives. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe you misunderstood my question. I remember just a few months ago that you hired an executive director. Page 136 June 28, 2007 MR. THOMAS: We're in the process of doing that, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I thought you were replacing something similar to that position and having EDC -- MR. THOMAS: Oh, no, no. I'm sorry. I missed that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it was just a question. You didn't misrepresent anything. MR. THOMAS: Okay, no. We're going to open up an office in October. In that office will be our executive director for the CRA that's doing the master plan and finishing those kinds of things for us. We will have space for the Chamber of Commerce, and we will have a place for the EDC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. MR. THOMAS: Located out there. Now what I was talking about in addition to that is, years ago, up until last year, the county budgeted out of comprehensive planning 150,000 a year for the state enterprise zone incentives. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. MR. THOMAS: We did not deal with it like we should have aggressively, so we didn't spend the money last year. There's no money in this year's budget for that. So I got to creatively find a way to do it because the legal department says we can't use CRA money for the state enterprise promotion. If we can contract with EDC to handle that for us, we can still make that happen. We had a presentation to us from Hendry County where, because of their working with the incentives, they brought a lot of businesses and increased their tax base significantly, and we need to do the same kind of thing in our community to make that happen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that sounds exciting when you mention that. I think that's your target right there -- MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is grab the EDC right out in Page 13 7 June 28, 2007 there. MR. THOMAS: Yes. But we already had in a partnership exemption with them to collocate in our office. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Two more questions. One for you; one for him. One for you is, who's going to be building that housing? Are you going to contract that out or encourage people to build there? I never did ask that question. MR. JACKSON: The goal is to collect as many of the properties that we can while the market is in its slump and those that are available. And, again, just for the record, that they are all willing sellers. There's no eminent domain, no threat or anything like that. These are people that actually do want to sell their property and move on and go somewhere else. The goal is to RFP, put out request for proposals, to the builders and have them come in and give us their quotes to build the style houses that we'd like to have, Florida Cracker style that fits on the size lots we have, do the RFP process through the purchasing department, select the builders, and then start building. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. I'm very excited about that. And Fred, I was going to ask you, have you been -- in your efforts to continue to improve and build an industrial base, have you been trying to add a variety of home prices in there to support bringing in high-level jobs? MR. THOMAS: Ma'am, we've been aggressively building buildings in Immokalee. Arrowhead is building out slowly, and those are housing that schoolteachers, firemen, police officers, can afford, and we're going to be doing more of that. As soon as we can get our master plan finished and our Land Development Code established, that would allow the ease of building in -- similar to other central Florida communities. Page 138 June 28, 2007 Weare planning for residential over commercial in our downtown area, which will provide a good source of housing for low-income workers, lower than the schoolteachers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're trying to attract more than low-income workers, from what you were just saying, working with the EDC. MR. THOMAS: We'll have the whole range. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't attract them if you can't house them. Of course, I've talked to you about this before. I was just wondering if you're trying to encourage other levels of housing besides low income. MR. THOMAS: Oh, yes. If you look out at Arrowhead. Arrowhead is a development where you have custom homes. New county extension director built a home in Arrowhead, okay. We also have condos going up in Arrowhead. We have townhouses going up in Arrowhead that are right in the price range for that new -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But more than just that, or is that right now your first effort? MR. THOMAS: We've got a wide range that's going in already, okay. But with the development of Saranoa, you're going to have another 6,000 rooftops of the same levels of housing going in. Our biggest hurdle is to get our Land Development Code such that we can compete with Polk County and Hendry County to get development here because everybody knows that that existing code is good for the coast because you can get those rents and those sale prices for the coast. We can't get those same things in interior, so we've got to get a slightly different code that allows for ease of development, and that's what we're working on through our CRA support of our master plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. I -- any other questions? Page 139 June 28, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, I think that concludes it. We thank you very much for being here today and for what you do for the community. MR. THOMAS: And we invite you all to come out anytime you want to drive through and see our progress. And hopefully, as soon as we get our master plan done, we've lost the existing consultant, but we've found a creative way to get some more consultants back on target, and now we've just got to find a way to deal with the state enterprise monies and we'll be okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Mr. Thomas just extended a personal invitation to anyone commissioner that would like to come out to get a real tour -- MR. THOMAS: I said for all of you to come out and visit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One at a time. MR. THOMAS: Oh, okay, one at a time. I forgot the sunshine law. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fred, I've just been out there less than a month ago. MR. THOMAS: You didn't come me, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was on the bus. I was on the bus. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're in trouble. MR. THOMAS: Got to come to me and let us sit down and break bread together, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Have a nice ride home. MR. THOMAS: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. JACKSON: Thank you for your time. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the Board of County Commissioners' budget, Ms. Filson. MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, my budget is under tab Page 140 June 28, 2007 BCC, and it's page 5. I have no expanded services. In fact, I've only increased one line item in budget, and that's F AC, which I have no control over, and that increased 4 percent. And I'm available for any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Every one of the lights just went on. MS. FILSON: I expected that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion to approve a raise for the county commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Ms. Filson. COMMISSIONER HALAS: For all your work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job, Sue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What now, sir? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that basically has gone through our agenda for today, and then we start up again tomorrow morning at nine a.m. with the constitutional officer. I did -- there was one other -- there was one other component of plan this morning that I forgot to talk to the board about, and I'd like to do that now and we can think about it over this evening and we can discuss it more tomorrow. One of the things that I also recommend is that -- remember where we do merit and bonus two different ways for two different people depending on where they are in the range of the salaries. And I believe if -- it will not have an impact on the '08 budget, but it will have an impact on the '09 budget, in -- and set ourselves up for further cuts. My recommendation is that we no longer put merit in pay, that everybody gets a bon -- everybody that deserves a bonus would get a bonus, and it would only last for the year, and it's only -- it's only Page 141 June 28, 2007 basically to recognize what that person did in the previous year, and it would not be put in the pay and keep growing year after year after year and become the gift that keeps on giving. What does that represent as far as a savings as far as budget is concerned? That is a savings of $1.3 million in the '09 budget. I would make that recommendation. I would also make the recommendation that you put the cap back on those particular employees that are at the far top of their pay scale. They are -- they are at a pay scale that basically is the highest that the market will demand, and then you put that back on. What does that mean in '08? That's about $100,000, and it will be close to a quarter of a million dollars in '09 with that particular Issue. Those are the two parts. Don't really have an effect on '08, but it basically sets you up for '09 so that you can -- you can at least garner those kind of cuts already in that particular budget, and that was something I failed to mention to you this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I got two things. For me, instead of cutting government service, I'd rather cut those things out completely because that's what I -- all I heard was, in this budget meeting, is about cutting service and, in fact, the -- and I apologize for not being here, me coming here late. I thought I had enough gas to last me through the lunch period, but obviously it didn't happen. Particularly I wanted to talk about the beach fee. Every year we deal with this issue. Every year it goes up, and it seems like it has doubled in the fee since last year, and every year we say no. And I was -- I would hope that the board would send the message that we're not going to deal with this again and you need to cut in other places besides charging a beach sticker fee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To keep it as is and find other cuts rather than charge our residents? Page 142 June 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. I don't know what changed from last year to this year that it would double or even mcrease. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. What is the present fee now? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's no fee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't think there was. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's just a transfer of monies from one kitty to the other. MR. MUDD: It's out of ad valorem monies, and you basically transfer money to the City of Naples out of the general fund monies. And Marla doesn't have it -- to adjust the budget. You pay about $480,000 right now to the City of Naples on ad valorem in order to -- the county residents so that they can use their particular parking spaces in the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the reference Henning had about -- Commissioner Henning about doubling? Because it would be a million something now. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That additional revenue would offset some other things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I understand that. And you know I'm not a supporter of it this time. I'm willing to let the discussion go forward, but I don't see at the end where I'm going to be there. You know, I do think that there's some amenities that people of our county have come to grow and expect. I think that we need to give something back to the residents that live here full time. That's just my own personal opinion, and as we get into it and we make that decision, I don't see where I'm going to change my mind on it. I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, did you have something else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't mean to cut you short. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what we have done is, like Page 143 June 28, 2007 the county manager says, it will get at other things by increasing it at 50,000 (sic). It actually is increasing the intake for parks and rec., and that money for the beach stickers has been budgeted for years and years. So taking that away will increase something else. What that is, I don't know. And I just want to get done with it. We haven't passed it. Don't get the public upset and load up the board meeting room in September. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you understand what he was saying? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know what my position is on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're saying the same thing as he IS. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It's going to take some magic to pull all this off. I mean, you know, a million -- what is it, a million what, Mr. Mudd? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but he said it includes other things. Did you hear what he said? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ma'am, if -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't just beach stickers. MR. MUDD: For instance, what I guess I'm going to say to you is, ifthere's a million dollars coming in to parks and rec., okay, and they -- they're being offset with their -- with their transfer that they've got in that particular issue, part of it can be used for parks and rec., and oh, by the way, they won't get as much general fund money as they normally would because they have a fee to offset part of their costs, okay. You've got the ability to use those particular dollars in EMS or wherever you want to use them in order to get that stuff done because it's a general fund proceed. So I guess what I'm going to say to you is, if you decide to -- I have no -- I just did a recommendation. I'll follow Page 144 June 28, 2007 whatever board policy that you want to put out, and I will come back and tell you someplace else I can go get a million dollars, and the first place I would go to is your economic incentives of 1.5 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute. Not -- first of all, how much do we pay the city? MR. MUDD: Close to a half a million dollars, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right, half a million? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now you're looking at a million out of the economic incentives. That's what you just said. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the revenues that -- what I gave you was a packet this morning. If you don't want to take the revenues, then I've got to go find a million dollars worth of cuts someplace. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You only are using a half a million. Where's the other half a million? MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, what I gave to you this morning was a program that basically cut $35.5 million, okay. There's 35.5. What you're basically saying right now is, you just put -- I'm not going to -- I'm not going to acknowledge the additional revenue and you want me to go find a million dollars more cuts someplace else because that revenue's not going to come in. I'll be glad to go do that. That's not an issue. If that's what the board wants me to do, that's what I'll go do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it wasn't an equal cut. We just decided to institute a new fee for beaches? MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, what I just -- what I showed you this morning -- now, hang on. What I showed you this morning was a pie issue where it had cuts in courts, it showed you cuts in your office of $72,000, it showed you cuts in the attorney's office, all around, and when I finally gave you the recommendation, none of those cuts were in there, okay? And I basically showed you something that was different than Page 145 June 28, 2007 that pie issue because there's some people I'm not going to be able to get any money from. You're going to be hard pressed tomorrow to get any money from the Supervisor of Elections in order to have her roll back the 91 percent because of the election. You're going to have to find those cuts from someplace else. This is a way to try to get at some of that. That's all I was trying to provide. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I offer a suggestion? I mean, this issue's important, plus you've gone to great lengths to try to come up with a balanced budget. And no, I appreciate it. You did a marvelous job. And as much as I'm opposed to paying fees for beach parking and I'll never support it, I still want you to bring these things forward. Sometimes there's just the pleasure of saying no. But no, the truth of the matter is, where can we make up that million-dollar difference, and I got a -- I got a small suggestion, and I don't even know if it would work. We got to somehow be extremely inventive in how we do things. We got that lake out there at Orangetree that has an unbelievable amount of limerock still in it. The depth of the lake could be increased at probably quite a bit to be able to still sustain some fish life like it has now in it. If we could mine that lake to be able to take care of some of the needs for Oil Well Road, use the money for that fill that we get, the limerock and everything from roads and bridges that we normally have to spend for -- to bring it out of the ground, then maybe we could use that money to offset beach -- the beach access for this coming year and then deal with it again next year. But, you know, I can't -- I don't want us to start picking between beach parking and the economic incentives for Immokalee. I think that's getting to the point that it gets a little bit troublesome. How do you do it? Which one of the children do we kill out there? But can we look at that possibility to see if maybe we might be able to mine that lake in a way that would not be detrimental to the resource that's there? Page 146 June 28, 2007 MR. MUDD: Sir, I'll take -- I'll take a look at that issue. I'm not going to have that answer for you though tomorrow. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, sir. MR. MUDD: But if this board -- if this board just says to me, we're not going to do -- we're not going to do the revenue on the beach sticker, fine. I will -- I will come back to you, okay, before the 24th, we'll give you a highlight of where it sits, and that's where I'll come back with a -- you basically are setting your millage rate on the 24th of July. You already know what the millage rate is. You've already told me what it is, okay? And I can come back to you about -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What if we put that on consent agenda. MR. MUDD: Sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could put that on the consent agenda. MR. MUDD: And I think Mike has to read it into the record though, okay, but yeah, you're -- or we can put it on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think, you know, you've got enough direction from us, from three commissioners, I believe, that this is not a good idea and to come up with alternatives to be able to cover that money that you had programmed with the beach stickers, and you'll look into the possibility of using the, let's call it excess fill, and we'd do it under a management program. MR .MUDD: Sir, I'm going to look at all the possible alternatives, and that's one of them. I don't even think I own that lake yet, okay. Do I own it yet, Marla? MS. RAMSEY: No, not yet. MR. MUDD: I don't own that lake, so you know, you're betting on it coming, and I don't have it yet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, anything I can do to try to keep Page 147 June 28, 2007 everything on schedule, you know. I mean -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- sometimes when things get tough, the tough get going, you know, and that's what we're doing here. We're going to keep exploring ways to make it all work. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dual purpose. You use the rock for the thing right there out in front, the road's right there, and at the same time -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Boy, Orangetree's going to love you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And to be honest with you, the lake is pretty shallow to begin with, and with this present drought we're having, it just doesn't -- it doesn't -- it's not the ultimate resource for maintaining the fishery that's there. So it might be the best of both worlds. We could go in there and take it out, then we'd be putting it back into a use that the public can benefit from. But in any case, I think you've got direction now, and nobody's going to change their mind between now and tomorrow. You've got three commissioners that are saying to the -- charging -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got two other commissioners that want to speak. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, the heck with them. We're done. No, I'm just kidding, of course. Commissioner Henning, did you have anything else before we move on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next was Commissioner Fiala, then we're going to go to Halas, then Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already forgot what I was going to say. I got so involved in this one. Forget me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't give her another chance. Page 148 June 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Basically, what's the revenue loss to parks and rec. through this -- through this redistribution of taxes here in Collier County? MR. MUDD: Can you be a little bit -- can you be a little bit more specific, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm talking about the amount of money that we give to parks and rec. out of the general fund to operate what -- how much are they losing this year? What's the revenue loss? MR. MUDD: Their cut of the -- they're part of the cuts. Marla, you got that on the top of your head? MS. RAMSEY: No, sir. Right now I know that I have 24.5 positions that we'll be talking about. And as you go through that process, I don't know how much that's going to layout to be over a period of time as far as that end of it goes. When you're talking about lost revenue -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The lost revenue that -- your portion of the tax base that we're rolling back would be part of the revenue that you're going to take out of your equation as revenues that you're going to be using to run the parks. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It's specifically out of the parks that I'm not sure that I can answer because I looked at it as a division-wide side, not necessarily just the parks. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, parks and rec. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I know, but sir, I was looking at it with housing and university extension and all the rest of it in it, so I don't really have the specific detail. And we didn't view the million dollars for the beach parking as coming, you know, out of parks. We were looking at providing a revenue source that would help on other -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: To offset your expenses? MS. RAMSEY: To offset everybody's expenses, not just park's Page 149 June 28, 2007 expenses, but to offset, you know -- because if I had to make cuts in the human services side, there would be a lot of people that wouldn't be getting their drugs or some of the other services that we needed to do. So we were looking at trying to raise revenue rather than make cuts. And the beach parking sticker is an asset that the county has, and it seems like it's a reasonable asset. We also thought that having people purchase it would keep the multiple cars from coming out from one family and that would give us more capacity. And so there's a lot of things that we were looking at in regards to that. But to say that million dollars would then go directly into the parks and recreation, that's not how we viewed it. We viewed it countywide, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right, countywide, but that's under the departments that you administer to; is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: No. No, sir, that was countywide, general fund. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: General fund countywide. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing is -- MS. RAMSEY: I will just give you an example though. A million dollars, if you look at a library, a branch library is about a half a million-dollar cut to the general fund. So a million dollars out of the budget is two branch libraries or it's two community centers. I mean, you can look at it from that revenue side. That's one of the issues that we were looking at. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That gives me a better picture of what we're looking at here. So is there ways that we can increase fees for usage of fields? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we looked at that, too, and I did present about $480,000, but now you're talking about increasing the youth sports programs, and we looked at 10 percent fee increase across the division. It was about $480,000 to do that. That -- that would mean that every kid out there who's playing Little League or whatnot would Page 150 June 28, 2007 have an increased fee attached to that. We didn't think that was as good as the, you know, they're $50 for a family to go to the beach on an annual basis. So that's how we did a determination on that. We were trying to get our kids into our programs and not -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: At a reasonable cost. MS. RAMSEY: At a reasonable cost, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so that would help any areas that needed to be supported, then some of this money for a beach sticker would help support some of these youth programs; is that what you're saying also? MS. RAMSEY: Well, that -- yes, because I did give about a million and a half with revenue, and we took a million of the million and a half at the moment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And all I'm going to do is just summarize what others have already said. I -- we're faced with a challenge of trying to make up a deficit in the revenues, and we can do it in a couple of different ways. We can -- or a combination of those ways. We could do it by establishing fee-based services and charging people for the things they use, or we can cut services for everybody. And our challenge is to not cut essential services, try to keep those services going along as people normally anticipate. But the point is, we've got some tough decisions to be made, and the county manager has given us some alternatives. If we don't like those alternatives, then I think -- and I think we probably already have -- ask him to bring back some -- another list of alternatives, and then we can sit down and choose among the alternatives that we like. But I find it surprising that we can charge children fees to play on a park -- a soccer field, we can charge children fees to go to the water park, but we can't charge a family a deeply discounted parking fee for Page 151 June 28, 2007 an annual sticker to park. That is puzzling to me. It's a sacred cow, but it is not a logical sacred cow because it directly contradicts the strategy that we're pursuing in every other instance. So we have to decide if we're going to go with a fee-based kind of revenue-raising alternative, or are we going to go with a service reduction alternative to achieve the necessary reductions in the budget. So the best thing to do is to bring us back some other alternatives and we'll try to find a majority support for whatever ones seem to be most palatable. But I would say to you that the time is going to come when we're going to have to justify these decisions to the public. And if we start being inconsistent in our logic with respect to how we apply those revenues or how we apply the cost reduction, we're going to get ourselves in a lot of trouble. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we appreciate it, and I think we've all been saying about the same thing. I think we've covered it all. Mr. Mudd, are you done? MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm done for today, sir, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're done for today. See everybody back here tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say one thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Again, Mike, thank you very much for all your time and effort that you put into this. I know you've been working many, many hours, and we really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Really, I appreciate it. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:11 p.m. Page 152 June 28, 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ..~..~ #:'ifY" "~ JIM COLETTA, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK .~ 1\ ~'rc "'1") \. ~~/r~ lL Thes~ minutesaiprov~y the Board on ,I d ~ It:}, as presented,. .' ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 153