Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/05/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Bettye J. Matthews Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager Mike HcNees, Assistant County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the meeting, the county commission meeting of March 5, 1996 -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Call it to order also. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, I'll call it to order as well. Mr. Dorrill, could you lead us in a pledge and an invocation, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, as always, we give thanks today for the wonder and glory that you have bestowed on this county. We give thanks for its people, for its elected leadership, and we would ask that you bless them and guide their hand today as they make important business decisions that affect our community. Father, throughout the world we realize there's a great deal of strife, and we especially pray for the people of Israel this morning, the tragedy associated within that country in the last few days, and we lift them up before you today. We'd ask that you bless not only the people of this county but also especially our employees and the many citizens who do choose to participate in the government process and that you would also bless our time here together today. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a few changes today, and we have a set of televisions out in front of us here. This is for a public petition? MR. DORRILL: This is for a public petition and has been arranged and will be removed immediately following their public petition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have it on our morning agenda. It has to come before a public petition. I wonder if we could -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That thing's on wheels; I can see it from here. MR. DORRILL: It is. But actually the public petition will be immediately following the proclamations and service awards. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We have a few changes. Could you run us through those? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. I have two add-on items. The first will be item 8(B)(3) as it pertains to waiving the normal procurement bidding practices for the emergency reopening of Clam Pass. That will be under public works, 8(B)(3). COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We got the permits then to do that? MR. DORRILL: I presume that we do or that we expect to have them in advance of the authorization to proceed. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: We have added -- but I will ask that we continue for one additional week item 12(C)(2) under public hearings as it pertains to a recommendation concerning an ordinance to expand our public nuisance abatement ordinance. The sheriff was out of town last week, but he arrived back into town yesterday. And I did have the opportunity to talk to the sheriff yesterday afternoon, early evening, and I think we have a resolution of that, and I'll ask that that be continued just one final week. I think the sheriff and I are in agreement. We may need to do just a little modification to the ordinance in order to -- to get us where I think both you and the sheriff want to be. I have two requests for continuances. The first one does not have a date. Itws item 8(B)(2). Itws to establish a policy on canal crossing improvements along State Road 29 south of Immokalee. I have some questions that Iwd like to have resolved before we put that back on the agenda. Then Iid like to continue for two weeks until your regular meeting of March the 19th item 8(E)(2) under the executive office report as it pertains to the Collier County tourism committee and an update for the BCC on the tourism market. Thatls at the request of the TDC. I have one item that we would like to withdraw this morning, and we will reschedule only if necessary on the consent agenda item 16(A)(1)(n), which is a code enforcement case for a individual whose last name is Collins. And, Mr. Chairman, thatls all that I have this morning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, do you have anything further? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I donlt. Thank you. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, Iid like to add possibly under county attorneyls report an update on the Wyndemere situation for possible direction. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wyndemere -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thatls that briefing last weekend? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner MacIKie. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Just one communications item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we have a motion, please? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda and consent agenda. Those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Item #4 HINUTES OF REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1996 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 1996. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Being none, we'll go to service awards. We have two service awards today. One is for five years, Daniel Farris from transportation. (Applause) Thank you, sir. There you go. And we have Hichelle McDonald from parks and recreation for ten years. (Applause). CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hichelle's working hard out at the parks. We'll make sure she gets this certificate. Item #7A TERESA H. COX REPRESENTING BREAKWATER CUSTOM HOMES, INC. REGARDING A WATER METER READING - PETITIONER NOT PRESENT AND THEREFORE NOT HEARD Our next item is public petition, Teresa Cox. Miss Cox, are you here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can't have a public petition without the public. Miss Cox looks strangely like John Yonkosky. Is there something we should know, John? MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Yonkosky. This was a request by Terry Cox from Breakwater Custom Homes for the board to consider -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She's not here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is the petitioner here? MR. YONKOSKY: I do not see the petitioner here. Item #7B BRIAN LEITH REPRESENTING INTERNATIONAL FIREWORKS MANAGEMENT GROUP REGARDING A PYRO MUSICAL COMPETITION AT SUGDEN PARK - STAFF TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON UPCOMING AGENDA CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we will move on to the -- to the next one, Brian Leith representing International Fireworks Management Group. MR. LEITH: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good day. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Leith, you understand you have ten minutes including the presentation; is that correct? MR. LEITH: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I just took 15 seconds of it. MR. LEITH: Okay. I'm here today with an associate of mine, Peter Floy (phonetic) and we're proposing a major event for the Naples area. It's one that we hope will capture the imagination of the people of Naples. We're before you today with a petition, and the petition reads as follows: Dear Commissioners, International Fireworks Management Group's purpose today is to formalize our interest in Sugden Regional Park as a preferred host venue for Fantasy and Fire and to conclude the process for county approval of this site. Fantasy and Fire will be our first international pyro musical competition in the United States. In Canada a similar event known as Symphony of Fire has been enormously popular. Fantasy in Fire is a world-class event. Projected attendance each evening is twenty to twenty-two thousand people. Fantasy and Fire is not simply a fireworks exhibit; it is far more absorbing. It is the full synchronization of light with music. It has a strong emotional impact. Companies from around the world will compete for the prestige of winning our first-place trophy. It is our intent to create an international festive atmosphere surrounding the event. The main event each day is the Fantasy and Fire presentation by one of our participating countries. Each country's performance has a unique personality. A panel of five judges chosen locally will determine the best performance. Each performance of Fantasy and Fire will also include other talents to entertain our patrons before the competition. These will consist of hang glider performances, water ski shows, and a night kite show. The final evening's performance consists of a medley that includes all participating countries. The evening concludes with the presentation of trophies to the winning teams. Operating hours would be 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. on Saturdays and Wednesday over a two-week period of time tentatively set for early November. Fantasy and Fire will be funded through ticket sales, private sponsorship, and an application for tourist development funds. Admission prices will range from $15 for reserved seating to $6 for children's general admission. Profits from services surrounding the event are planned to benefit Collier County Parks and Recreation and the Collier YMCA youth scholarship program. Sugden Park has been carefully evaluated by our production people. It offers a safe, controlled environment with excellent access for shuttles to off-site parking facilities and hotels. The large lake and waterpark atmosphere of Sugden Park will greatly enhance the aesthetic feel of Fantasy and Fire. The park site itself will require very little improvement in order to accommodate Fantasy and Fire. Most infrastructure improvements will be of a portable nature and will be brought to the park for the event. The improvements required involve clearing and additional fill in selected areas of the park. These improvements all fall, we believe, within the initial buildout plan for the park. We have met with and received approval for use of Sugden Regional Park from those in attendance at the January meeting of the parks and recreation advisory council. We have received a full endorsement for presentation of Fantasy and Fire from the East Naples Civic Association. Discussions have taken place with homeowners around the park, the fire department, and the sheriff's office. All are satisfied with the infrastructure we have proposed for the event. Naples is a very desirable location for launching our expansion into the United States. It is one of the fastest growing areas in the U.S. It has nearly 14 million people within a day's drive. It is beautiful and has ideal weather for a November event. The economic impact that an event of this magnitude can have on the local economy is staggering. Our initial estimate of direct first-year economic impact to Collier County is nearly 6 million dollars. This benefit could be significantly amplified through local business involvement and festivities surrounding the event. We are very excited about the opportunity of bringing a really world-class event to Naples, Fantasy and Fire. Thank you. We'd like to show you a video now which gives you an idea of exactly what the event looks like. It's an excerpt from a presentation we do in Toronto. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. (A video presentation was shown to the Commissioners and the audience.) MR. LEITH: I might just point out this music is the actual music the spectators are seeing when the performance is going on. (Applause) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You might be able to sell some tickets a little later out in the hall. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Leith, your time is expired. Do you have a request for us, or was this just for our information? MR. LEITH: No. What we would like to do is -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please come to the microphone. MR. LEITH: Today we're looking for approval to use Lake Avalon for the site for this event. We've gone through a lot of the preliminaries with -- as I said, with the parks advisory council and the police, the fire department and so on. It is a fruitful venue, we believe, for this -- this event. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constan -- or Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, when we graciously accepted the Sugden's gift and began at Lake Avalon, we had talked about it being avenue for similar events in a community locale. And I don't know if I thought of something of this magnitude, but these are the types of things I think we were looking for that would draw the community to the park during the summer and so forth. So what I understand Mr. Leith is asking for is just, in essence, a permission to use the park should everything else fall in place for this event. MR. LEITH: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is not a binding vote on future TDC funds. This is simply, you know, a direction that -- that the park is a -- avenue for this type of an event should it come to fruition. And if that's what you're asking, I'd like to make a motion to -- well, I don't know if a motion is appropriate but maybe give staff direction to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Put it on the agenda. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- put it on the agenda. MR. LEITH: Thank you. That's what we are looking for. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you're looking for counting, there's two votes for that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That is three. I mean, I was looking at this and getting chills up my spine, because I remembered from watching the 1976 display at the Washington Monument grounds, which I was one of the million-plus people, and it was a beautiful display. And I'm sure in the 20 years since it's gotten much better. I guess that's three. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what it takes. Three is a majority. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did the direction -- motion then to bring this back on a regular agenda item? MR. DORRILL: We'll schedule this, and they are sophisticated enough to know there is a separate process for TDC funds, and there will need to be the necessary contractual agreement for the use of the site. But they're -- they fully understand all the details, and we'll schedule that in short order. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leith. MR. LEITH: Thank you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You'll be notified when this comes to the regular agenda, of course. Item #7C MR. JOSEPH TRUPIANO, SR. REGARDGIN RESTRICTED USE OF PROPERTY - STAFF TO RESEARCH AND BRING BACK TO BCC IF NECESSARY Our next public petition is Mr. Joseph Trupiano, Senior. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd hate to have to follow that one. MR. TRUPIANO: May I have my friend to come and help a little bit? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can do whatever you want for ten minutes as long as you don't get obscene. MR. TRUPIANO: As long as I -- okay. I own this five-acre land on Willoughby. For ten years I own this land. And first the county said it was wetland. Now I be paying tax for ten years. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir, you are Mr. Trupiano; is that correct? MR. TRUPIANO: And this is Mr. Frenlitolo (phonetic). CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. TRUPIANO: Now, if the county will give me a -- something on this land, I'll be able to do something. But if they don't give me nothing, why should I pay tax for ten year? Now, there's something else that come up. They want me to clean the land, and the guy wants $18,000 to clean the land. Now, you want me to spend another $18,000, then I can't even get a use for one lot, two, or three or four or whatever they want to give it to me or they don't want me to develop. What I'm supposed to do? Tell me. I need help. I can't pay no taxes no more until the county gives me some kind of answer. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I met with Mr. Trupiano a number of months ago on this very subject and had asked him to go back to our development services people and find out precisely why he could not get a permit to develop any of the property that was previously allowed and asked him to move forward in the -- in the process and find out at what point -- whether it's the county or the corps or the DEP or just who it is that's inhibiting him from this and -- and I'm hoping that he's going to tell us today. I presume it's the county, because he's here and hasn't gone to the corps or the -- or the DEP to seek some sort of relief. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I don't understand -- and maybe I need some help from -- from Mr. Gutierrez, someone from development services. We don't have jurisdictional authority on wetlands. That's Army Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District. We have only an ST overlay is my understanding. So I'm a little confused how the county can designate a wetland. And, Mr. Arnold, maybe you could -- if we've done that, tell me how we did it because I'm not familiar with that process. MR. TRUPIANO: Once they said this was a wetland -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Trupiano, let me go ahead and get an answer from Mr. Arnold. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: How'd it happen? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Can you help us with -- MR. DORRILL: And to get the board oriented, my understanding is that this piece of property is about five acres or something less than that, and it's, I'll say, to the northwest of the existing Willoughby Acres. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it zoned ag? MR. DORRILL: I don't know. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services department. I'm not familiar with Mr. Trupiano's specific problems relative to this site, but this area north of Willoughby does contain environmentally sensitive property. Some of the other more recent subdivisions just north of Lakeland Avenue and et cetera have had to go through permitting requirements with the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management District. The county has no wetland jurisdiction. And in this particular case I find it hard to believe that none of the property could be developed. If that's the case and it truly is wetland and the corps is maintaining jurisdiction over the entirety of it, then I think maybe we should be dealing with the property appraiser's office as far as the tax -- tax collector's office in terms of relief in that respect. But from a planning standpoint we have permitted other subdivisions in this general vicinity so -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, what relief could we offer him then for the removal of the exotics? I mean, if the gentleman's been paying taxes on undevelopable property for however many years it's been and now he's received a letter to remove exotics, I mean, that -- that begins to look like -- if I had a mortgage on it, I'd give the keys to the bank. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure what the specific relief would be. But apparently a complaint was given to our code enforcement. That would be how a notice to remove exotics would have been issued. And, of course, he would have to remove exotics prior to any land development activity on the site anyway, at least in phases of development. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But he can't develop it, so why did he get the letter then? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, hang on. We're getting a little head of ourselves. Based on Mr. Trupiano's statement, we've already jumped to the assumption that he cannot develop what is there, that there are no benefits to the use of the land, then someone needs to buy the land. If they're going to keep you from building a single-family home on it, I think they need to buy the land. This is a -- this may be a cost locations issue. What we don't know is what authority has jurisdiction, has issued jurisdiction over this property. It's not the county. We have not said -- the county has not said we're declaring this wetland, you can't build on it, that I'm aware of. We don't have that authority. So what authority has said you can't build on it? That's what I need to know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we don't have that information today. Mr. Arnold has stated he doesn't know the specifics on this case. So what I think my suggestion would be is let's ask Mr. Arnold to research this specific problem with Mr. Trupiano and bring it back to us, if necessary, at a later date. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd also like to know more about the exotic removal letter. If -- if the exotics are related to development permits and he can't get a development permit, then what -- what's the driving force on it? MS. SULLIVAN: The exotic removal problem was just based on a regular complaint of melaleuka that was called in, and we just investigated it and sent out our usual letter. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And your name for the record is? MS. SULLIVAN: Sorry, Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. TRUPIANO: But they want $18,000 to clean the land, and I can't afford to put the money in there until I can use the land. I asked for four lots at least, two in the front and two in the back. We developed the lots two years ago, 15 lots next door, right next door. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Trupiano. What -- what I suggested was that you work with Mr. Arnold. Let him see if he can help you with your problem. Find out the details and, if necessary, bring it back here to the board of commissioners so that we can take action on it. If there's no objections from the board, we'll let that be the direction, and we'll try to work your problem out for you, Mr. Trupiano. MR. TRUPIANO: In the meantime you want me to go ahead and keep spending money on the land? MR. DORRILL: No. MR. TRUPIANO: They keep calling me -- MR. DORRILL: No. We'll stay or we will temporarily suspend the removal of the exotic trees pending a report back to this commission that will probably take at least two weeks. And we will contact you either by phone or letter again when we're ready to discuss, and we'll have a meeting with you, sir, before we bring this back with the commission so that you'll understand and have all that information. MR. TRUPIANO: Okay. Well, I really appreciate whatever you can do because, you know, ten years we pay tax -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. TRUPIANO: -- and it keeps going. Now, they want more money. I was ready to get a permit. I asked for four lots, and they say, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand that. MR. TRUPIANO: If you want to buy it, if the county want to buy it from me, that's okay with me. MR. DORRILL: We understand. Just a simple Irish businessman trying to earn a living up in North Naples. We'll do whatever we can to help you. MR. TRUPIANO: Okay. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I hope when this comes back we'll know what authority it is that has stopped him from using his land. MR. DORRILL: There are at least two, probably three different questions, and it will take the better part of two weeks to get that sorted out. But I believe they involve wetlands jurisdictional issues as well as -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Exotics. MR. DORRILL: -- current appraised value and exotics. They all need to be addressed. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 96-121 APPROVING THE JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE ISTEA ENHANCEMENT PROJECT - C.R. 29 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We'll move on to 8(A)(1), approval of a joint participation agreement with FDOT for the ISTEA enhancement project for County Road 29. MR. PERRY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Perry, chief planner in the planning services department. This item and the following item are two items related to your pathway program. The first item is approval of a joint participation agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation for a federal ISTEA enhancement grant along County Road 29. In 1994 the Board of County Commissioners agreed to sponsor this particular project. There are $233,000 in federal ISTEA funds allocated to this particular program for this particular project. Originally the estimated local match was $23,800. The engineering assessments, once completed, indicated that we would have to overmatch to a point of $93,619. However, in -- in recent history we've had a couple other of these projects where the engineering estimates and the bids when they finally came in were a lot lower than the original estimates. In fact, we will be getting back -- on two other projects we'll be getting back about $69,000 in overhead funds that were not needed as result of the bids coming in lower than the engineering estimates. But the state cannot move forward on the project until they have all of the money committed. There are federal funds as well as the local matching funds. This particular project involves the construction of bike lanes along County Road 29 south of U.S. 41 to Everglades City. Yes, sir. We're asking the board to approve this grant today, this participation agreement, and provide the necessary budget documents to forward the funds to the DOT for their use on the project. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. MR. DORRILL: You have a speaker as well, Mr. Chairman, that I presume is here in support. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The speaker is going to pass? MR. CONWAY: I got caught under the gun. Mike Conway, Pathways Advisory Committee chairman for Collier County HPO. I did want to state that this area is an environmentally sensitive area, and because of that reason when we have pathways in that area, we enhance the tourism for Collier County. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. All opposed? None. Item #8A2 DESIGN AND ONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PATHWAY WORK PROGRAM PROJECTS FOR FY 95-96 - APPROVED WITH CHANGES We'll move to the next one, 8(A)(2). MR. PERRY: This item, Mr. Chairman, is the approval of the first-year priorities for the five-year pathway work program. The Pathway Advisory Committee has reviewed the list of projects included in the five-year work program, has ranked some of those projects. We have provided to you a listing by district to indicate what kind of projects are being constructed. There are a variety of projects, some related to school construction needs. Others are parks and recreation related types of projects. In fact, one of the projects is around the new park that we were just talking about a few moments ago. In fact, I'd like to point out that there is a change in your executive summary. The -- in the fiscal impact the fund 345, parks and recreation impact fee funds, is actually $45,000 instead of the $20,000. That would cover the entire cost of the estimated cost for the Outer Drive Lombardi project which would go around the park area for the new regional park. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Looking at some of these projects, it says that the location will be both sides, south side, east. Some of them say missing links. That's not an anthropological term, is it? MR. PERRY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the Golden Gate area, as you know -- I think all of you know, it was designed and put together nearly 30 years ago, about 30 years ago, and had zero in the way of sidewalks at the time. In the last couple of years we put a pretty good piece of change into the Golden Gate community so we have sidewalks by schools and by our parks. There's one thing our -- between the civic association and a couple of other groups are working on now, and there are alleyways that run parallel and in between roads and properties that have never been upkept by the county. One of the things we're looking at is using that for in lieu of bike paths or sidewalks now, cleaning those up some, looking at also having emergency access for the rear of properties that way and particularly on our main roadways being able to put the trash out there instead of out on Golden Gate Parkway or Santa Barbara or the other main thoroughfares. The cost initially for some of our -- some of the work on that, we've got it broken into four pieces. It's about $13,000. And I understand the way in which the advisory board broke this down and took into consideration that we have given some money out there in good sums in the past couple of years, but I wondered if we could do -- just to make up that $13,000 difference so we can get that project started, if we could take -- and I'm just picking these -- these numbers -- out of district 2 just take $3,000; out of district 4 take $3,000; and out of district 5 take $7,000 because they're getting 93, and that will still leave all of you the bulk of what you need to get your projects done but would allow that to get to start to move forward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think -- if -- if I could, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Perry was just telling us that we need to set the $93,000 aside for FDOT in order to fully fund it. And I would be willing -- if Commissioner Constantine could sit tight on this until we know what the bids come in at and assuming that this will come in lower than anticipated, take that $13,000 from the ninety-three when it becomes available. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be great. Thanks. MR. PERRY: The other -- the other alternative that I might suggest to you is that if you subtract the PAC's priorities that they're recommending to you from the total amount of revenue that's available, there's an $81,000 surplus. That's being held back for contingencies and design reimbursements for your capital projects and contracts to actually design the projects. And there, again, if -- if there's an additional refund, if you will, from the overmatch on the ISTEA project that, of course, could be as high as $70,000 additionally to that. So there should be additional funds available for projects like that or even going into some of the other projects on the list once we get a handle on the design of what you are approving today. And that would simply be another alternative rather than -- if those funds are available after you've paid all the bills, then we could actually go into that surplus for this fiscal year and take it out without getting into the other district. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask, Commissioner Constantine, make sure I'm clear. This is funding for pathway projects. And did I understand that you were saying that -- that you wanted to use some of this money for alleyways? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, the idea of the alleyways is actually because there are no sidewalks or bike paths in the majority of the Golden Gate community, is use those -- use the existing alleyways which aren't cleared and in some instances at this point are four-wheel-drive material and just bring them to a scale where kids and adults can travel back there, either walking or bicycling. We're trying to have a little bike network throughout Golden Gate. MR. PERRY: It would actually be greenways and pathways within the alley -- instead of adjacent to the roadways, there would be greenways and pathways in the alleys. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you also did mention putting the trash out. If you're going to have garbage trucks -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only on the main thoroughfares, Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had two questions, Mr. Perry, if I may. MR. PERRY: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to thank the Pathway Advisory Committee for Vanderbilt Drive. That's one of the most heavily used sidewalks in all of Collier County. I mean, any day go up there between, you know, nine in the morning and sunset, and it's just tremendous. So thank you for that priority. The second thing is on Seventh Street I've caught wind of some recent discussions regarding -- Seventh and Naples Park has a sidewalk on one side. Is this money to put the sidewalk on the other side because of its proximity to Naples Park Elementary, because there's also been some discussion about whether we would be better served by a sidewalk on Sixth and on Seventh instead of two on Seventh? And I don't know where that discussion is or whether you've had it at the Pathway Advisory Committee, but I've caught wind of that, and I wanted to bring it up as a question before approving this. If we can approve it with the flexibility of investigating which of those is more beneficial to Naples Park and the kids that go to the elementary school there, that would be fine by me. I just want to make sure that discussion is had, whether it has been -- MR. PERRY: I'm going to ask Anita Chapman, your bicycle pathway coordinator. She has all the specifics on the individual projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. CHAPMAN: That concern was brought to our attention through a citizen who lives in Naples Park after the pathway advisory had finished prioritizing these projects. If you will notice, Sixth and Eighth Street are both in the five-year work program. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MS. CHAPMAN: And the PAC did, in fact, prioritize Seventh Street based on the needs of the elementary school and the request from the principal of the elementary school that came in while the PAC was prioritizing these projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So Jerry Hartwig had input on that and said this is what we need the most? MS. CHAPMAN: Yes, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's fine. As long as the discussion had been made. I thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve the PAC-recommended projects scheduled for fiscal year 1996 and direct OPC and administrator of the pathway projects with -- realizing going toward -- if we have a surplus going toward the alleyway project in Golden Gate. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me. Is the alleyway project defined somewhere? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. It's defining right now. We have some numbers defined on it right now in four steps, and I'd just like to go ahead and get that first step started. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we say up to $13,0007 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the motion is amended to reflect up to $13,0007 COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The second amends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The second amends. Speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I've got one question, Mr. Chairman, before we call it. Mr. Perry, I know this is on location and design and so forth, but I had some calls over the weekend on the new Golden Gate Boulevard pathway that was just recently constructed. And in that really little bit of rain that we had Saturday morning, that was underwater. Is there anything we can do to take a look at remedying that problem, because this summer it's going to be bad? MR. PERRY: I'll -- we'll have to check into it. I have not seen -- I haven't even seen the completed job out there, so we'll have to look at it and then check into -- find out what the drainage COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's a brand new pathway that went from the library out to Wilson, and substantial sections of it are lower than the street grade -- MR. PERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and collected a lot of water. MR. PERRY: Okay. We'll look into it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's nothing further, we have a motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Item #8A4 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.564 "MCCALL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SEC. 45, T485, R28E, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 54TH AVENUE N.E., ON THE WEST BY 40TH STREET N.E. AND ON THE SOUTH AND EAST BY UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONED ESTATES - APPROVED The next item is 8(A)(4), excavation permit number 59.564. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Wayne Arnold of your planning services staff. This is an item that began as a public petition a couple months ago. Mr. McCall had requested excavation on his property and wanted to off-site haul his material to his brother's residence. But because he had filed for private excavation and not a commercial excavation, we were not able to handle his request. What we have before us is the request to do this as a commercial excavation, hauling the material by licensed commercial hauler to various points within the county in the immediate vicinity of this property in the Corkscrew area. This is an approximately 2-acre excavation. Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Arnold, I notice here a statement regarding dewatering. I know it's a boilerplate statement, but based on residential character of that area and the past history, I don't -- in my opinion, I don't think dewatering would be appropriate because there's really nowhere to put high volumes of water, you know, in that area that I'm aware of. So from the engineering side, I would like to see dewatering either removed, or I'd like to know where the -- you know, where is this water supposed to go when they dewater, because we're talking about significant volumes in a short period of time. MR. ARNOLD: I have Mr. Chrzanowski who might be able to answer that specifically. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I figured Stan might address this. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning. Stan Chrzanowski, C-h-r-z-a-n-o-w-s-k-i, with engineering review. If they dewater, they'll probably put some type of containment on the site. I don't expect they will dewater. They said they wouldn't. The -- we didn't require borings because it's such a small site. We went by the soil survey which shows sand down to an elevation of about 7 feet. We expect they'll probably go the full 12 feet without hitting rock. Dewatering shouldn't be a problem. They shouldn't have to do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just -- your statement that it would be contained on site is important to me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If -- if they dewater, the standard procedure is to build some kind of containment dewatering can work out. Basically you recycle the water, but you pump faster than it percs so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Than it percs, okay. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. MR. ARNOLD: One of the other issues here is that Mr. McCall had requested a waiver of the surety bond which staff really doesn't have a problem with. This is a really short-term excavation, and we are getting our impact fees for the roads and the other permit fees applicable to the site. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion we approve the item, and even though staff doesn't expect the dewatering would become a problem, I would like to have a stipulation in here that they dewater on site. MR. ARNOLD: That would be fine. We can add that directly to the excavation permit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Item #SB1 PILOT PROGRAM FOR WEEKLY YARDWASTE COLLECTION IN THE DISTRICT TWO IHMOKALEE SOLID WASTE SERVICE AREA - APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(1), pilot program for weekly yard waste collection in Immokalee. MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, solid waste department. This item seeks your approval for a six-month pilot program for weekly yard waste collection in the Immokalee service area rather than the current monthly program. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This is just -- excuse me. This is just in district 2 what we're already doing in district 17 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With no other changes? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No fee increase? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #883 FUNDING AND WAIVER OF FORMAL BIDDING PROCEDURES FOR AN EMERGENCY OPENING OF THE CLAM PASS INLET - APPROVED Next item is 8(B)(3), the Clam Pass emergency permit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Deja vu all over again. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Gonzalez, I got a question. This seems to be an annual occurrence here. Is there some way -- what do we have to do to get a continuing permit? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, this is one of your routine emergency types of activities. We're working this year -- we have made progress since last year. We are working through the interim inlet management plan and, as a matter of fact, the permit agencies we spoke to have all said, go ahead, we'll probably give you the permit. Although they haven't actually given us the permit yet, they have tentatively agreed to the concept, but they have conditioned it upon us trying to either pursue a long-term dredging permit or finishing the inlet management which we're both scheduled to do next year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are these long-term dredging permits -- are they adopted as part of an inlet management plan or what sort of a plan? MR. GONZALEZ: That would be one of the recommendations in the inlet management plan, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So not only Clam Pass but other passes could have long-term dredging permits incorporated into the plan and, therefore, we wouldn't have to go through these procedures every time; is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: If the plan would recommend dredging, we would then have to apply for a dredging permit, and that's consistent with what we're doing at other passes. So, yes, we need to apply for a long-term dredging permit. They're saying that -- the agencies are saying -- they promised to give us one more so that next year -- but before next year occurs, have that long-term dredging permit allocation in hand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that -- that would apply whether or not we have an inlet management plan, or does the inlet -- does the inlet management plan facilitate the permitting process? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, because that would be a key component of the plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, we had nearly the same discussion a year ago. And what I need to know is at that time my recollection is that, you know, we were close to a -- a long-term dredging permit or that it was in the works. And now a year later, you know, we're -- we're going through the same steps. And we're no closer it appears than a year ago. Is this because of the permitting agencies? Is it because of not having enough staff time or resources, or have we proceeded with all speed? I'm just -- you know, it's kind of a year later, and it's the same -- the same thing all over again. And obviously I'm concerned about the staff time that it has taken to get this -- this taken care of, and the cost multipliers is just going to be ridiculous unless we can get something long term in place. So I know we're saying by this time next year we'll have it. Do we have assurances from the permitting agencies that that is going to be the case, or are we going to be sitting here 12 months from now having the same discussion and the same expenditures? I'm looking for some insight knowledge there that I don't have. MR. GONZALEZ: I can convey a sense of optimism to you that we are closer than we were last year. Last year we were just starting around -- the process started the inlet management. We were just doing the research element. Now we finished the analysis; we're getting into the public hearing stage of it. And because of that the agencies are willing to give us this one more shot of interim dredging until we get the final plan in place with the recommendations and then possibly pursue a long-term dredging permit. They're telling us that that's exactly what we're going to have to do before next year occurs so that if it happens again next year if -- if we have a bad-weather season, that we'll have the plan in place, the recommendations in place, and the process in place to take care of it truly as a routine matter next year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And will the inlet management plan go further inside the inlet than this emergency opening does, because we continue to get an accumulation inside the inlet that makes it easier for the pass to clog up, yet we're not able to address that larger bulk of deposits that are further restricting the flow? Will the inlet management plan address that area also? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, it should. That's exactly what happened this year. The amount of the pass that was closed this year is greater than what closed last year. It was at the very tip of the -- the opening. Now it's extended all the way from the -- the beach side into the mouth of -- of the pass. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So that will be included in the inlet management plan? We are going to reach inside the pass a little further and get some of those deposits in there after this emergency action? When we look at this next year, we're going to go to that level of cleaning out if we're permitted to? MR. GONZALEZ: If we're permitted and it's consistent with the conclusions in the inlet management plan, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Any speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? There are none. Item #SD1 RESOLUTION 96-122 REGARDING THE 1996 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN - ADOPTED The next one is 8(D)(1), the fiscal -- 1996 fiscal year pay and classification plan. Miss Edwards, while you're coming up, I'd like to take a moment and ask the board members if they all received the memo that I wrote concerning this -- this item. Last -- last week when we were looking at this and in the years past as well, it has been strange to me that the Board of County Commissioners would be in the middle of setting pay scales. It just doesn't seem like it's our function. That's the manager's function, in my opinion. Our -- our function is to set policy and set budget, but within that budget it's the manager's function to set these pay scales, okay. But I just don't believe that it's -- it's our job to get in here and micro manage by trying to adjust this pay scale or that pay scale. So I did a bit of research and found out why we do this. And the reason we do this is because of an ordinance passed in 1983. Number 83-7 requires us to do this. A little bit more history research shows that the reason this was done was because the county commission at that time wanted more oversight over the county manager and, therefore, they passed this ordinance where they could get in and tinker with the pay scales and that sort of thing. I don't believe that's our function at all. I would be in favor of and I will make the suggestion that we rescind Ordinance 83-7, that we look at the amount of budget that is being proposed, let the manager justify any budget that would be proposed in the future, and that we let him adjust the pay scales. That's his function. The matter of oversight is very simple to overcome. We have a third-party auditor on contract at all times, and this third-party auditor could periodically, say even annually or biannually, look at the pay scales that the manager has in place and give us a report independently of what their opinion of those pay scales are. So oversight's very easy to overcome, and this gets the Board of County Commissioners out of the management and administrative function side of the pay. And so I know we're going to probably see a presentation here. But my suggestion, once again, is to rescind Ordinance 83-7. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you that we certainly shouldn't be getting into how much individual positions make or those classifications and so on. I do think the overall policy -- it's important that that come before us. And the example here -- this will have a 2.2 million dollar impact annually, and some of that's general fund, and some of that's not. But it's a big dollar impact overall, and I think the policy needs to come to us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I used several examples last week of how much individual positions were making, and that was not to -- and I think I clarified at the end of the meeting that was certainly not for us to tinker with those numbers, but I think it's important for us to understand where that dollar comes from that you show, just like you did where we're at and where you think we need to be at. But you're absolutely right. We don't need to be tinkering with individual positions within that. I haven't read the ordinance. I have read your memo, but I have not read 83-54. But depending on its content, I'd be willing to entertain that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just like to -- it sounds like three -- three votes for repeal. I, again, haven't read the ordinance, but I didn't understand why we did get involved in the level of scrutiny that we have over particular salaries. Absolutely the scrutiny that we would have would be in the budget process, and we would ask all the questions that we asked last week and are asking today perhaps but -- but as a part of the budget process. This seems extraordinary and outside the scope of policy making that we're supposed to be doing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness to the manager and his staff, I guess we're looking for a budget amendment in order to achieve the half-year, and that's why we're doing it now as opposed to strictly in the budget process. MR. DORRILL: This -- this is officially called a supplemental budget request, and that's why the funding scenario was the main thing. And just one point of clarification, and I discussed this with the chairman yesterday when he asked to talk to me about this. He is in no way suggesting that the board eliminate its policy overview concerning the personnel rules and regulations, and that is an ordinance, and that is very important policy distinction that the board should make, and that is not what we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to stop short of supporting the repeal of something I haven't read. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But -- and that's probably a larger nut than we need to crack today anyway. I like the -- I'm more than happy to talk about it at the appropriate time, but I'd like to go ahead and get today's agenda item done and through, and I'll start off by saying I have no questions. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I feel the same way. I can't sign on to repealing something I haven't read either. I'd like to read the ordinance, but -- but the concept that -- that the chairman talks about I fully support. Our overview is with the numbers of dollars, generally what they're for but not -- not the detail. That's -- that's the manager's job -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and whether we address it through internal control measures or whether we address it through our annual audit, either way, as long as it gets done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I didn't intend to indicate that we were going to repeal the ordinance today. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can't. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Obviously it needs to come before us on a regular scheduled agenda item at which point everybody will get a good look at it. MS. MATTHEWS: I presume, though, Mr. Dorrill, you'll make sure we all get a copy of it, this ordinance? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just asked Hiss Filson to make a copy and distribute it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks. MR. DORRILL: The intent of the presentation today, depending on the extent which the board wants to learn this, you had asked us for supplemental information and a breakdown, a further detailed analysis of turnover. You had asked us for some parity issues. Mr. Constantine asked specifically for a private briefing on the point factorization determination and some of the funding scenarios, all of which do have budget implications next year. And that's why we endeavor to try to answer the questions and provide that supplemental information before you were to take action on the budget policies so that you, in fairness, would know what the extent and the breadth of that is. I think at this point we would be happy to answer questions that you have, and then I have one final suggestion concerning the administration of this before you take a vote. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think yesterday -- or last week -- yesterday -- the weeks are flying by so fast. Last week my only main question that I asked -- asked Mr. Dotrill to address was the parity issues, not only within his own agency, which I'm sure he'll -- he'll manage and solve, but the parity issues between specifically the sheriff's department and -- and the manager's agency. I'm -- I'm just a little bit concerned that the manager's going to have a lot of trouble keeping noncertified deputy people on his payroll and not have them move over to the sheriff because the sheriff is going to be paying substantially more money. And I -- and that's an issue that we've got to address, because we're going to -- this 17 percent turnover that we're trying to address or he's trying to address probably won't improve if we keep paying other agencies more money than we're paying his agency. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, the sheriff's haven't given any of them any raises yet. I don't know what he's done with that money so far. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he's done nothing with it so far. It's my understanding, Commissioner Hac'Kie, that even though we gave him less money than he was looking for, he delayed implementing it until he had enough money to implement it a hundred percent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's still not implemented. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that we're going to -- I don't want to get off on a tangent on the sheriff's budget. You're absolutely right. We cut the amount back and sent a message, you know, pick and choose understanding next year's budget crunch. And it looks like it's going to further invitation, which is creating the situation Commissioner Matthews is talking about where a secretary over there is making X amount and ours is making Y. All we can do is base our positions on like positions in like counties and like living conditions elsewhere. If the sheriff, you know, wants to pay his folks $3,000 more than our folks in the same type of job classification, that's between him and the taxpayers. That's not our job to get into. But I certainly agree to bring it to the forefront. That we have similar job classifications making dramatically different salaries even after this adjustment is something we're going to have to -- to recognize. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, if that budget direction doesn't go where our discussion went a couple of months ago with the sheriff's department, we'll need to decide how we're going to deal with that. That's our decision at budget time, but we'll deal with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we can continue with our item today. Do any of the board members have any questions here for Miss Edwards? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What you put together answered the two main questions I had with you after last -- last meeting, so I'm appreciative of the information you've provided us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? MS. EDWARDS: I would like to add that my staff and I have met with Mary Havenet, who was the employee who came to you last week at the board meeting, and we're working with her to answer all of her questions. And if we need to make corrections, we will. MR. DORRILL: My -- there are no registered speakers, and I wanted to advise the board my intent on the implementation of this is to try and do it as cost effectively as we can. The board will remember last week the consultant told you there were three implementation scenarios. One would only be to bring people up to the new entry level if they are below new entry level. The other two recommendations were to try and put the existing employees in some relative similar position of where they are in their current range. And I just want to advise the board that it would be my intent to look at every individual position to see what is the most appropriate thing to do. That, from my perspective, eliminates any single or group windfall, perhaps at the expen -- at the extent of all the circumstances. Let me give you an example. If someone was a preexisting employee but just received a promotion prior to October the 1st and then they were also eligible to receive a COLA on October the 1st that already put them above the entry level for the position that they were promoted to, I wouldn't want them to receive another extraordinary increase if -- if there's no demonstrated problem with that position. What I'm telling you is that I will probably review and have human resources review every single position to see what is the most equitable but cost-effective scenario. The overall -- what I'm telling you is that while the implementation cost is estimated at the number that it is, I intend to bring it in under that, and it's certainly not going to be any more than that, but I want to go back and scrutinize these prior to the actual date of implementation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to thank you all for meeting with me this week to help clarify some of the questions I had, particularly on methodology. We had discussed and I discussed with the manager a couple of different scenarios and a couple of different concerns. The -- in September our employees received a three or three and a half percent raise. MS. EDWARDS: Three point five. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three point five. And we're looking here average percent on nonexempt is 8.6. So in six months that's about 12 percent. And then the concern had been that in September there's another 3 percent or whatever we come up with during the budgeting process, but that's then in a 12-month period a 15 percent increase. I know a couple of -- I've heard a suggestion from one of the local civic groups -- I don't know if it was on Rich King or where -- that perhaps in the fall we shouldn't give any increase, or perhaps in the upcoming year we shouldn't give any increase. It seems to me that kind of defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do of bringing them up to scale here, but realizing -- I will say this; realizing two increases in six months -- I don't know if there's a way. And this is a budget issue, but I just wanted to throw it out, put it in the back of your head, is either phase in on anniversary date or have a particular date other than October 1 to phase in next year so we still make sure there is some increase during next year, we don't just stop, because I think that kind of makes this useless if we do that. But my concern from a budgetary standpoint is if we -- I understand it increase -- six months later, we have a big jump, six months later we have another healthy jump budget-wise. I want to make sure we still have an increase for our employees but budget-wise play with that a little bit. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, again, let me throw this out, because this is in the county manager's purview to implement this whatever way he feels is best based on the amount of money that we give him. And if -- if he were to choose to implement this pay plan in stages over the next 6 to 12 months -- 6 to 8 months really, he -- he would accomplish exactly what you're here talking about, and we could avoid the three and a half percent COLA by implementing this in stages. And it would also help us a little bit with the budget next year to the tune of -- what'd we figure, Mr. Dotrill, half a million dollars? Something like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's something we'll need to decide in budget policy, but I just wanted to throw it out, get the wheels turning for everybody. We'll decide in the coming months. MR. DORRILL: We're not opposed to the board adjusting the COLA allowance in the fiscal policy. And just hypothetically, if I understand what he's saying, is that in lieu of a 3 percent cost of the living increase for the entire year, the board may want to give something less than that as a budgetary savings mechanism, which would then force me to give 3 percent but wait until midyear, which would save one and a half percent of the total payroll. That's one of those mechanisms that I think probably needs to be discussed briefly as part of the next item for directions and to prepare the individual budgets. And my only concern is, as always, if you're going to set the policy, that it should be countywide and -- and apply -- in terms of your appropriation, apply evenly to every employee but at the discretion as to how to implement it based on the agency managers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from our public speaker. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Kinzel is registered on this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hiss Kinzel, I want to remind you that this is a discussion of the county manager's payroll plan, not the sheriff's. MS. KINZEL: I understand that, Commissioner, and I'm for the record, Crystal Kinzel, the finance director for the sheriff's office. I did not want to leave out, however, some misperceptions regarding the sheriff's pay plan, and I think there are some very valid differences in those lower scales. The comments were made that the sheriff's paying $2,000 more -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Kinzel, I would suggest that you request this item be scheduled as a discussion of the sheriff's budget at some other time. This is a discussion of the county manager's budget, and that's what we're discussing here today, period. MS. KINZEL: Okay. Then I'll reverse it just a little bit, and I'd like to make a comment on -- looking at the county manager's budget, the differences in his budget compared to the sheriff's office budget are primarily in the upper echelon. At the sheriff's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hiss Kinzel, that's an end run, and it completely ignores what I just said. MS. KINZEL: Well, I was trying to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The discussion we had up here is the only time we can talk to each other, okay. So we're going to talk about things occasionally that you may want to have input on. But it's not an agenda item. The sheriff's budget is not an issue today, period. MS. KINZEL: I understand that, Commissioner. I was trying to clarify -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think you did. MS. KINZEL: -- some of the prior comments that were made regarding the sheriff's pay plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then you can set up -- fine, set up a meeting with my secretary. MS. KINZEL: We'll do that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's public comment available if you'd like to participate in that. MR. DORRILL: There are no other speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would think we could be more polite -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't see her on the ballot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- to the representatives of other constitutional officers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do not have another public speaker -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You guys been watching those republican debates too much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? There are none. I'd like to ask the board if we could have a motion to bring back for rescission Ordinance 83-7. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to review it first. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's your opportunity to review it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we've already given that direction, that we've asked to have the ordinance distributed among us, and I would hope just from that that Mr. Dotrill over the next couple of weeks from conversations with us does exactly that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Matter of fact, any one of us can put that on the agenda. So why don't you put it on for a couple of weeks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. MR. DORRILL: We need to advertise it, and that will take about 30 days. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to see it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just an information item, you had on our agenda thing, and of this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Agenda thing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agenda thing. Seventeen percent turnover last year and fourteen percent the previous two years. Do you have any idea what over the past five or six or seven years? MR. DORRILL: Year to date it's 3 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The year -- years prior to those, do you have any idea? I mean, was that three year a big jump, or was that fairly standard through the '90s? MR. DORRILL: I'll say that it's swaying up from 9 to 10 to 14 to what was awful last year agency-wide, which was 17, and you correct me if I've just misstated that. MS. EDWARDS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Seventeen last year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To date this year we're on a better track? MR. DORRILL: That's cumulative in terms, so it could worsen over the next two quarters, but it's -- we hope this sends a good signal to your employees. Item #BE1 DISCUSSION REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE FY 97 BUDGET POLICY - STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING PROPOSED CUTS BACK ON 3/26/96; BUDGET WORKSHOP DATES TO BE CHOSEN AT 3/12/96 MEETING AND RESOLUTION 96-123 THE CLERK OF THE COURT. THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AND THE SHERIFF TO SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS BY HAY 1 WITH A TWO WEEK GRACE PERIOD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Next item, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While he's coming up could I just say how much I appreciate having the opportunity to do this and how much I appreciate your responsiveness to some of the comments I made last year in the budget process, that this looks like a great improvement, and I really appreciate it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Thank you. For the record, Michael Smykowski, Collier County budget director. We have a twofold purpose this morning; one for the board to reach a consensus on the policies that would guide the development of the FY '97 budget and, two, to set board workshop dates in June. The focus of my presentation initially will be on broad general policy areas, and then we'll focus on the three-year analysis of the ad valorem tax supported funds. The first major policy area is the budget presentation format. And the recommended FY '97 process would consolidate the program budget and line-item budget processes into a single step. As you will recall, the board at times -- decisions were deferred during the program budget process as a result of not having the actual FY '97 cost data available at that time. So I recall distinctly the phrase, "we'll see that again in June," crop up many times. Obviously this then created a redundancy in the budget review process. The consolidated process that is being recommended was supported and also recommended by the productivity committee in their report to the board in January. The consolidated process would provide program summary information along with actual FY '97 cost data and millage rates. In keeping with the board's expressed desire to simplify the budget process and to serve in more of a board of directors' capacity, presentations would be in a summary format at the fund level. Last year budget presentations were along -- were along functional lines. For instance, in the public services division you reviewed the parks and recs department, which has general fund components, which has a component in the unincorporated area general fund. It has a grant fund, which has -- also it has the Golden Gate Community Center, which is an HSTU, and we kind of flipped through that crossing funds lines, and I think that created some confusion upon the part of the board members in terms of decisions they made on one of those budgets, which fund and revenue source ultimately they're affecting. So what we are proposing this year is to run on a fund -- on a fund basis from A to Z we would focus. And the examples I have in the -- in the document here would be general fund from A to Z, everything inclusive of the board budgets, the county manager's entire agency, the constitutional officers, the capital, the 7 million dollars of capital projects that are supported by the general fund, on down the line. MR. DORRILL: This -- this is a colossal change from what the board has ever done since the board's been doing budgets. You're going to sit as a -- almost a board of directors and take a balance sheet approach to reviewing expenses. And you will receive -- we'll start with fund 001, which is the general fund, and you're going to see the revenue projections for that fund, and then you will see every expense department in that fund at the same time. This gives the board a much more clear continuity of thought as you're going through and comparing a long list of appropriations to the revenues that you have on hand. And we will exhaust every expense in that fund before then we move to the next fund. Hajor, major change, and I think helps the board be able to balance each fund before they -- they begin to look at other requests from other departments and other funds. Hajor change, and Hike has done an excellent job at formatting all of this. MR. SHYKOWSKI: There are examples. If you turn to page 22 in your package, that kind of outlines sample general fund materials. Page 23 outlines the total general fund revenues that were adopted this year, roughly 101 million dollars. Page 24 provides a macro summary at the divisional level of general fund expenses. For example, you'll note in the expanded column under support services there was a million twenty-two thousand two hundred dollars in approved expandeds in the FY '96 budget. If the board were interested, we would kind of use a -- an exception reporting basis and that the board -- obviously I think, most expanded services the board is interested in, what those are all about and what proposed enhancements are being proposed in the upcoming year. If they wanted further detail of the support services division, we'd move from a macro, kind of working back toward a micro level. On page 32 is a summary of the support services division in the general fund. And this provides just a little narrative identifying the departments that comprise the support services division. There's a pie chart that shows the relative proportion of the support services division to the general fund. There was also a bar chart that shows the relative dollar allocation amongst the departments within the support services division. Obviously in this example EHS and facilities management are by far the largest expenditure areas within the support services division. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not only words but pictures. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Pictures, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's so good. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Great, very good. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I think it just helps you visualize, again, the relative proportion of both the general fund and then within -- within each division. On page 33 then is a divisional summary of support services with a breakdown by individual departments so kind of, again, moving toward more of a micro level. This just takes, for example, the million twenty-two thousand two hundred dollars in expanded -- you can see across which departments that is spread on page 33. For example, EHS is six sixty-five four hundred of that total. And on the following page 34 is just a short narrative outlining each of the proposed expanded services that are indicated numerically on the previous page, so it's kind of a one-stop shop there. You can -- without flipping multiple pages, there's a synopsis of the support services division overall. In funds -- in funds where the board has a limited policy-making role such as debt service, a number of your single-purpose taxing districts where the -- where the budgets and proposed expenditures are established by citizen advisory groups, for example, a lot of the beautification HSTUs and their -- also their millage is governed by an ordinance restriction or limitation as well as the expendable trust funds. Those we can aggregate and present at a macro level. And therews an example on page 66 and 67 of the trust funds as a whole. On page 66 therews an outline of the purpose of trust funds and, again, going along the fund lines, what -- what a trust fund is set up for, what the -- a listing of the major trust funds that Collier County utilizes, where the revenue comes from within each of those trust funds, and the proposed -- the major proposed use of the available dollars. On page 67 then is a -- a summary sheet of all of the trust funds. Program summary information on -- we would also have available, if need be, go to the ultimate micro detail, as we have in the past, would be the departmental budget book pages, and this would -- wewre proposing to have the allocation of resources on a programatic basis along with the actual departmental financial budget information. We would, again, utilize the same definition for base level of service. We would not propose a comprehensive page-by-page review of programs. We would be looking for board direction up front in terms of proposed service levels, proposed millage rates, et cetera, and then the manager and his staff would bring back a budget meeting the criteria established as part of the budget policy. There is a sample as well of the library department on page 68 and 69 in your package. On page 68 is the library -- the beginning of the library departmental summary page that identifies a -- the goal of the department and also provides the program summary information that the board has typically seen in prior years. A major change, though, obviously is that the FY w97 cost data with a grand total at the bottom of the page of two million five eighty-two three hundred tying in -- tying in to the grand total on the actual line-item budget detail on the following page. So this would be -- if the board were interested, obviously we would start out with the general fund, public services, support services. Then if the board had questions on an exception basis, we could go to the divisional summary with a breakdown by department. And then if the board were further interested in going to the next level of detail, that would be the departmental budget book page that you have typically seen in the past. MR. DORRILL: The rationale for that, frankly, is to just stop flipping page after page after page. It gets a little mesmerizing over time. And, frankly, it is unnecessary if you donwt have the balance sheet-type questions. That way it directs your interests -- youwre interested in obviously the biggest budgets or the biggest increases, and youwll see that on the front page. Then everybody who is in that fund will be here in the audience that day, and we can turn and look at any level of detail that you or members of the public choose. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. That concludes that major policy area. And we hope that was in meeting with some of the comments the board members had in the past in terms of possible improvements to the process. The next item is on constitutional officers, budget submission dates. Florida Statute provides that the bulk of the constitutional officer budgets be submitted on June 1. However, Florida Statute also makes a provision whereby the board through adopting a resolution could request the constitutional officers to submit their tentative budgets on Hay 1 as opposed to June 1. Obviously FY '97 is going to be the difficult year in terms of the general fund with the potential for a millage increase there. Again, coupled with the expressed desire to provide budget information available to the BCC as well as the general public with as much review time as possible prior to workshop dates, it's recommended that the board adopt a resolution requiring the sheriff, clerk, and supervisor to submit tentative budgets by -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If the constitutional officers were to -- were to submit their budgets as they have in the past on June the 1st, what is the earliest date that you could get the budget information to this board and to the public? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Last year we had the workshops on the 14th, and it was probably the day before. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That doesn't give us a lot of time or -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, and I can tell you why. A, the budgets do not come in until June 1. In addition, we do not get the tentative tax roll, preliminary tax roll from the property appraiser, until June 1. So we have to drop a lot of numbers in to calculate what the millage picture looks like. We have to analyze, compile, and format the constitutional officers' budgets, not only within their own funds, but each of those has a component where their principal funding source is from the general fund, and it's just a matter of -- a matter of timing that, unfortunately, with a June 1 submission date, that is not going to improve much. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, the second half of my question, if we adopt the MAy 1st submission date, what will be the earliest date that you can get the information to us and the public? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It would be my goal to have it a week ahead of time. Obviously that depends on when the board would have the -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's still not a lot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MAybe I've missed something here. But if you get them June 1st, you can have it to us by June 13th. If we get it MAy 1st, wouldn't it go by reason that we wouldn't get it by mid MAy? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But he also mentioned that the property appraiser's got to plug in figures June 1st as well. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The departments within the county manager's authority are not submitting -- we're having initial budget workshops with Neil prior to your ever receiving that information typically in MAy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can he move his up a month, too? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think what you're hearing from the board is we don't want to get that stuff a day or two before. It's very hard to get in and do -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't even want it a week ahead of time. I want it two weeks minimum. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Minimum. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do have to take into account the constitutional officers' staff requirement to put that information together, and I think you could ask -- Mr. Smykowski, have you talked to them as to how far in advance they could move it up for this coming year, because we're already sitting here in MArch? If they're planning on a June 1 ready date, the chances of them accelerating for four -- you know, four-week period is -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: The sheriff has indicated that that would be a problem for them, and they would prefer to see it implemented one year from now. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So if we were to ask them for Hay 15th this year and Hay 1st next year, it will put a stress on all of us, but we're going to be stressed as it is anyway. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do it anyway. MR. DORRILL: This is our way to try to respond to your and the public's desire and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we move it up a couple of weeks this year and go to Hay 1st next year? That's going to put a strain on us, on everybody. However, we'll be better informed and better able to get through the budget. MR. DORRILL: As long as you don't try and move your workshops up earlier in June, because if we can push them back before the board takes its recess, I think it would be our goal to try and have them at least, I'd say, ten days in advance of the workshop day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be a nice -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Over the past few years, the board workshops have moved up a week at a time as well to further complicate our ability to provide -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, last year we had an oddity in that July 4th fell on a Tuesday, and it kind of skewed the whole thing, but it's not going to happen this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let's -- that sounds like a decent compromise to me, is we would request a date of Hay 15th which is going to create a difficult situation for everyone, but if it requires us also moving our date back a little bit instead of forward to help buy that time, I think that a mix of those two is probably going to work best. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With -- with the goal being at least two weeks to review before the first workshop. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we can set a goal of two weeks and hit ten weeks, glory be, and we'll move on the next year, but let's -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's stay with two weeks. MR. DORRILL: That requires the cooperation of everyone. I will tell you that the statute does not give you the general ability to say they're due Hay the 15th. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's say they're due Hay 1st and just be forgiving -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's say Hay 15th, and let's ask you and your office to communicate clearly with each of -- what I'm not doing clearly with each of the constitutional officers. I think sometimes despite our best intention we fail to communicate clearly. I think right now if it's March 5th and we let them know, gosh, we're going to need it Hay 15th instead of June 1st and that's done clearly, yeah, we're all going to have to work a little harder but hopefully everybody will cooperate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the key is every constitutional officer. If we don't get all of them -- if we get most of them, they are going to help us get this information out to the general public and to this board at an earlier date. So it's not as if you need any more motivation than that. If we get most of them but not all of them, that's better than we were doing last year. So that helps it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: My only question would be to Mr. Weigel. Obviously the statute, if it is definitive as to June 1 versus Hay 1, and can we -- is Hay 15th acceptable? I would defer to the county attorney to make that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: They're absolutely right, both Neil and Mike, in regard to the statute. It uses the Hay 1, June 1 dates. But I suggest that we go with Hay 1st but, in any event, no later than Hay 15th. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. So we'll adopt the Hay 1st and two-week grace. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I love it, Hay 1st but -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This year you get a two-week grace. MR. DORRILL: That will work. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The next major policy -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that Guy Carlton calling right now? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually the property appraiser and tax collector are not a part of that resolution. Their budgets are ultimately approved by the State of Florida, not the board, so they're not included. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that was Mary calling. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The next major area is financial budget development. Obviously we undertake a three-year review of the ad valorem tax support funds to determine tax impacts of both the inflationary cost increases, previous policy decisions related to revenue, and proposed expanded services. Some of the revenue assumptions -- turning to page 3, we've updated our forecast in terms of the ad valorem levies are at ninety-six and a half percent based on the historical trend has been good that we collect ninety-six and a half. Previously we utilized 96. Taxable value attributable to new construction is estimated at 3 percent. I'm under item B at the top of page 3. You'll note that historical increases have been kind of all over the board; last year 4.2, the previous year 2.6, the year prior to that, FY '94, was 3.4. So we've -- we've taken a 3 percent, and that was kind of a stab in the dark, but a reasonableness test applies here. You know, we're -- we'll be somewhere between two and a half and four probably. But the property appraiser at this point can't do any better than that as well. We spoke with Mr. Skinner, but he's not ready to leap off in -- his crystal ball really isn't any better than ours at this point. Intergovernmental revenues, obviously we use sales tax to support road and bridge, debt service, the general fund, revenue sharing support debt service with the balance going to general fund. The major policy area and one that impacts a lot on the general fund this year is gas taxes. Obviously we're in the third year of the transition of gas taxes from maintenance to construction, and that just outlines that essentially all gas taxes in FY '97 would be allocated to road construction but for the components required for debt service. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got a question on those. I assume, first, that one of the items we're doing is agreeing to these assumptions? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I have a little bit of a -- I understand how you came to the local estimations. And the intergovernmental, why the seven percent on sales tax, two and a half on revenue sharing? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's based on historical averages and what we've received year to date this year. I'll have a revenue report in a week or two for the first quarter. Sales tax at this point for the first quarter was actually slightly behind what we received in the first quarter a year ago. So that is a potential concern. Obviously, though, February in terms of tourist tax revenues we had a huge month compared to the prior year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we can hope sales tax -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. -- would move in the -- in the general trend that we've seen in the past, which has been anywhere from typically 8 to 10 percent annual. We've tempered that a bit. And -- as well as based on what the budget this year called for based on the state estimates, which were slightly less than the historical that we've experienced in that regard. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The one that I don't exactly know what it is is state revenue sharing. Is that where our state legislature can tell us what they're going to give us, or is that a mathematical formula? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's where we curb the bid if we need to. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's not an intangible tax like cigarette taxes, so it's a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that isn't '- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Essentially it's known in the final month, the final month of the state fiscal year, which is June is where they kind of correct for -- they give us monthly increments in equal amounts and then essentially use the June month to correct and give us the 100 percent balance of what we are ultimately due that year, so that's kind of the make or break month. Unfortunately, that also comes -- by the time we actually have -- that figure is known, we're probably in August, and we've already made our estimate and sent our tentative millage rate. And, in fact, last year we had to actually reduce them as part of final hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I'd rather ask it. But a two and a half percent growth rate is less than inflation, so we're effectively getting less money from the state next year than we got this year? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually what you received last year -- what we have budgeted this year was actually less than we received a year ago, because the state had utilized some revenue enhancement techniques, and they had told us to back down our projections this year. That -- there's a small margin of growth on an annual basis for revenue sharing. That is not one where you're going to see a 10 percent growth in a given year. Obviously part of it is tied to the cigarette tax. Certainly we have anti-smoking sentiment out there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, how much longer is your presentation, would you guess? MR. SHYKOWSKI: We've got a long way to go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we? Why don't we take a five-minute break and come right back. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission meeting. Mr. Smykowski, please continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. On pages 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, there are a number of policy-related issues such as the indirect cost allocation plan, enterprise fund payment in lieu of tax. Those are things we typically do every year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, our pages are not numbered that way. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Should be in the agenda package. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're in attachments three-year ad valorem budget analysis? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Not yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why they're numbered wrong. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's at the very beginning of the packet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Please continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: A number of the attachments were just related to the proposed presentation format. Bottom of page 3, carryforward indirect cost allocation plan, a number of those items are related, you know, things we do on an annual basis. We include them in the policy, that obviously the board would want to continue to do that. Those are principal revenue sources to the general fund. Attrition, we would again propose 3 percent for funds with 10 or more positions. On the CIP, pages 4 and 5, a couple of changes there that I'll highlight for you. We're proposing to develop five-year water and wastewater CIE. Currently they have master plan studies that are in various stages of review. The wastewater, I believe, is currently underway. The water will be sent out for study. Upon completion of that we would propose to develop a five-year plan. We also want to develop a five-year plan for non-CIE capital projects. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Smykowski, I had talked yesterday to Mr. Dotrill about this, and you're budgeting 3 percent attrition. And when we were looking at the -- at the detail of the manager's pay plan, we -- I noted that there was $300,000 worth of attrition carryforwards. And on a 13 million dollar general fund salary budget, that's about 2.3 percent. And I asked the manager yesterday if he would object or find it too tight if we were to budget 4 percent attrition. And he remarked that he would not find that too tight, because the attrition has been in addition to what we've actually budgeted each year. And I was wondering if the board wanted to consider 4 percent attrition this year instead of 3. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Obviously the further you get out on that limb, though, obviously you're -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's only a one-year delay each time, I know. COHHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're on that limb already. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're on that limb next year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's already started halfway through. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That 1 percent will equate to how many dollars? COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only about $150,000. It's not much but, you know, if we can pile up enough hundred thousands, we'll get through it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then we'll have real money. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's only 150,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought I'd never hear that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A hundred and fifty thousand or -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: On to page 5, CIE policies. We -- squared away with attrition, 1 percent. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One percent of thirteen million is a hundred and thirty thousand. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We're proposing to develop a five-year plan for non-CIE capital projects, and that's something recommended by the productivity committee in addition to your capital projects that are brought forth to the board. MR. DORRILL: Specifically I saw two commissioners say what's that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I need an example. MR. DORRILL: We have a five-year CIE capital improvement plan for your growth management plan. We have a five-year road plan. We have a five-year solid waste plan. We have a five-year parks and library plan. We do not have a five-year plan for non-CIE capital improvements. For example, the board annually spends money, it seems like, to -- to refurbish or repair major air conditioning equipment all over the county. And what Hike is suggesting is that we should probably have a five-year capital improvement plan for things that are not part of the growth management plan. They're not concurrency driven but that are annually incurred, and the board needs to know what is the schedule to repaint buildings or to do other non-ClE projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the trend and projection of same trend -- MR. DORRILL: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another great suggestion from Hike Smykowski. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're talking about on a resolving basis and maintenance? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. It's important there, too, because on an annual basis we allocate about 7 million dollars basically as Neil alluded to. Your fund 3101, the majority of that is in non-CIE-type projects. John Boldt, that long equipment -- long-armed equipment, that was not -- that's a non-CIE. Those would be examples of things. But next year, for instance, the medical examiner's facility is not a CIE project. The County Barn maintenance facility is not a CIE project. MR. DORRILL: We have a five-year schedule for those as -- as well as concurrency -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I guess the key issue there is those two projects alone along with the debt service for the 800 megahertz are more than the available pot of money that we've typically allocated, so obviously developing a plan is a good idea, I think, and again recommended by the productivity committee and a concept that we've endorsed as well. That kind of concludes at least the initial broad policies areas. What I'd like to do now on page 8 -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of questions, Mr. Smykowski, before we go on. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'll try to be as brief as possible. I don't want to miss substantive items, though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looking on page 6, every two to three years county solicits quotations from private insurance providers in order insure that self insurance remains the most cost effective. The last couple of years I don't recall anything coming to the board or -- I always suggest if we do bids that our own people bid, and perhaps we come out the lowest. But while we've got verbal reports back from Mr. Ochs or someone, I don't remember seeing any information. And I'm wondering when is the last time we did a formal bid request for that type of thing. MR. DORRILL: Group health? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: I'll say it was two years ago. So this -- that would be the year in which we would cycle through and, again, take sealed bids and proposals on group health insurance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we may very well be the lowest but, again, the cost on that item is so great that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: In that area health insurance would be done this summer, and work comp. and property casualty would be done next summer essentially would be the schedule. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. I notice over on page 8 when we talk about inflationary costs of existing services, 2.259 million. I'm wondering, is this assumed or verified? I'm -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Assumed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's assumed? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. To the next stage of the report COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the problems I have as we get into that is we talk about the theoretic zero-based budgeting or the sister to that with our priority-based budgeting. But rather than actually starting at, okay, what do we need additionally is last year anyway it was okay, you can assume a 3 percent increase over last year. And I'm just wondering rather than assuming that paper clips cost 3 percent more than last year, shouldn't we make that a realistic thing before we give each individual area 3 percent leeway there. MR. SHYKOWSKI: This does not in any way guarantee any given department a 3 percent increase, in re: an assumption for planning purposes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know that, but a written memorandum went out to the department heads last year, and I'll dig that out between now and when we do budget if you like. But a written memorandum went out that said use an assumption of three percent or three and a half percent or whatever the number was, but it said use an assumption of three percent inflation when putting -- when putting together their individual budgets. In my mind that is giving them leeway to automatically build in an extra 3 percent, and I don't want that up front. If paper clips cost an extra penny this year, great, budget for that. But don't immediately assume you have X percent more and -- and there was a written memorandum that went out to that last year, and I think we need -- as part of our policy, we need to say we're keeping it even. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or less. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, or less, unless you can justify item by item because that was not done last year. MR. DORRILL: I don't -- I don't have a problem with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Never mind. MR. DORRILL: But what you may see then are some specific detailed information. The cost of fuel has gone up so many cents per gallon, you know, after our tax exempt status, and you may see some rationale like that in the budget detail, but I'm not opposed to that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not that I need that. We need to know that level of examination has taken place. In addition, I was going to ask when we assumed 3 percent, did we ever go back and do that level of detail to see if, in fact, there was a savings before the budget was finally approved or once it was approved for that 3 percent it was just inserted and cost was cost and things fell out from there. I'm -- you know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, one of the things that I think would help answer that question and is something I'm hoping to see in this process is some actual versus budget comparisons that are rather specific. You know, I'd like to see actual -- instead of skipping a year, I'd like to see if we can only have a quarter of this year. I don't know how the statements are done. But if we could only have a quarter of the most current year to compare with budget -- to compare budget with actual. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But you need that on a seasonal basis, Commissioner Hac'Kie, because it doesn't mean anything if -- if you have a quarter. You know, you need to know if the seasonality of that quarter is a high quarter or a low quarter. You can't just pump out numbers. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree we'd have to understand that. But I'd rather have that information than no information about the preceding fiscal year. MR. DORRILL: We -- we -- we will have or we can have -- again, I don't want to have to do it for every department and every fund, but if the board were to ask and say why is the parks and rec budget going up 23 percent, then we would ask you to turn to the parks and rec department, and we can share with you not only what year-to-date expenses have been but also what the 12-month forecast expense will be. And if you want to scrutinize the parks and rec department, we have the ability to look at that level of detail. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think a real useful way to spend my time would be comparisons of actuals and budgets. MR. DORRILL: Commissioner Matthews' observation is good, though. You need to pick and choose the departments. The EHS department spends the majority of their money the first two quarters of the year. The parks and rec department spends their money the last two quarters of the year during summer rec in the summer programs that we have. And so you need to ask specific questions, and we can give you specific information. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And in certain cases actuals are not -- would not provide an apples to apples. A few years ago we built the Golden Gate community pool. Obviously the following year you have the huge operating costs that go along with operating that facility. The year -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't mean to -- to be quipping about this, but -- but we're smart enough that you can explain to us that that was the year that we built the Fool. You know, we can figure -- you can tell us that, and we'll get it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bit of a leap, isn't it. MR. DORRILL: But I ask those kind of questions all the time. And I rely on the individual analysts. Different analyst have different departmental responsibilities that they are experts in or for. And when I look at their budgets in early May, they already go ahead and factor out one-time hits to a department so that they don't get the artificial credit of that in next year. We're not going to build a new Fool every year in parks and rec. So they factor on that the amount of the percentage increases over the prior year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if the response that I'm getting from this is that I need to make specific requests, then let's you and I talk about it at our next one-on-one so that I can quantify -- make some real specific requests. I don't want it to fall by the wayside. MR. DORRILL: And what I'm suggesting is that you have a great opportunity to do that this year because of this balance sheet approach that we're using where you're going to say, holy cow, the general fund is up 10 percent. Whose fault is that? You're going to look down the balance sheet, and it may say public services division up 23 percent. And so then you're going to want to hone in on the public services division and then ask for the departmental details. Let's see the library budget. Let's see the parks and rec budget. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know we're never going to learn this budget if we can read it. You know that. Those budgets win no awards. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The ones you can read. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other policy question, and perhaps you were going to get to this later, but last year Commissioner Matthews had introduced the different levels of service in our option, kind of a menu-driven thing from different departments. Public services did some of that within some of those departments. But this year it was supposed to be the phase-in year for several departments. And do we have any idea which areas we can expect to see that in? MR. DORRILL: We're -- we're carrying through in the three areas for gain sharing that we're in the pilot project. And I -- I think we picked facility management, parks and recreation -- or, excuse me, the library. And there's -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Water. MR. DORRILL: And water. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This was different than the gain sharing. It was performance budgeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Remember last year when we talked about ball fields. You can mow three times a week; you can mow seven days a week. It was pick and choose, and you knew there was an expense with each one. And we had our discussion a year ago that we would phase that type of thing into several departments so that we knew -- we could Frioritize within the budget. And if we found we needed a cut, we'd only mow five days a week. The only department we did that with last year was parks and recreation. We were told there would be an additional two to three departments this year and that we could phase that in. I'm wondering which departments those are going to be. MR. DORRILL: I don't think I've anticipated that. If that was your desire, I may have misapplied that to the gains sharing thing that we've done on the departments. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The gains sharing is separate. MR. DORRILL: I'm not opposed to doing that, but I think what I would like to do is wait until you see the fund balances, and then you tell me which departments seem to be exceptionally high and you want some options for and the detail. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if you can do that, that's fine. But I don't want to end up waiting another year and be told in June, well, gee, we'll do that next year because that's what we were told last year. MR. DORRILL: I'm not opposed to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We were told there would be two or three specific departments over and above parks and rec that that would happen this year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because how would we know -- I mean, we know when there are lots of zeros, but we don't know if something is high for that department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We would by -- we don't need to do that; you can. When you go down that list and see where the big increases are -- MR. DORRILL: I think they're going to jump off the page, you know, this year. And I think then if you want me to, I can __ MR. SHYKOWSKI: The goal of the revised format is to get away from that and to focus your attention on an exception reporting basis. We are not proposing a comprehensive program-by-program review. We are, in essence, utilizing your role as a board of directors to focus your attention on the major policy areas. Give us that policy direction up front, and the manager will -- and his staff will bring back a budget that -- you know, if you said reduce services a million dollars on a programmatic basis, Mr. Dotrill would bring back a budget that said this is what we had to do. We eliminated this program in this division -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. Let's not waste a lot of time talking about this. Let's just say our policy is to cut the budget by 2 percent this year, and you go do it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, one of the directive -- last year -- you're apparently not following. If all you want is a general policy from us, cut each department by 2 percent and bring it back to us. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I understand a little bit of where Mr. Smykowski is coming from. They've tried to make strides in the way the budget has been presented. In making that presentation in a certain format, it on the front end seems to me to almost exclude what we asked for last year. Because so in trying to solve one request and problem, we didn't solve the other one. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Didn't address the other one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't address the other one. So rather than -- than scrapping it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, I like the format. MR. DORRILL: The context of what I thought we were trying to do last year -- I'm not opposed to showing you detail where -- where you either want to see it from my perspective or where you have a problem with a particular department, is to go back and still show you programmatically how we spend your money. That's the example you used about how many times are we going to mow athletic fields. That was a program maintenance cost of parks and recreation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think we were looking at that, though, last year not so much in a program format but in a level of service format in that if -- if we were spending X numbers of dollars for maintenance of our parks, and we're trying to find a way to save a couple hundred thousand dollars, we needed to know, and we found out that, gees, we were mowing our parks five times last year, and we felt, gee, let's try three times, and if we have -- are at the level of service citizens are willing to pay for then, fine, we'll mow them three times instead of five times, because there's no point in doing it to excess and asking people to pay for it. That's -- that's what that was about last year was level of service. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm not suggesting that you scrap what you've put forward, but it bothers me a great deal that on purpose or not you have ignored the board direction as to what we do with the budget this year. MR. DORRILL: Well, I can assure you that I didn't do it on purpose. I think what all of you told me last year was that you thought program priority budgeting was a waste of time because it ends up being redundant. You go through, and you set the classifications, whether essential/mandatory, to an individual. All of you told me you didn't want to do that this year, it's a waste of time, because you end up having two series of budget workshops, only the second of which is where you actually see the real money, if you will. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's true. MR. DORRILL: And so this year in order -- because, you know, we're responding to different commissioners and different requests. The other concern that you had was that the budget is overcomplicated in terms of the board's ability to grasp an entire fund picture. And so that's why we have tried to make your initial review fund balance approach as opposed to priority program setting approach and then provide what Mike is saying is the -- the additional detail only where you want to choose that. If in advance what you want me to do is to -- is to bring back examples of like we did in parks and rec last year, we can do that, but I think we only ought to do it in departments that seem to have extraordinarily high increase or extraordinarily high expense costs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things that concerns me right now is we keep talking about increase, increase, instead of focusing on the bottom line. Obviously we need to look at the individual parts in order to get to that bottom line. But everything we've said is what about this increase, what about that increase, what if this is an unusual increase. And I -- I mean, I said it off the cuff a moment ago, but if we want to set an overall policy, why do we need to be focusing on what the increase is going to be instead of no increases? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I would like to pursue in the areas that we can and in those areas that make sense, because not all areas make sense, but to pursue that performance level of -- of what is the service level that our citizens are willing to pay for and in -- in an effort to -- to avoid a budget increase this year or a millage increase this year that we look at levels of service. And if we're performing at an excessive level, we don't know that when it's just numbers given to us. We don't know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The concern is -- you used Mr. Olliff's division and said, well, if you -- was it 23 percent increase we'd red flag that, and we could go through and look at those? Well, just because someone isn't asking for anything more than a 1 percent increase this year doesn't mean there still may not be items within that that could be thinned out. And so I think the assumption is that we're looking only at those areas that are asking for a big increase is a poor assumption. I think all those areas need to be looked at, because there may be so much fluff in there that they don't ask for any increase, and it appears great because it says zero, but you could have a decrease. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Again, the level of service that COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. Hiss -- Hiss Filson -- Hiss Filson, would you do me a favor and get me the minutes from last year from all our budget discussions because we were very clear on at least two occasions what we wanted policy to be this year. if you will give me that, I'll be happy to pass it on to the county manager. MR. DORRILL: I guess you all need to be a little more specific then because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't have both? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure we can have both. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're talking about -- and what you're bringing up I don't think anyone disagrees with but is, in essence, a policy decision we didn't make before today. We didn't tell Mr. Dorrill bring this budget back at a 2 percent decrease. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't disagree with that. What we did give for a policy before today was to bring back the performance issues Commissioner Matthews was mentioning in three or four departments. We did it partially in one department last year, and we were assured by you that you would bring that back in multiple departments this year. And you haven't done that, and you're telling us that you didn't intend to do that. And that is a change from the policy that the five of us set last year when we went through this process. That's why I'm asking for the minutes, because I know you said it as well as we did. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Then let's make that direction today. I mean, we can get the minutes and so forth, but let's set a minimum number of departments to be brought back under the same level of service standard that parks and rec was subject to last year. It doesn't change the budget format we have in front of us, but set specifically today whether we say three, four, or five departments as a part of this budget cycle, we want those where the county manager feels he has the greatest ability to establish level of service within those departments to bring them back in that format. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we'll do that in addition to the layout -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to the layout here. And that is specific enough direction for you to go out and target those areas and bring them back in the format parks and rec -- MR. DORRILL: Yeah. I guess maybe we're all saying the same thing. I just don't know we're on the same wavelength. I understood that your desire to do that comprehensively by setting the program priorities was something that none of you intended to do this year. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. MR. DORRILL: We still budget by program category. And if you want me in advance to show you categories where I think that there are -- are cost options and savings -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is what you did in parks and rec last year and what we were told would be done this year. That's exactly what we're asking you to do. MR. DORRILL: I'd be happy to review the minutes -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's set that, if we will, today. In addition to parks and rec coming back in the same format -- Tom is starting to sweat as we speak -- let's add four additional departments at the county manager's choosing in areas in which he feels are appropriate to identify levels of service for review. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, he has three additional ones in the ones that were selected last fall for gain sharing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Then they would be easy to put together because those performance measures are already laid out. So let's add one to those three. Is that sufficient direction? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's great. MR. DORRILL: I don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me jump in here for a minute now. The discussions, as I understood them this morning, are really not addressing the concerns that I've had all along in the budgeting process, and that is the board never gets to see particularly deep inside our different departments and divisions and operations to know if what we're doing is, numb -- number one, something that we should be doing, something that's necessary or even desired by the public. I don't think we've made that assessment. The other thing is we don't know by looking at the budget whether what we are doing, even if -- if it turns out to be something that we want to do, we don't know that that's being done in the most cost-effective manner. We never get to see that. And so, you know, that -- this has been my concern in the budgeting process all along, and I don't see anything in this new budget process that's going to show me that kind of information. While I think the changes that -- in the presentation that we're going to make in the budget's fine, and I -- I -- I'm looking forward to going through the budget process this year, it's still not answering my basic questions as to why are we doing X and are we doing Y on a cost-effective basis. We don't know that. MR. DORRILL: Well, I think we do tell you X because that's why I said we budget programatically. We don't budget in aggregate. So I think we do tell you what it is that you get for your -- for your money. You don't see all the detail, and I will tell you that if you want to see and get involved in a -- in a line-item detail review for every budget, I don't think any of us here have any idea of the amount of time that's going to take. Because then you're going to sit there and say, well, why is the overtime budget -- and, you know, why is the overtime line item in the road and bridge budget $175,000. And I'm trying to steer the board completely away from that. That's why I said I'm trying to balance what I thought was your desire to look at a balance-sheet approach to fund summaries as opposed to wondering why George Archibald needs $175,000 worth of overtime in the road and bridge budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I agree with that. I'm not sure that the budget process itself is the time to get into what I'm suggesting. But at some point I need to be convinced that we're doing what we're supposed to be doing or we should do and we're doing it in a cost-effective manner. And I don't believe that this information satisfies my concerns during the budgeting process. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have a productivity committee that I think that would be an excellent thing for them to be looking at, the numbers behind the budget and on various departments and report to us, report to us whether they agree as citizens that the budget that we have for the various departments, activities and so forth, is the most efficient, effective manner in which to -- to do that. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That was one of their proposed topical areas over the past years, services efforts and accomplishments. Unfortunately, that never got off the ground, and they are not pursuing that at this time. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Maybe we need -- maybe we need to ask them to prioritize that at number one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, I -- I -- maybe I'm misunderstanding. I'm hearing two completely separate directions here. Mr. Dotrill has brought a budget back that puts us in a board position, a board of setting policy, a board looking at departments saying bring this department back at X percentage or bring this department down to point Y, then it's his job to go do that. One of the main problems I had last year in the budget process was not knowing -- when animal control came forward, I had no idea what they did on a daily basis, and that level of detail you're talking about is never going to be presented in a sufficient format to have that understanding. I -- I do a workday once a month, and it's not much, but it gets me out to several departments, and I start to see a little more of what they do on a daily basis, and it helps put the pieces together. But we just had a discussion about not wanting to micro manage a pay salary or salary adjustment. That's the county manager's job. As Commissioner Constantine said earlier, it's our job to set the policy. If it's 2 percent reduction or a 10 percent in this department and 5 percent over there, we set that policy, and he makes it happen. So, you know, I don't think we're ever going to have the understanding of what every department does for the same reason that the CEO of Chrysler doesn't know what happens on line 13 on a daily basis. It's just impossible to be able to grasp that amount of information and be able to make those -- that level of decisions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What does happen on line 137 COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure. I haven't worked for Chrysler yet. But so that is his job, and that's why we pay him the salary he gets paid. So rather than -- than taking this in that direction, I prefer the direction that's in front of us that is a macro view, that if we see an area that -- if we simply can't afford a budget that is presented to us, we identify the areas that need to be reduced, the amount of reduction, and it's staff's job to make that reduction happen. That's the direction I'd like to see it take, and I guess I'm a little concerned about going the other way. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, here's the point, though. Let's say we have department A and department B. They both show 25 percent increase. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we can say as policy makers we'll put them back to 2 percent increase, and you figure out the way to do it. But my point is that we may not even need department A, and we may want to increase department B even more than the 25 percent. But we are never presented with information that will satisfy me that -- that we have that level of decision making -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree there. While I concur, we don't want to get into a micro-managing situation. And as I said before, something may show as a zero percent increase this year, but it may be so full of fluff of things we don't need that it should in these five people's opinion show a decrease instead of a zero percent increase. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If only we knew. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Part of our role unfortunately is to set priorities as to what our expenditures will be. And some departments just by their nature are going to need an increase, but some don't. And I -- I -- while I concur with the concept of us giving a general policy and you trying to meet that, when it comes to what cuts will be made, the five of us are going to be ultimately responsible, because if we cut library service, it's going to be your phone and my phone ringing saying, gosh, what's happening here. And so we need to prioritize those. We need to set a general policy for you to try to meet, and then if you have difficulty doing that as we get down to the tough decisions, this board needs to participate, and I think that's kind of a hybrid of what you were describing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree with you. I'm just trying to figure out how to dovetail it into this process, and I guess my point I'm having the greatest difficulty -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll meet every day in June. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Essentially over the past three years we have met in exhaustive workshops and reviewed program by program of everything each department does. And essentially those programs, for the most part, have not changed substantially from year to year. The service we are essentially providing is not going to vary 180 degrees next year within that same department. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the irony is when we had our definitions of what discretionary, essential, and mandatory were, discretionary under our own definition was always those items that in a year of difficulty or difficult financial situation would be the first to go. And I find it ironic that in the first year where we're really going to struggle apparently that we're going to throw that process out because I think -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Based in part on your direction that that was a waste of time. MR. DORRILL: Yeah. I think specifically the example that we always love to use and the one that we love to pick on is why does the Board of County Commissioners still spend $75,000 a year in support of the 4-H program in Collier County. And we sort of talk about it every year, and I know Mr. Constantine is always on his list of budget cuts -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not as a cut, though. MR. DORRILL: -- and every year we go through 200 different program priorities. And in the three years we've done the program priorities, the county commission has not eliminated one of them that I can recall. And so that's why you all said last year we don't want to do this anymore. We're going to continue to budget programmatically, but we don't want to go through two series of workshops. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thing I might suggest, and this is off that a little bit, but I do submit my list of things I think we should cut each year. And particularly this year where it's going to be so tight, perhaps all five of us should create little lists and bring them in one day, and I guarantee there will be some things on there that match. And if we have three or four or five of us that match, we can probably scratch that off early in the process, and there are going to be some items that we don't have three people and those we can get into a discussion. But that might be a fair place to start as we get into June is if there are items up front that a majority of us agree can be cut, then let's not waste a lot of time on those. MR. DORRILL: I say we ought to do that before we ever have the first workshop, because there's no sense in us preparing the line-item budgets for a program package that you intend to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, not being on the inside, last year I couldn't have done it, but this year I think that I could do that and -- and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think it would be very productive for all five of us to do a little list. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We still have the same problem, specifically what we're doing, but I guess that would spur the discussion -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right, we can be persuaded if we're wrong. I can. MR. DORRILL: My recommendation for you would be for us to take our current set of essential and discretionary program packages -- and I bet there's 120 or 150 of them -- and give them to the board by department, show them by department, and before we ever go to the first workshop, that we have a special, you know, session at the end of a regular meeting some day and see if you all can't -- you know, if you say, well, we're only going to fund the first 95 of them, Mr. Dotrill, we want you to take the last, you know, 25 of them and don't put them in your line-item budget this year. I'm not opposed to that kind of direction at all. What I'm saying, though, is historically the board has not been willing to do that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anybody on the board not willing to do that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I suggest that when that list is put together we get a description of what that program is designed to accomplish and not attach any FTEs or dollars to it, because if we're talking about program, we're talking about the goal the program is designed to do, not the dollars -- dollars associated to it. If we don't like the program, if we don't like what it's supposed to do, the dollars shouldn't matter. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so are you saying we don't want to see how much the dollars are? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You shouldn't let the dollars guide you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can close one eye when I look at the list. I'd like to know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can see about -- the point's well-made. Either a program is worthwhile or it's not, whether it's 13,000 or 130,000. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's a good one, then we keep it. If it's not, it goes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We should give ourselves a dollar goal. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's easy enough to accomplish. Mr. Smykowski, please continue. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. We're on page 8, which is the three-year analysis of the ad valorem tax supported funds. And this will kind of give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem we're facing in the general fund. You'll note a third of the way down the page a list, general fund summary FY '97, and it identifies a few major factors that impact on what would be the proposed millage rate in FY '97, and they are the bullet-point items. Each of those are followed by -- there's charts and graphs and a narrative describing the impact of each, but just in a nutshell, one is the increase in the subsidy to the road and bridge department based on the third year of the transition of gas taxes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question about that, because it was Commissioner Norris and I who -- who asked to have this done, if you remember correctly, Commissioner Norris. And I thought the idea was to transfer 1.8 million dollars per year so that we kind of wean ourselves through this process. And -- and in 1997 we're looking at 3.4. I just have a question as to why that's not 1.8. Supposedly we'd already moved 3.6. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It was done in increments of one-third over a three-year period, but road and bridge last year did not need the full 1.8 million dollars because they had a large carryforward balance in that fund. So road and bridge did not need the full magnitude. That's, in essence, how we avoided in part a regular tax increase last year. But this is the third year of a three-year transition, one-third year one, two-thirds year two, one hundred percent year three. This is now year three. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But this 100 percent is more than one-half of what it was we asked to be moved over a year -- three years ago, and I guess that's my point. I mean, if -- if -- if through budget, whatever it is, magic, you perform, and God bless you for doing it but, you know, I had expected to see 1.8 million move each year for three years or roughly that number, and here we are in the third year and it's 3.4, which is more than half of the original MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is not -- that's the additional subsidy that fund requires now to make it whole based on its expenditure level. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How much of that are the gas taxes that we're talking about? That's -- I believe that's Commissioner Matthews' question, is she expected to see 1.8 as an isolated amount for gas tax funds being transferred. She says 3.4. She needs an explanation of that 3.4. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Between the two of us we communicate very well. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And what you're saying is that last year you didn't transfer all the money because they had a carryforward, and last year we were able to reduce the millage some minor amount, but perhaps we should have moved that money last year where we wouldn't be looking at 3.4 this year. We'd only be looking at 1.8. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me just flag that as a point that needs to be answered. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It still needs to be moved. I just need an answer as to why. MR. DORRILL: We'll do that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know we're all getting hungry, but I think this is one of the most meaningful discussions. This is so productive. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Louis Meck (phonetic) in the room? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: He'll be back in April. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next major item impacted on general funds of approximately a million dollars is sales tax required for debt service. We had a two-year savings window due to refunding the sales tax bonds. And obviously then that -- that freed up more sales tax to be available for use in the general fund. That two-year savings is gone. The debt service increases substantially, approximately a million dollars. As a result obviously that leaves a million dollars less in available sales tax revenue in the general fund. Third major bullet point item is the increase in the subsidy to EMS at -- on the top of page 10. It shows how the fee revenue has been allocated between fees versus general fund subsidy over time. In FY '95 the board made the policy decision to change the -- change the funding and accept the maximum allowed by Medicaid, which in terms of ad valorem subsidy increased the general fund's support by approximately a million dollars. And there was also some expanded services in there. I think the top of page 10 of the chart is enlightening in terms of just where we're at in terms of fee revenue versus general fund subsidies. The 1997 fee revenue was estimated at approximately 2.5 million, whereas general fund support is 4.1 million dollars. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Can I ask a question, because I -- I'm noting the million-dollar increase. And I don't want to delay this any longer than I have to, but when we refund a bond and we save -- I don't know -- a couple of weeks ago we saved 125,000, and a few weeks before that we saved 300,000 refunding a bond. And we don't ever when we do that designate what to do with that money. It just -- apparently it just goes into the general fund and is in the morass of the general fund. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The bond reserve fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, typically we reduce future years' debt service. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With the money saved? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: With the actual dollars saved? Well, here it appears, from what you said, that we were using that money to meet our obligation on bonds to be refunded through sales tax. And now because we don't have that anymore, we're looking at a million dollars in '97. Am I misunderstanding what -- what you said, or did you not say that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe so. The -- that money was -- the debt service payments were a function of restructuring of that debt. And obviously as a function of that payments increased in FY '97 debt by a million dollars. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. So in the restructuring of the bond, we have lowered annual payments that increases as we get out there a little bit. Is that -- is that what you're saying? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Now, the next major impact is the decrease in available carryforward revenue. We've had a large fund balance in the past due to additional turnbacks from the constitutional officers in part. Obviously as fund balance has been decreasing over the last few years, based on the estimate, the forecast estimate, there would be about 2 million dollars less available in fund balance available for use in the general fund. And obviously as that decreases as a percentage of general fund appropriations, it will become more difficult to meet cash flow during the first few months of the fiscal year. Obviously in a ad valorem tax supported fund, we don't get distributions from the tax collector until typically until mid November, so we have to have cash available on hand. I'm just alerting the board at this point. The purpose here was to determine whether or not we have adequate cash, and it will be very tight, and we will be prepared to borrow against pool cash, if need be, to meet the operating needs in the general fund. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski -- and this may be related -- I've had discussions with the clerk's office, initially with Kathy Hankins and now with Jim Mitchell over there, that we have a reserve set up, and there is a state-recommended percentage of your overall budget that should be set aside in reserves. They give a range between X and Y percentage; you should have reserves in that area. In the past our reserves have exceeded the upper end of that range. Obviously we're collecting funds, setting them aside in a certain area, and they're not -- they're accumulating, okay. My -- my question is when we sharpen the axe and do everything we can and still come up short, I need to know of the acceptable range in those reserves, in those tax dollars already paid in, how much of that would be available and still be in a safe range to avoid a tax increase this year. I know you don't have the answer now, but that's going to be important. That's certainly not a first step. It's a last step. But there's a reasonable percentage range as set forward by the state. And to avoid accumulation of reserves in excess of what the state recommends, I would like to have those numbers available as a last resort if need be. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Because obviously that, again, is another one-time salvation. Once you reduce debt reserve, your carryforward a year out will be reduced by a like amount. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. But if you look at the budget, we are in the valley. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At the pit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're at the bottom and the projections of the next two years bringing reserves up some. So it's not a situation of watching a decline and creating a stop point to hold steady that year and then a continual decline after that. Your projections show this as the toughest year of the -- go back two years -- of a five-year window. So if that is true, then if we are to -- if we are accumulating reserves in excess of a recommended percentage and, again, I need clarification on that, if we are doing that, then I would rather use that, use the excess above the recommended percentage, to avoid a tax increase if we can see the next few years coming out. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not looking for an answer today. I just want to know if that is the case -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'd like to sit down with Hiss Hankins and make sure -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jim Hitchell is the one that I've been discussing this with at this point in time. So he may not have anything solid at this point, but there have been some discussions that I want to make you aware of. MR. DORRILL: I think, again, the time to have a detailed discussion of that would be the board's review of the fund summary for the general fund, because you're going to -- you know, your number one revenue every year is the beginning balance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. DORRILL: And then I think you need to compare that against on the expense side what you're budgeting as a reserve, and you need to cut it as close as you can. I think the question should be from Hike's analysis how close do you want to cut it to the extent that do you want to have to borrow money at the beginning of the year before your property taxes come in. The school board's done that for a number of years. We've never had to do that. And, frankly, I'm not going to sit here and recommend that we borrow money to start the year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not advocating that by any means. MR. DORRILL: Well, that's the type of analysis. He can show you how close he thinks you can reduce -- your carryforward is a beginning fund revenue on October the 1st knowing that Guy won't send us the first general fund tax check until the end of November, and I think that's -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually they're going to be very close, and we may even -- depending on where budgets come in, we may need to do that next year. We may need to borrow short term. We have like a one- or two-week window in November and in December when -- you know, the constitutional officers are entitled to their monthly draws on the first of the month. That creates a little problem, because our tax distributions are typically November 15th, December 8th. So for a one-week period during each of those months we kind of have a case where -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is there any opportunity to ask Mr. Carlton to accelerate that payment a week or so? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. And from a revenue standpoint obviously we try to -- there's an indirect service charge. The utilities have the payment in lieu of taxes. And to the extent cash allows in those funds, we could bring that into the general fund early. But even with those measures it's still going to be very tight. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's going to be tight. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I hear you. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The next item, the sheriff's pay plan adjustments, by virtue of the fact that the sheriff is funded from the general fund and the unincorporated general fund he had, approximately 2 million dollars of his pay plan adjustment would impact the general fund, and the phase-in costs next year are for positions he added to his staff this year. Annualizing those next year would be another 300,000. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just going back to our comments under our own budget, I hope we'll do the same with the sheriff and all the constitutional officers, and that is set a proposed policy, and we'll look at some of the details, but let him set his own priorities within that policy. And if that policy is -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Within the amount of money we make available. MR. DORRILL: If I can just for a second -- if you'll turn over to page 13, you'll see the reason why that is important. If you look in the projected column -- or let's look at what you have actually approved this year in the first column. General fund in total is about a hundred million dollars. Your ability to control individual expenses within that is me, and we're 23 million of a hundred million dollar budget. Now, the next biggest category are transfers. And that's typically capital improvement projects. And obviously we have the ability to, you know, set priorities in capital improvement projects. But even combined, if all of the capital improvements are us, you're -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The BCC controls 40 percent of the overall -- MR. DORRILL: -- general fund. And unless you apply some appropriation criteria at the very beginning to the constitutional officers, which is Mr. Constantine's, you can beat yourself to death if you don't have much to show for it in the final analysis if you don't send him some similar direction. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So at what point -- when are we going to be making those kinds of decisions, at the same time we're having the conversation about program cutting perhaps? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good question. When does that discussion between the constitutional officers -- when does that direction from us occur? Obviously we don't have the information to do it today is what we're saying. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Well, hows about at the same time as we put under our program -- we say, Mr. Dotrill, here's really what yours costs, by the way, constitutionally. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me comment on that. If you're expecting them to give you their budget by Hay 1st, and you're also going to try to impose restrictions on how much they can budget, I think you ought to do that right now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we can do those today. I think what we're doing is setting a general policy, not how it's going to be achieved. If we say we're looking for a 1 percent decrease and we're going to do that and we expect everybody else to do that, then we have the ability to do that today. And then that gives them ample opportunity. Not only do we communicate we need their information by Hay 1st, then we communicate we want that information __ MR. SHYKOWSKI: We have just a few more items here in terms of items impacting the general fund. Then we can kind of turn to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- what the magnitude of the problem is and how we plan on addressing it. So I would say -- agree that today is the appropriate time. The -- under expanded services the county manager at 508,500, that's 250,000 each for Lake Avalon operations, the South Naples Community Park, and the eighty-five hundred dollars for a Marco Island branch library expansion, just additional operating. The sheriff had proposed 38 new deputies and 1 bailiff, slightly over 2.8 million dollars. Now, obviously that is not a formal budget request. That was based on a manpower analysis that the sheriff performs annually. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment on that. And while obviously we support having more patrol deputies, and maybe they've filled some of them to this point, but two years ago we budgeted 12 positions, and at the end of that fiscal year none of those positions had been filled yet the money was allocated. Last year we budgeted 28 more patrol positions, and as of a month and a half or so ago none of those had been filled. So there were 40 positions at the turn of the year that were still vacant, and I'm hesitant to budget for an additional 38 when we haven't had the opportunity to fill the others. And while we certainly should have the additional deputies, let's fill the vacancies first before we budget more vacancies. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I couldn't agree more, because we keep hearing that we need more deputies on patrol for various reasons, road patrol or investigations and so forth. And -- and we've continued for two straight years to add people to it, yet the positions aren't being filled. And because they're not being filled, we don't know what the effect is of what we have done. And I think we need to get those positions filled so we can measure what the effect is before we start adding more. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Smykowski, looking on page 15 under dollar increase for total expenses, to the general fund we have a projected 14,080,000 in increased spending in the general fund; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. That was inclusive of 38 deputies and Lake Avalon operations, a three and a half percent cost of living adjustment applied -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, this is somewhat of an inclusive number? We're not -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's a worst-case scenario. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Understanding that, what is our projected increase in revenues compared to increase in expenditures? What's the split there based on we assume what; a 3 percent rate of growth? Here's what I'm getting at. If we're going to set targets for constitutional officers, we need to link them to what our financial pictures look to be rather than being arbitrary, and I'll use it for lack of a better term, rather than just taking a percentage out of the area. There's no sense requiring a cut of two times what is necessary if it's going to adversely affect level of service unless -- unless, again, it's necessary. So before we start talking about setting that level, I need to know of that 14 million what are our projected revenues to the general fund based on the information you have. So what's our difference here? What are we really talking about in difference? MR. SHYKOWSKI: I think we'll get there shortly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Next page. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We are to that point. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You didn't think we were going to pay this much attention, did you, Mr. Smykowski? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Actually I'm happy you are. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you are. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Carryforward, I guess right before we get to -- page 12 also shows the capital millage history. At one point -- in 1986 we started the capital -- the countywide levy for capital outlay. In '88 that was increased to one mill. And at that point it generated eight and a half million. It remained at one mill in FY '91 and due to the corporate tax base generated 12.8 million dollars at that point. However, beginning in FY '92 on page 12 there's a chart that shows -- both a chart and a bar graph that identify how that has been reduced over time. Currently we spend seven -- a little over seven million dollars a year on capital projects. Obviously the board has allowed to as part of its policy-making role to say reduce that to 5 million if they are so inclined. At the top of page 12 there's a chart that shows the allocation of FY '96 dollars. There was approximately 4.6 million for capital projects. Interim debt service was about 2.4 million. That was for the 800 megahertz system as well as the campus parking lot project. The campus parking lot project is now paid off with the payment this year. So you'll note on the FY '97 dollars debt service is a million three fifty. That's for the 800 megahertz system. The board obviously would have the option of then utilizing that million dollars to increase the amount available for non-CIE capital projects to -- to approximately 5.7 million dollars. The grand total is still 7 million. Conversely, the board obviously could opt -- as part of its budget savings, you know, and to avoid a tax increase or to mitigate the impact or the extent of a tax increase, the board could opt to just say we'll do without that million dollars. That is one of the policy decisions you'll be making shortly. Pardon? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I was just mumbling what a great idea. We'll do without that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Obviously, though, not all capital projects are impact fee eligible, and we've whittled that down over time to the current level of 7 million dollars. So I guess further reductions in capital spending, I would say, would have to be approached with caution. Obviously knowing what's on the plate for next year, the medical examiner's facility, the 800 megahertz debt, we're also talking about a phase one of the County Barn county maintenance facility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, Dan. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And that's also part of the reason why we need to develop a five-year plan for those items. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: And that, again, is in our policy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in a nutshell we're talking about a 7 million dollar nut, in other words, on 7 million dollars to avoid an increase over rollback based on what's presented to us today. I know that's a generalization. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's an area where -- let me explain. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was the easy one. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On page 13 it identifies basically four scenarios, the percent of increase over rollback in dollars estimated above rollback. On page 14 it outlines those four scenarios. In scenario one it assumes continued funding of all existing services. It assumed no inflationary adjustment, no 3 percent on operating, no cost-of-living adjustment whatsoever in personal services. And it also assumed that we would reduce that capital spending by that million dollars due to that debt being paid off. It also includes the annualized cost of the sheriff's phase-ins of positions over last year over like 9 months that would require 12 months' worth of budget this year as well as the sheriff's pay plan adjustment analyzing the cost of that. And then essentially the following three scenarios build upon that. Scenario two includes inflationary adjustments at three and a half for personnel, three percent for operating and operating capital. Scenario three builds on that and restores the million dollars on capital funding. Scenario four is kind of the all-inclusive scenario adding in the 39 additional positions for the sheriff as well as the additional park operating costs of new park facilities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- in some -- in some lending is available. For example, one of the ones that was talked about earlier by Commissioner Hancock was that perhaps we will choose not to annualize the cost of the sheriff's pay plan adjustment since -- since we had hoped that he would take that and do a pro rata pay plan instead of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Little more of a phased -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an assumption in scenario one that we might want to reject. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, I think you've already made the decision to allocate him X amount of dollars. How he implements them now, again, will be up to the sheriff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, but we haven't made that decision -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't made our decision. I think you've heard some statements of people that feel that way, but it hasn't been a policy decision as of yet. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We haven't made that decision for '97. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We did for the budget; you're absolutely right. When we talked about the sheriff's pay plan, we said, we're going to bring it in at this amount. How he spends it is his business, because we have no control over how he spends it technically anyway. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Well, when you annualize that type of work, then 1.5 becomes 2.4 next year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If's then from 100 percent instead of phase-in, correct, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's the way I understood it, that what we had heard technically are subject to correction, because you know that you're smarter at that -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm assuming he's implemented that at some point this year. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's what I was wishing. I was wishing that when I -- I don't remember the percentages, but let's say we gave the sheriff 70 percent of what he asked for for raises. Instead of implementing the raises at a hundred percent for three-quarters of the year, he would implement the raises at 70 percent for -- from whatever date he chose. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember stating that as a desire. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. And I know we can't do that, but that was not the assumption I wanted to use in next year's budget for the sheriff. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Both of your discussion goes to the point that we can't tell the sheriff what to do with that money, but we can tell him how much money he's going to get. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Smykowski, I have a question for you concerning scenario one and scenario four. Scenario one, the first line says continued funding for existing services. Scenario four shows operations of a library expansion and two park expansions. Well, you know, why would we build a new -- a library expansion and two new parks if we weren't going to operate them? Shouldn't that be up in scenario one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can choose to -- we can tell you that we want scenario one with those parks being operated. So that's the menu for us -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Some of that would also be dependent upon South Naples Community Park. I don't think we've purchased land at this point. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lake Avalon -- MR. OLLIFF: In each of those three cases, you have a decision to construct those projects. I would assume that when we bring you the proposal to go out for bids on construction, you would want to have that discussion to decide do you want to go ahead with construction that knowing that there is a next-year operating cost associated with those. And so on each of those three you still have that decision yet to make. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And for the record you are? MR. OLLIFF: Tom Olliff, your public services administrator. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And quite happily. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We knew that, but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that answer your question? Not really, huh? MR. SMYKOWSKI: This would not preclude you from adding that into the budget obviously. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While we -- just to clarify, while we may not have officially authorized the construction at this point, we are certainly well down the road to doing so -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- on all of these projects. This is one more step in the continuing process of getting any project done. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The point of this kind of layer-cake method was to show the impact that we need 7 million dollars before we even add in any new service, new operating costs above and beyond what we already have in the budget. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's before we come back with our lists of those programs we're going to cut. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Mr. Smykowski, it is now twelve o'clock. How much longer will it take you -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're on page 18. It's decision time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we are close to the end? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have a question on the revenue portion on scenario one. In the manager's action agenda that he gave us in January, it's his intention to look at franchise fees; is that correct, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: We're looking at two. One of them would be a utility franchise fee and also what we call the first-year service fee. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: First-year service fee in lieu of the partial year ad valorem should they not make it available. And I -- I just want to remind the board that either of those will solve some of our problem to the -- to the tune of a couple million dollars. The -- the franchise fee, it's -- it's a new tax. Got to be honest, I'm not happy with a new tax. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's a regressive tax as well. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's regressive, yeah. But it does spread the burden over the entire population instead of just the property owner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, the 50 cents a month is a lot easier than $50 a year on the ad valorem tax bill. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I mean, I don't want to preapprove that, but I want the board to keep in mind that we do have those two items coming to us, I presume, in the near future. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's over in that last resort column. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. Actually those are outlined on page 18. Again, it summarizes the magnitude of our problem based on the four scenarios ranging from 7 to 14 million dollars. And I guess above and beyond that, obviously the manager's pay plan and the assumption for beach parking revenues that I utilized, those are not coming in quite as well as anticipated. So my guess is we'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of scenario three before it's all said and done looking for anywhere from 10 to 12 million dollars, okay. And then strategies for balancing the general fund, obviously on the revenue side we have the ability to increase taxes. We can allocate some TDC revenue for administrative overhead, although that's $60,000. The partial-year government services fee, based on a draft report by the department of revenue, estimates revenue of 1.7 million dollars annually. Again, that would be for properties coming on the -- issued a certificate of occupancy after January 1 of a given year. We could look at increasing EHS rates and implementing the franchise fee on electric utility lines. That would generate based, again, on a report prepared by Mr. Yonkosky, 1.4 million dollars per every 1 percent from an -- of a franchise fee. The typical maximum fee that have been instituted is 6 percent. So that could range anywhere from 1.4 million to 8.4 million depending -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for example's sake, if you had 3 percent, you'd have 4.2 million dollars. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. So that ranges depending on to what extent the board would be interested in, A, implementing the fee and then what percent would be set at. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: IF your power bill is a hundred bucks, that's a $3-a-month addition. MR. SHYKOWSKI: On the expense side obviously options, reduce existing service levels, the cost of living adjustment, reduce capital project funding. We also have the option of -- of deferring items, which in -- in answer in and of themselves would defer that -- a portion of that impact. Obviously if we -- there is some latitude in the road funding plan to defer the final year transition of gas taxes, because in the five-year road plan there is some surplus. We could actually delay transitioning that final year of gas taxes. That would be a 2 million dollar savings in FY '97, although the problem would not go away in FY '98, but it is a means of mitigating the extent of the impact in the short run. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the anticipated bump in '98 is considerably smaller than the bump overall. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if you were to bump it a year, at least you would be spreading out -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- the hit. MR. SHYKOWSKI: At this point we're going to need some policy direction, A, on the cost-of-living adjustment. The report was based on a three and a half percent cost of living. Human resources is currently recommending 3.25. For the purposes of the report, it was assumed to be implemented on 10-1, and I know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things I mentioned earlier today was either a phase-in, do it on calendar anniversary date, which comes out to roughly mathematically for our purpose 50 percent of what otherwise -- or to do a specific date where everybody washes in later on in the year. But I would think you could still give your employees the 3.2 or 3 percent, but by doing it at a later date or by doing it as a phase-in, the budget, in fact, you could be 1.5orl.6. MR. DORRILL: I think that's the way we need to go. I've got a question for Mr. Ochs. Does the -- does the 3.2 include money for the board's merit bonus program? MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. No. MR. DORRILL: Okay, that's -- we need to include that in the mix, because all of you have told me at one time or another you do like a one-time performance bonus or some sort of merit -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: And the 1 percent bonus that was utilized last year was an assumption again of this report. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not in the 3.2, but it's in these numbers? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. MR. DORRILL: And it takes 1 percent roughly to do the type of bonus program we had this year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, you and I had the conversation of which are you more comfortable with, an anniversary date-type thing or a specific date. MR. DORRILL: I prefer just for the ease and cost of administration to do a midyear cost-of-living adjustment, and that actually saves you a little more money than anniversary date because the -- you already have -- your anniversary dates are near the beginning of the year because that's when people get new positions and that sort of thing. So I think if you can go April 1, that saves you, you know, one and a half percent of what you would otherwise be spending. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does that -- if we do a particular amount for -- if we set aside 1 percent for merit, but that does not go into effect until April 1 either, does the -- is the net result one-half? MR. DORRILL: No, because it's -- remember, it's just a one time -- it's a lump sum cash bonus that we give them a separate check. It's not part of their hourly wage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, can I ask a question to clarify the pay plan implementation and how this folds in? Mr. Dotrill, if I was in a pay classification that was reduced through the pay plan, which there were some, does my daily salary change when I show up at work on Monday morning? MR. DORRILL: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Here -- here's my concern. I like the idea of delaying it halfway through the year particularly for those -- you know, we now -- we now can say our salary ranges are, you know, are -- are good. We're there. We're competitive in those ranges. But daily salaries haven't changed except for those that have been bumped up. The low end of the scale moved up so much that they get an increase. My concern is somewhat allayed in that no one is going to go backwards. But I'm more concerned about those positions that hold steady as opposed to those that go up regarding cost of living. And I guess I wanted to throw that out there if there is some level of looking at instead of across the board six months it's going to save us less money, but if we phased to cover those employees who did not get bumped in the pay plan, that they get cost of living beginning of the year, and those that got bumped get it halfway through. I know it's a hybrid; it sounds kind of strange. But my concern is, again, that no one goes backwards. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Mr. Ochs can help with that. I know looking at what was handed out this morning, the average for the nonexempt employee is 8.61 percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some are above; some are below. But you're right. If somebody stayed an even zero, we need to carry them another six months. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems that it would be easy to identify those particular individuals that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Eighty-three positions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And those 83 should get cost of living on day one. The balance get it halfway through. It's kind of a hybrid but, again, I think it sends a better message than ignoring those folks halfway through the year. MR. DORRILL: That's why in the previous item to this one I said that I intended to review every single position for what I'm calling equity but also on the other side to make sure that nobody is getting some -- some huge windfall here. And that's why I said -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe I'm speaking out of turn. If you don't have a concern with this, Mr. Dotrill -- you have your finger on the pulse with what's going on with the employees better than we would. So, you know, if what I'm talking about doesn't sound like something we need to pursue, tell me now and I'll -- MR. DORRILL: I'd say let's not pursue it. Let's focus on some midyear phase-in for cost of living. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as you're comfortable with that, I'd suggest that 3 percent for everyone but do it at midyear, and that brings it in at 1.5. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was it recommended at three and a quarter? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Three and a quarter. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three point two five. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I was lying to you. MR. DORRILL: The most recent cost of living I heard was closer to 3. Can you comment on that? It was actually two nine five or two nine nine or something. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, we can always go down, but we can't go up later. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But what I don't want to do when we go through this is promise expectations for the employees and have them aggravated when -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's back when it was 6.3 -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which I voted against. I don't want to say 3.2 and have -- you know, come in two months from now and have all of them angry when we say we're only doing 2.9. I think we ought to try to set something and stick steady with it now so they know exactly what they can expect. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is 3.0 reasonable, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: I think it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Still three 0 at your phase-in is -- MR. DORRILL: One and a half percent which is going to be something akin to about $625,000. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That with the knowledge that Mr. Dotrill is going to do the individual position reviews, it's comfortable for me. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In addition to that particular assumption, I need to understand what our -- well, what I believe we need to be doing right now, Mr. Smykowski -- and please tell me -- is going through this layer cake, as you call it, of scenarios and choosing. We need to adopt some assumptions like -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have a 12 million dollar problem. We need to go down these laundry lists and hopefully add up to 12 million. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I gotcha. And on your -- and on your revenue -- on the revenue strategies I had a question. Increase taxes I marked off because that's going to be the very last choice. Allocate TDC revenue for administrative overhead, that would get us 60,000 bucks. We can do that Mr. Weigel? If we can, let's do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have on the beach restoration. MR. DORRILL: Yes. You allocate a portion of my time and Mike's time and Miss Gansel's time. Those are all eligible expenses. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'm for that with the understanding that is including -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Public works is included in the budget every time there is a public works project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we've approved that every time. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Right. I think Mr. Dotrill is talking about administrative time, i.e., his own and Mr. Smykowski's to manage the budget for the TDC and so forth. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we should do that. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, you said that would save six twenty-five. MR. DORRILL: That was just my rough number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So there's another sixty. I'm very interested in this implementation, the partial-year government service fee. That's the one I would like to do and what -- people are looking perplexed in the audience. What that is, since we can't get partial-year ad valorem taxes -- when you construct a new home on the property, we can't get it on the tax rolls until the next year. This would be a fee we could charge to make up that gap, which I think is a great idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you open your home on January 2nd, you get a free ride. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the whole year. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: For 22 months. It's not one year; it's 22 months. MR. DORRILL: The legal analysis for that preliminarily was done by Palm Beach County, and our proposal is very similar to the proposal that Palm Beach County had. If we were going to do that, it would need to be in effect on October the 1st. I will tell you that Palm Beach County never implemented their proposed first-year service fee because of unbelievable pressure from the development community as that being an additional cost of construction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We don't have that problem here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, I had asked you to do some homework on this. Do you have any idea what it's going to be? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I don't know about the legal analysis done by Palm Beach County, but we've done legal analysis previously. In December of 1994 the firm of Neighbors, Giblin provided its legal analysis to Lee, Charlotte, and Collier County. And in their memo, their legal memo, they indicated that they did not believe, based upon the case law that existed at that time, that the partial-year ad valorem service fee was a legally viable alternative. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's challenge it. I mean, let's implement one. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I thought Dade County -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to do it anyway. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- was doing it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's let Mr. Weigel finish. MR. WEIGEL: We've communicated with Neighbors, Giblin to assist us in any update or review they have of their opinion. We've done our own research looking at the statutes and the case law, which hasn't changed. And, again, it was a bit of a recommendation. And at that time based upon what the Florida Association of Counties was doing, the Nabors, Giblin opinion opined that the best -- the best way rather than chaping away at an ordinance basis subject to the attacks that have already truly run aground in court as of that time was to pursue the statewide legislative process which, of course, has endeavored to have been done by this board in the past two years with the resolutions as adopted. So we may have a -- a revised opinion from them. But based on our research, we don't find anything that would lead us away from what we think is a very well considered opinion at the time they made it in December of '94. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, the format this is put forth in -- and if it's done with some standard policy and not done according to size the way our impact fees are, that it may be possible, and I'm not sure that's exactly how the '94 opinion -- what that was based on and maybe just update the board on where we're -- MR. DORRILL: Quickly, we did receive the ordinance that went to public hearing in Palm Beach County. We received it yesterday. There was a complete financial nexus component that was done, which was the same test and rule that applies to impact fees. And we have asked for that information as well. I think that we need to pursue evaluating this and taking it to a public hearing. But I think it needs to be on a legally defensible basis and work -- the easiest one to me seems to be square footage, because that way we're not assuming or applying either a perceived assessed value before one is created by -- by Mr. Skinner, nor are we applying a subterfuge of that which would be construction value. And I think that if we try to ascribe it to square footage for residential, commercial, industrial, you know, we're exhausting opportunities to show you these and let you give us direction. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my point just being it's not based on value the way an ad valorem tax rate would be. MR. NORRIS: That's correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Yonkosky is here if you have any comment. He prepared the initial draft report and -- MR. DORRILL: Let's hang on a second. We got a long ways to go, and I don't want us to get bogged down on any -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question over here. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Who was Nabors, Giblin working for when that opinion was rendered? MR. WEIGEL: They were working for all three. In fact, they do have a relationship with each of the three counties, and it was an opinion rendered to all three at the same time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And does Neighbors, Giblin have strong development representation in their background? MR. WEIGEL: Well, they really have strong county representation in their background, Florida Association of Counties and numerous counties. They're kind of known as the home rule type of law firm in the sense that traditionally they have sided with counties having autonomy as opposed to being bound and having problems operating under the state statutes. So I hate to paraphrase, but I will. And I expect that we have received from them in the context of their other kind of work an opinion, again, dated December '94, which was as far as they felt comfortable to give at that time. And we're trying to see if they have moved from that position at this time right now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, we're into our lunch period here. How long is this -- you anticipate our presentation to go from here? MR. DORRILL: The presentation's concluded. If we can work down the list of potential solutions, that's all that we need to -- to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that one is one that we're going to get a presentation on, and we're going to see if we can implement it in a legally defensible -- MR. DORRILL: I think it needs to be included in the mix because otherwise you're going to have to cut expenses or raise property taxes somewhere before we get to the bottom of this page. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're looking for direction from the board that we do include that as part of it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody nod. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears we have to do something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a comment. Also at the partial-year ad valorem meeting that I went to at the FAC last Friday -- I sent you all a memo -- there was another item that they were talking about that's available as well. And these are -- these are some of the strategies that -- that the counties discussed, and that's construction work in process which would go even before the C.O. It would be work in process. I don't know how we would do that on other than a construction value, but that -- that's also another one that individual counties are investigating for the availability of -- of additional funds. And the representative from Nabors, Giblin was at that meeting, and he was not saying that was not a good way to go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, please continue. MR. DORRILL: The next one I think is a franchise fee. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. MR. DORRILL: There again, I'll give you a brief history. There is another non-chartered county in the state, which is Santa Rosa County that has -- I don't know who the regulated power company is there, but this essentially would give non-chartered counties the same ability that charted counties and municipals have, which is to charge franchise fees on telephone and regulated electric utilities, natural gas if they applied. They don't in this county. My understanding is that the county prevailed in the initial hearing in Santa Rosa County, which is Fort Walton Beach adjacent to Pensacola. The latest FAC information is that the power company in lieu of pursuing an appeal has -- has indicated they'd like to discuss a settlement but recognizing the county's right and ability to charge a franchise fee in return for their allowing power poles to be in the public right-of-way. And that's essentially the basis of the argument in 15 seconds. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we do a franchise fee with a one-year sunset? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do it annually? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, yeah, because, you know, the idea is there's no such thing as a tax that's ever repealed. And just as we did with the 3 percent beach renourishment, we set it for a definitive period and tried to make it so it couldn't be monkeyed with. We're looking at a one-year shot here, a one-year revenue required. I'd hate to see it perpetuate unless it were absolutely necessary. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's not the case at all, because we're talking about a 12 percent increase this year and a 3 or 4 percent increase next year, assuming the 12 percent is done. So, I mean, they're all piggybacked. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct. Once you balance your budget utilizing that source and if you sunset it, you'd have a 2 million dollar hole a year from now -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do think, though, your point is well taken if we can review that along with the other items annually. The government always finds a way to spend money if you have it there. So if we can review that annually, then we'd have the ability to remove that, we certainly should. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It would seem to be that we can put into the ordinance establishing it that the rate must be set each and every year. In the ordinance if you fail to set a rate, then you don't collect it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good. We skipped right over increase EHS rates, and I hope that was intentional. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we do that, do we want to set a percentage rate? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, three. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You have typical maximum fee of 6 percent; is that-- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three percent of this is enough? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's correct, based on our preliminary report. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three percent would raise 4.2 million? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- and the initial-year government fee will raise what? One point seven? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can reduce that later, can't we? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure we can. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll go with three for now, but I want to see the rest of the budget before -- I'd like to bring that down if possible. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In addition to -- to making these revenue assumptions, we're about to make some expense assumptions, too; right? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That is correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I don't want to leave on there continued funding for existing -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yeah. You can balance this either way, increase revenues or decrease expenses or a combination thereof. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point backs up what Commissioner Hancock just said, which is we can come back later and we get cut, then we're not going to need to generate this much revenue. MR. DORRILL: I think the next one in progression would be the analysis of deferring the sales tax transfer to road and bridge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question. We skipped over EHS. My question there is we had purposely lowered that the last couple of years to try to take care of Hedicare and the amount of payment they would put forward. Is there any increase or any anticipated increase -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the rate? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. It has already been adjusted to approximately $280. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The purpose when we lowered it was to bring it down to where Hedicare would pick up -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If Hedicare has gone up, then I think the logic still stands rather than the county tax base eating it __ COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need to subsidize Hedicare. So if we add -- Commissioner Norris had done the math a little bit and if -- I think $30 -- you just said 280 -- $30 should equal just a little less than 300,000. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Only about 40 percent of our transports are Hedicare. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the point being the 600,000 deficit last year, so anything is helpful. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm saying, though, it may not be 300. It might be 120. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever it is. MR. SHYKOWSKI: We will do 25 a month. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. The number is based on everybody, not just Hedicare patients. Everyone has to pay. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Everybody pays 280. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to stay consistent. The purpose -- as I recall, the purpose that we picked 250 was that the Hedicare -- it equated with what Hedicare would pick up. Obviously everybody doesn't have that. Track Hedicare. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Track Hedicare. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they're up to 280, then we ought to go to 280, and if we generate -- theoretically it generates an additional 300. If we don't get all that, we don't get all that. But I think that's fair and stays consistent with the policy the board had set in the past. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, can we set a policy that our EHS rates track Hedicare? MR. DORRILL: Sure. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we just do that? MR. SHYKOWSKI: In the rate resolution adjusted -- MR. OCHS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, again, Leo Ochs for the record. As part of the board's action agenda for the manager, we will be to the board before the end of March with an executive summary on this very topic that will do, I think, in essence, what you're all talking about. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe you can skip it. We just did it. MR. OCHS: Well, we need to do that kind of legally. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand you need to do it legally, but for policy purposes, Mr. Smykowski, it appears -- I saw a nod down here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nod, nodding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Track Hedicare rates -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It gets us to approximately 7 million dollars. Mr. Dotrill, the next item on the list had indicated a one-year deferral of that shift, a final transition of gas taxes to the road program. It's approximately 2 million dollars, granted, though, it is a deferral. It is not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like to defer only from the standpoint of what I said before where we had a large bump we're dealing with this year. Next year if we hit a small bump, there may be -- obviously we have to deal with it then, but it's much easier for us and, frankly, for the taxpayer if you have two tiny bumps instead of one great big one, so I like the idea of the deferral. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was 2 million. The deferral has a one-year value of 2 million that we will pick up next year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It buys you a year of time to address the problem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm not interested in deferral of either of those park projects except to the extent that they're not built. Let's get to expenses. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Okay. Obviously we've already addressed the cost of living, cutting it back to one and a half versus three point five, so we -- that's about 900,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. What was that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The reduction of capital project funding. We'll see at the budget hearings a detailed list of the proposed projects so that we can pick and choose at that time; is that correct? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. But the issue is, again, you have in the past allocated 7 million dollars, slightly above 7 million dollars. This year, if you'd refer back to the top of page 12, you spent roughly 4.6 on projects, 2.4 on debt service this year. Next year a component of that debt service goes away because the campus parking lot is paid off. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In looking at your comments on the bottom of page 11, it says debt services retired, campus parking debt service this year, hereby providing an additional 1 million for capital projects in '97, or the BCC also has the option of reducing capital spending further. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm for B. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see us reduce that further. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, you have to take that into context, too, in the types of things we have on the plate. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that debt service number has gone away, so to that extent -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. This is not a workshop. Let's try to talk in order here. We're making it very hard for our court reporter. Don't just jump in and out. The -- what I would like to see is we've got a number here that says 7 million dollars allocated for capital project funding next year, but we don't know what those projects are at this stage. I think we should -- we should have a goal of reducing that number, if that's what we desire, but we need to look at the individual projects to see how we're going to do that. That's a policy decision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that 7 million include the 1,034,0007 MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So our goal is to get that down to 6 million. And if we find something that pops us up above that but that's the goal we're shooting for? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't agree with that as a goal understanding we have no idea what those projects are at this point, and we'll need to weigh them, but I'm willing to set that as a goal. I just -- I, like Commissioner Norris, I want to see that list, because there are going to be some years where something that may yield us savings down the road needs to be built this year. And those tradeoffs have to come at some point. So, yeah, I don't want to remove it off the top. If we want to set it as a no-go for that, I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What else? MR. SHYKOWSKI: The remaining would either be a combination of reducing existing service levels or increasing ad valorem taxes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By reducing existing service levels, there are four departments here that we will know at least give us a menu of what some of the options there are. MR. DORRILL: In addition, you need to keep in mind that failure to -- to get either one or both of those two revenues also creates a potential problem. So -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we should look back at the scenarios at this point to -- to talk about what will be the assumptions on expenses; right? I mean, that's where we go back at this point instead of just globally saying we'll try to reduce existing service levels in five departments. The continued funding for existing services was the first expenses assumption, and I'm -- I'm suggesting that that might not be an appropriate assumption for this year's budget. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Smykowski, we're back. Commissioner Constantine has a question for you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of those -- of all those projects we just deferrals -- if you add up all the numbers we've just said, that is roughly equal to 8.2 million. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I came up with 10. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pardon me? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I came up with 10. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I hope you're right. Anyway, point being you had suggested we needed to come up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 127 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm looking here at scenario 3, and it says 10,734,800, and I just -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: This analysis did not include the county manager's pay plan adjustment -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- and in addition, the analysis was based on beach parking generating this year 750,000. At this point it looks like it's going to be 300,000, so I'm drawing -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Surprise. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- into the picture. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Also lost. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we run through what it is that tallies up to ten, because maybe I just missed one here? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had the 4.2 for franchise fees. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had 1.7 for partial-year service fee; correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: The cost of living and the TDC, roughly 700,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That gets us to 6.6. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: EMS had 300. But I think that may have not been actually -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's go conservative on that, because I agree, it's more like 200 or less. Can we assume that at 200,0007 We need a feel on that one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the math is real simple. There was about two and a half million dollars generated on $250 fee, so that's about $10 per ride, I mean, each $10 -- SMYKOWSKI: You are actually closer to 9 million -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- with the 2 million dollars for the deferral. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then the 2 million for deferral. And did I leave something out, or did I just do my math wrong? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may not want the answer to that question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just embarrass me a little further. MR. SHYKOWSKI: About 9 million. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're at 9 million. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, let me -- let me see if I've got it here. We just went down through a list of things that we are directing you to -- to bring back to us. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In addition, some of the things that we have talked about earlier that we need to also direct you to do, which certainly include the direction to inform the constitutional officers of what our desires are as soon as possible, so we need board discussion on how we're going to present our -- our concerns to the constitutional officers at this point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a -- on that point, as looking -- just looking at the projected '97, I see things like Hary Horgan dealing with an incredible workload only coming in at 2.3 percent increase. I see the other constitutional officers coming in at 3 percent or less. I think to ask any more of them to bring it in at less than 3 percent when cost of living is roughly 3 is -- is -- last year I think we said something like that, an ad valorem neutral, and it was 3 percent or less, and they all came in, you know, in that area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With one exception. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'd like to set a goal better than that rather than just assume 3 percent is good. I'd like to set it at zero, or I'd like to set it at a decrease and see what we can do and what does that mean. If they come back and say, well, gosh, that means we won't be able to do X, Y, and Z. If you're looking for a decrease, we may decide that we still need to do X, Y, and Z for the best interest of the county, but at least we'll have that picture. And, you know, I'd like to set our policy of trying to do a cut. And I'd like to set that for them as well, maybe a minimal cut. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In effect a zero percent increase would be a cut. I think that should be the goal. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- we had asked the constitutionals last year to come back with a millage neutral budget, meaning don't cause us to raise the millage on your behalf. And even -- even if they do that this year, they're going to get whatever assessed value increases would be available to them, and many of these percentage increases that we're looking at for the constitutionals are exactly that. They're under the 3 percent assessed value limitation. And I -- I would prefer to ask the constitutionals to come back with a millage neutral budget as opposed to a zero dollar increase. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I need to clarify the chart on page 15. Those are not the percentage increase -- that's the percentage of the dollar increase, the 14 million dollar increase, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My apologies. You're right. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Ms. Horgan's budget would go from 1.4 -- 1.5tol.9. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I misread that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She's got a 30 percent increase. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of -- I'm torn between those constitutional officers every year that squeeze and try and force it in and get that square peg in a round hole rather than taking action that's kind of seen as, you know, kicking them when the target area is maybe elsewhere. That's my only concern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't think it's kicking them at all. I think our job is to whittle down that budget as much as we can. Their job is obviously to do whatever service it is their job requires at as little cost. The reason all those come before us is because it's our job to do the budgets. I don't see it as kicking them. I see it as just doing our job. As long as we communicate clearly with them, which we haven't always done, then I think they'll be okay with that. I'd like to set a goal. I've got to agree with Commissioner Norris. I'd like to set the goal to zero which equates to a cut. Whenever anyone is running for office, they talk about government does too much; government spends too much. Let's not assume there needs to be an increase. Let's assume maybe a decrease, because we're doing it on ours, we're saying we're going to have cut some stuff. Let's ask them to do the same thing that we're asking of ourselves, and that is to look at some cuts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So your suggestion is to ask them to bring back a dollar neutral or less budget. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to see that, yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's very difficult and very challenging, but we're asking ourselves to look at cutting, and I think we need to ask them the same. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we asking ourselves to do dollar neutral? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to, yeah. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We've just identified certain new sources of funds. That's not exactly dollar neutral. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, here's my -- my concern is we are in a growth area. What we're, in essence, asking not to maintain the same level of service at the same dollars. We're asking to maintain an increased level of service at fewer dollars minus any cost-of-living increases, and I think that in order to do that, you have to have some fat on the bone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about if we ask for a slight decrease in millage, say, instead of dollar -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that way -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern is not sending the wrong message -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you wholeheartedly, and your explanation is good because there may be grant funds out there. There may be other things that are -- budget-wise you might bump 1 percent, but if they could decrease ad valorem by say point 1 or by -- you know, by 1 percent, point 01, by 1 percent, then, you know, if there are other revenue sources out there -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And that's a good point, because we don't particularly care how much state grant funds they spend or acquire and get and all that. We're concerned primarily at this level with the ad valorem taxation, so I would be supportive of -- of asking the constitutional officers to bring us back a millage neutral budget as we did -- as we did last year. That would give them the -- the regular increase that would accrue from construction and property value increase, if any. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is the growth related -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. Which is their growth -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine is trying to go one step further. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, and I'll try one more time. You wouldn't have any interest in asking for a 1 percent decrease? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is a point -- well, it depends on -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think that's going to be a little hard to do because, I mean, we've just identified two new funding sources totaling almost 6 million dollars, and -- and if we want to accrue all of that 6 million dollars to our own 40 percent of the total budget -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not fair. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that's not fair. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But by saying -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I understand the attempt to try to make your budget as tight as you can, and I'm all for that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So your vote is -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: My vote is millage neutral. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask before you say that, the items we identified we are going to claim on our own, because the amount of money that we do or don't increase for our employees doesn't affect the other constitutional officers. We can ask them to do that as part of theirs, but that 625,000 is ours. The 1.7 million, the 4.2, the 2 million dollar deferral on -- on the roads, that's not going to go over to the sheriff or to any of the other constitutional officers. So when you ask are we going to hang on to that, by the nature of what the majority of those are, yes, we are. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Those particular items I agree; you're absolutely right, because we control those within our own budget. But we're looking at a 1.7 million possibility on the government first-year service fee and a 4.2 million dollar franchise fee and, you know, with all due respect, I think that constitutionals with their growth issues as well, especially Mrs. Morgan with the voter impact, is, however, going to come back and say I need a piece of that, too. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which challenges us to be dollar negative. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And they may. But that 12 million dollars that Mr. Smykowski is talking about takes that into consideration. You're looking at the total ad valorem picture. You're not looking just at ours. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, it all comes back to one big pie, and we have a piece of it. I think we should ask for a decrease. Yes, that would be difficult. Yes, that would be hard. But that's our job, is to do difficult things. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you say decrease, I'm -- specifically help me out. Commissioner Norris is asking for direction. Do you want to go which way; millage neutral, or what direction are you suggesting? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hillage decrease of 1 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll go for that. We're setting a target for ourselves, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How does that relate to what we've set for ourselves? We -- you told us to find 12 million bucks. We found 9 million bucks. MR. SHYKOWSKI: So far. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So far. What's the millage relationship to that three-point spread? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean that 3 million dollars? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry, that 3-million-dollar spread. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, Commissioner Hac'Kie, our goal here is try and do the same as what we're asking the constitutional officers, and that is not to positively impact the millage rate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm excited about the idea of potentially negatively affecting the millage rate. So if -- if -- but my question is, I can't conceive of asking a constitutional to do something greater than we are doing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All of us are doing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we're going to do it, too, despite the fact we've identified 6 million dollars in additional funding sources -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we may not need all of. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, let's not spend it just because we've identified it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't want to be spending money knowing the others -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, not at all. My suggestion is that -- as Commissioner Norris said, my suggestion is that the policy be the same for all of us, that we abide by it, and we ask constitutional officers to abide by it, but we try to have a 1 percent ad valorem decrease. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In a year where we already know we're 12 million dollars short over current? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No one says we'll succeed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, now. We're talking about ad valorem. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're not talking about franchise fees or that sort of thing. And we're not talking about their state grants or any of the other money that they may get from other source of funding. We're talking about the impact on the ad valorem taxpayer. We're asking them to be level or less, and we're -- our goal is to do the same thing, ad valorem. Don't try to equate that to dollars. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, I'm not sure we're talking apples and oranges, though. Mr. Dotrill, does a hundred percent of the budget other than the fees that the constitutionals collect come from the general fund? MR. SHYKOWSKI: No. A component of the sheriff's budget is funded by fund 111. And obviously the clerk -- well, that is -- MR. DORRILL: The vast majority of it is in the general fund. The sheriff's budget gets about 6 or 7 million dollars from the unincorporated general fund. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. But earlier today we said that your agency and the BCC along with the transfers, it makes up about 40 percent of the budget. MR. DORRILL: Correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And we've identified roughly 6 million dollars worth of new funding sources. And with the proposal that Commissioner Constantine is -- is making, I mean, help me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like we want to keep all that 6 million dollars to ourselves and decrease our proportionate share of the general fund __ COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will help you -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- and that's okay. I just want to make sure that we are saying what we intend to do. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not my suggestion. The 12 million dollar shortfall includes all ad valorem expenditures, whether that comes from the clerk or the sheriff or us. The money that we have just outlined that will assist the 9 million dollar total in trying to offset that goes toward that 12 million dollar total. Now, some of that may go to the sheriff, and some may go to the clerk, whatever. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm trying to look at the one big number of ad valorem regardless of to whom that expenditure goes. And I guess all I'm asking is should we set as a policy goal to have a tax decrease or not. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about we would set as a goal a 1 percent decrease. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it's an excellent goal. I just -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's three votes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm not sure we're sending the right message to the constitutionals that we're going to raise fees and raise taxes in some other direction -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're not saying that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, excuse me. That's fine if you don't think it's correct. Let's start from this end and find out if that's what we want to do. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm supporting the 1 percent decrease as a goal. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I believe you are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I am. And you can voice your dissention if you like. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, it's not dissention. I'm trying to be a realist in this, and I think it's an excellent goal. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Headline reads Matthews opposes tax decrease. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If we can achieve the goal, I think it's great. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've got our work cut out for us. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell us what -- MR. DORRILL: I just want you to know the bottom line is __ COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: -- which is what you pay me to do. You've identified potentially 9 of the 12 million dollars. A 1 percent property tax reduction below the rollback rate, which the way I understand Mr. Constantine's proposal, is $600,000, so there is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: Three million six hundred thousand dollars worth of expense cuts that would need to be prorated amongst everyone who is in the general fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can do that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: What's in that 12 million dollars? I mean, we were talking -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski. Mr. Smykowski, one of the things we talked about earlier was each of us five putting together our list of potential areas to be cut. We need from you -- I'd like to set a time frame for us to do that. But we need from you some information in order to do that. And I need to know what time frame you can provide that to us, the information, so we know, you know, what capital projects are proposed, what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can find our 3 million bucks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What ongoing projects are funded? We can go back through last year's budget, and I can look at the board -- know what we're funded at. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How dare you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a comprehensive simple way for us to go through on a menu choice of what are our priorities and what items we think we can live without? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe so. We had assembled -- compiled a list of all of the discretionary programs from last year's program workshops. I can probably have it to you this afternoon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perfect. MR. SMYKOWSKI: It does have dollar amounts on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want those. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let me -- let me suggest to the board members that Mr. Smykowski supply us with that information including the cap -- the proposed capital project fundings for next year and have that to us sometime this week and that we come back in our meeting of the 26th with these proposed cuts from each board member. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Could -- could I also ask, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Smykowski give us a detailed listing of what makes up the 12 million, because area 3 is 10.7 and scenario 4 is 14.4, and we're at some hybrid. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Again, I think the county manager -- the pay plan adjustment was not included here. That is one, and beach parking fees, the numbers I used in this analysis are not materializing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will you write that down on a list -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thanks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a shock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's only materializing to the tune of $300,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's see. Before we had -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nothing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, okay, okay, okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Free access. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's only producing one-third. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item. Let's move on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So those proposed cuts are due on the 26th? MR. DORRILL: Yeah. And my understanding, in order to be perfectly clear, is that they're to be pro rata -- prorated based on the current portion of the general fund that every agent -- agency manager spends. It's my responsibility to come up with essentially 40 percent including reserve -- including transfers of that 3.6 million in cuts that we're looking for. I'm responsible for 40 percent of it. The constitutional officers are responsible for 60 percent of it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And we can decipher that as it goes on. As Commissioner Hancock said, this is an election year. If Mary Morgan is at 2.1 percent instead of 2.3 percent or whatever and we have an opportunity to make up the difference, then we will. I don't know that we can divvy the pie up perfectly that way. I hope the responsibility breaks that way, but if any one of us can do more and it ends up offsetting somewhere, then that's fine, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How are we going to communicate clearly to the other constitutional officers what our expectation is by the scenario Mr. Dotrill just laid out, because if we say 60 percent to the rest of them, who will do what and how much? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why don't we have Mr. Dorrill put together a memo indicating what the board's policy is today, run it by the chairman to make sure it's adequate, and then we'll -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I bet they're all listening, and they already know. MR. DORRILL: So that we don't have the problem we've had in years past, I think it would behoove the board to ask the chairman to meet with them to then explain it. If I go, they always get on their high horses if you send your hired -- hired boy to go down there and tell them. I think the chairman -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll be glad to do that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's send our chairman boy down there. MR. DORRILL: And that's why we had our previous discussion. I'm assuming that your cost of living scenario applies also. They can either get one and a half percent on October the 1st, or they can get 3 percent on April the 1st, but otherwise your budget instructions apply countywide. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the important thing we need to do is be standard across the board. If we're doing it for ourselves, we need to ask them to do the same. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Mr. Dorrill, on that 60-40 split, my goal would be for you to be the hero and do more than your share. MR. DORRILL: We always do, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: We lead the county when it comes to making tough decisions. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to say something on that. One of the reasons we deferred the cost of living was because we just went through a salary adjustment, pay adjustment process. They have not. The employees of the tax collector and property appraiser are not subject to the county manager's pay adjustment so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding is the clerk's coming back to us shortly with an adjustment -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But he hasn't done it yet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But he hasn't done it yet. And I'm concerned with if there's no adjustment of salary, what we're asking them to defer six months is not an even playing field. One of the main reasons we deferred for six months or one of the possible reasons was because of that salary adjustment. So I'm not sure I want to send that direction to other constitutional officers unless they have had a pay adjustment. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Like the sheriff's department. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You're right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Makes sense. Does that conclude the presentation, Mr. Smykowski? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need to pick our dates yet. MR. SHYKOWSKI: To set quickly -- unincorporated areas on pages 19 and 20. Essentially the tax picture there looks pretty good. I'm looking at a 1.4 percent increase over rollback. Obviously, though, one major component in fund 111 is in the past year we had budget reserves for future impact fee payments of 1.4 million. However, in a number of cases, we've gotten financial instruments from developers equivalent to the future value of those impact fees. So in terms of -- our restricted carryforward is only $124,000 next year that provides funding available that we would recommend setting aside as a reserve for capital projects in the unincorporated area that we could perhaps utilize for some stormwater drainage improvements, whatever the case may be. So there appears to be some one-time money that we would recommend setting aside and using for a one-time expense. Pollution control, doesn't look like there would be any millage increase necessary. All -- the only other question is board workshop dates in June. We could perhaps sit down with Mr. Dotrill and then under maybe BCC communication next week set those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do it under BCC communications next week. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Workshop dates? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Obviously we'd be looking probably the third week in June or later if it could be worked out and to provide you with all the information you would have or need and in the desired two-week-ahead-of-time format. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Could I suggest at the same time that we set the workshop dates that we set our summer break dates also, because it seems that -- at least last year especially because it was a three-week break instead of two week, we put pressure on the budget department. And since we're looking for all these changes in June, I think we probably ought to set our break weeks at the same time, and then we all know what we're -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Obviously if our workshops could be held the last week in June all the better of providing the information to you all, the public, as well as just being able to grind out all the changes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need to make a decision now, but I thought I'd throw out a suggestion for the break, and that is with the exception of last year -- and you mentioned, Commissioner Matthews, the 4th of July on a Tuesday. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Exceptional year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we've done normally is the first two weeks of July and at the end of August taken a break. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's too much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember particularly last year we did very, very little in between the two breaks. Our agendas lasted until about 10:15. One of them I think went until about 9:50, so I don't know that it's that pressing. I was going to suggest that we go with the first two weeks in July still and then take maybe the last couple of weeks in August and, you know, leave the space in between to do what we need to do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine with me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me, but Miss Filson is probably eating something that did not settle with her. What -- you've been caught, Miss Filson. Is there anything else you'd like to add? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where is that camera? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine with me. I make my plans around whatever we schedule, so -- are you going this year? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I guess one of my questions is that if Mr. Smykowski would like to come back with the last week in June for the workshops, and this -- this is sounding like we're all very much involved in this budget, and I think that we have a number of members of the public that want to get involved in it also, that three days is what we've normally done. Three days may not do it this time. And we might need to spread it out or even go into that first week of -- of July. So I -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: We have to release the tentative budget on July 15th. Typically it goes to the printer about the 7th so -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The last two weeks in June, if we could do the workshops, then we'll have to make it work. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to ask you. We did bump it a week earlier last year. If we can do -- even get it to like the 20th or the 21st, which is the next-to-the-last week, and then do whatever we need to do, meet as many times as we need to meet, the final reading, not only for us, but if we want public participation, the public disappears the 4th of July, that week. So -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's exactly right. We may want to look at the third week of June to a carryover to the fourth week if we can't finish. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that all right? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The audience is looking very hungry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We are, too. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody is sitting slumped over. MR. DORRILL: You have one member of the public who has asked to speak, Gil Erlichman MR. SMYKOWSKI: We also need to adopt the resolution or the draft resolution with -- Mr. Weigel has a change in the terms of the constitutional officer submission dates. There was a draft resolution, and so we would want your approval on that as a part of this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm not going to be very long. I have two comments and a question. First of all, I'd like to thank -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Mr. Constantine for his relentless pursuit of that decrease. I appreciate his efforts on that part, and I've listened to this whole budget review, and I -- I think you did a very good job, sir. And, secondly, I got a message from the -- from Representative Saunder's office. This is from A1 Perkins. He said please publicly cite the commissioners for getting information out over the TV to get people registered to vote. The other -- my question is on page 16 of the executive summary fiscal year '98, and it says in addition to annual inflationary cost increases, the following mandates were included in the fiscal year '98 budget analysis. I understand -- I have a feeling I understand all those with the exception of regional athletic complex. Now, what is the regional athletic complex? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I circled that one out of the lack of knowledge myself. I -- MR. ERLICHHAN: And then it continues on in fiscal year '99, the same thing, regional athletic complex, but it's $210,000 versus $260,000 in fiscal year '98. Please tell me what the regional athletic complex is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A place for regional athletes to go. MR. OLLIFF: The regional athletic complex, I'm not '- I'm not looking at what he's got, but I'm assuming that's showing some operating expenses in probably '98 or '99. That is a project that is -- we're trying to out-year plan, and that is the next type project we've talked to you about in terms of a district-sized park with multiple tournament-sized softball fields in one location and multiple soccer fields at one location. It's something that's in the five-year plan, but it's something that, frankly, we don't even have the property for as yet and don't have a project account. So we're trying to out-year plan, again, a project, what we think are going to be those type expenses, but that's a project that's not yet underway at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there's an answer to the current demand on the community park for soccer fields, baseball fields, and projecting when population increases the fact that a single complex is going to be more efficient than three or four community parks? MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. And you're making this cost go around. You have not any tournament-type activities if we don't have a facility for today. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, that certainly relieves my -- my worries because I thought that it's -- it had something to do with this regional sports complex that's being promoted. Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they want to build it for us, We Ca~. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Be happy to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion to adopt the resolution that Mr. Smykowski was talking about. Now, before we do that, all the direction that we gave at the end of our discussion will not be altered by the adoption of this resolution; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the resolution with the changes as I think are about to be outlined by Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second that as -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So go quick. MR. WEIGEL: Just for the record so you'll know, it will indicate May 1st to May 15th for this year, but it will be May 1st for all years thereafter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess we also should have as part of the motion in that we ratify all these policy -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Directives. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- thank you, directives. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just a question. We're going to get a summary of these assumptions and policies from you, Mr. Smykowski? Okay. In a written format. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. And opposed? Item #9A RESOLUTION 96-124 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF PINELLAS COUNTY TO ISSUE SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS IN COOPERATION WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, A PORTION TO BE USED TO FINANCE QAULIFYING LOAN PROGRAMS IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE APPROVE THE PINELLAS AUTHORITY TO OPERATE IN COLLIER COUNTY FOR THIS PROGRAM AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COLLIER AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PINELLAS AUTHORITY FOR THESE PURPOSES - ADOPTED Being none, Mr. Weigel, what about these housing finance authority bonds? MR. WEIGEL: I'm happy to respond that Mr. Mihalic is going to give you the low-down on that. Mr. Pickworth was here but had to leave for personal reasons and had met with Greg about it. MR. MIHALIC: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Basically this resolution is for an interlocal agreement between the Collier County Housing Finance Authority and the Pinellas Housing Finance Authority to float bonds for low down payment single-family mortgages for first-time home buyers. There's no risk here to the county. We've done this before with other counties. And this will, again, expand the amount of money that will be available for loans for first-time home buyers within Collier County. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The county's credit rating is not at stake on this. MR. MIHALIC: No, ma'am. These are revenue bonds that are totally supported by the mortgages that they fund. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That they fund. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. MIHALIC: Thank you. Item #9B EMERGENCY ACCESS FOR WYNDEMERE - CONTINUED TO 3/12/96 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, you have direction for Mr. Weigel? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. On the emergency access for Wyndemere at our last meeting, Mr. Weigel outlined options A and B. We pursued A. It was not fruitful. We want to pursue B, and we need a resolution to that effect. So I'm going to make a motion that we start a resolution and direct Mr. Weigel to pursue outlined option B regarding the emergency exits for Villa Floresta. MR. DORRILL: B was quickly, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: B was that a resolution be drafted, approved by the board here, drafted, signed by the chairman and be recorded in the public records affecting lots 34 and 35 of the particular platted subdivision. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is my motion sufficient to achieve -- MR. WEIGEL: Yours is just fine as far as I'm concerned. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: When will you bring that back? Next week, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: The resolution, honestly I don't need to bring it back. I'll just prepare it for your signature, and then you will record it. But we will continue to interact both with the developer and the -- the landowner, and we'll be plugging away toward the result. We preserved the status quo -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My concern this morning when this was suggested is that this is an action that has some consequences on one or the other party. And it was my feeling that before we took a final vote to take this action that we should at least advertise it to be heard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or notify those -- MR. WEIGEL: It's your pleasure, as far as that goes. That's at your pleasure. We can -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I personally would feel more comfortable about putting it on next week's agenda. MR. WEIGEL: As a regular agenda item? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As a regular agenda item. And I think thereby giving everyone that's involved ample opportunity to be notified. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no objection. I'll amend the motion to ask that the resolution be brought back on next week's agenda. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second accepts. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion is to continue it for a week. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To bring it back next week on a regularly advertised meeting, motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed? None. That passes five to zero. Item #10A RESOLUTION 96-125 APPOINTING LAURA RUPP BURKE TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - ADOPTED Appointment of member to the historical/archaeological board, one vacancy. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have one vacancy and three applicants. I've read through the resumes here, and I note that Mrs. Burke or Ms. Burke has a degree in historical preservation. I'd like to recommend that we appoint her. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She was the committee's recommendation, too, so there's a second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Item #10B RESOLUTION 96-126 APPOINTING MICHAEL HART AND T. ANTHONY BROCK TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED. SECTION 7 OF ORDINANCE 86-41 WAIVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Member to the Ochopee Fire Control District. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Two positions, two applicants, motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Wait a minute, Miss Filson. What was that? MS. FILSON: And you also need to confirm the appointment of Everglades City. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: To the appointment of Everglades City COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Of a member from the city council. MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. I see what you mean. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And they pick that person -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And they pick that person? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? MS. FILSON: One thing. Mr. Brock has served two terms, so that portion of Ordinance 86-41 needs to be waived unanimously by the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So moved. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second to waive that portion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #10C PROPOSED POLICY TO COORDINATE ELECTION PETITIONS - CONTINUED TO 3/12 96 And the next item is proposed policy to coordinate election petitions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mentioned this to you a couple of times in the past. I've worked with Mr. Weigel and Mr. Dotrill. We either have had or need the consolidation of fire districts or different government services or additional taxes. We seem to have requests for any number of things. One of the things I've noticed the last couple of times in particular with big issues ms they come to the board as the first step and ask to be put on the ballot. It just seems if we put a policy like this in place, what it does is encourage and, in fact, require that whomever -- they may have a wonderful idea, but whomever goes to the public and tries to garner some support for that idea, the board can say, gosh, let's put this on the ballot. Because regardless of what the idea is, it seems like public initiative should really come from the public and not just from one or two members. There were -- certainly the ballot shouldn't be the first step in the process. I've talked with Mary Morgan in some detail on this as well. She had suggested a couple of things or pointed out a couple of things. One is the general rule is -- this is written -- is signatures from 10 percent of the affected citizenry. She had suggested that perhaps on return visits -- if something fails, and we'll bring it back again and again that there may be a point where we want to make an increased burden of signatures so that no one abuses that process. You may be able to get 10 percent of the signatures easy enough and then lose 75 to 25 and go out and get 10 percent of the signatures again and start the process over. She said you may want to look at the second time or third time or more increasing that up to 15 or 20 just making it so if it's a repeat in a short span of time. Obviously if the issue comes back in 10 years, that's different. And that's not included the way it's written right now, but I thought that was a good point. And the other one is cityhood is usually decided, of course, through state legislature. We may want to consider it and then -- a city may request. So I don't have an opinion on that, but I thought it's worth mentioning. That is not included in here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to suggest wording on that. Does the petition have to be worded specifically how it will be on the ballot because, again, the fire consolidation issue comes to mind right away. We were asked to put it to a vote yet we could not agree what the wording that was actually right for that type petition. How do we address that? Is it addressed in here? It would seem to me that the wording would have to be on the petition. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They still have to meet whatever court requirements for the question, that it be unambiguous and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but if 10 percent of the population signs a petition that says I want -- and the ballot includes a funding mechanism that wasn't on that -- MR. DORRILL: Policy says that it must generally be -- the entire ballot question must be on the front page only. The petition to be signed must be the actual is clear and concise, reviewed and approved by the county manager to form an ability to understand that if a petition is needed declared to be eligible for the purposes of getting signatures. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We wouldn't want the question to be on every page of the petition. MR. DORRILL: It has to be on every leading front page, but it can't carry over onto the second page is what it says. It generally must be on -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can have it at the top with room for 20 signatures and the next page out at the top with room -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So it's on every page -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, would this be an ordinary advertising, or how would we go about it? MR. WEIGEL: It can be done by resolution, and I would suggest that if the board were to go forward today or any day on this that they reserve a resolution and -- and authorize a resolution to be drafted to coincide and adopt the policy. And I had a few statements, too, if I might, for the record in regard to review of the policy as presented in the agenda. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the important thing this does is we have not had any standard rules or regulations for how we did this in the past. And this sets a specific policy so though if someone comes forward and has an idea -- and we want to make that as easy as possible. At the same time we don't want whatever idea has to be the first step in the process. I think this just sets a policy in place. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: If I may add a suggestion, on page 1 of the draft petition policy, the next-to-the-last paragraph starting with the word however, there is a place there and a few places throughout the draft which uses mandatory language "shall", and I would temper that somewhat. I would suggest that on that first line starting, "however, no petition shall be," that words to the effect that "shall be" might be removed where it indicates no petition circulated and the rest of the sentence continues. When you get to the end of the sentence, "federal law shall be accepted by the board or the commission for its consideration." I think we need to be careful about attempting through policy to restrain or a prior restraint to a petition being circulated, although at the same time what we're telling them if the petition that does comply with the statements of this paragraph shall be accepted by the board for its consideration. And in similar fashion on page 2 of the draft, page 3 of the agenda item, paragraph 5 states, and I'm quoting, proposed citizens' petitions shall be circulated for signatures only, end of my quote of that. I would suggest rather than the shall mandatory language there, the shall word, that it read something to the effect that proposed citizens' petitions to be circulated for signatures will only be accepted by the board or the commission if the format of the petition and the rest of it follows. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, it seems -- what I'd be most comfortable with is if you would have more time to review this more thoroughly and we put this on the agenda again. I'd like to hear from the League of Women Voters on it. I'd like to have some public scrutiny. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the idea of adopting a policy. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't have any objection to continuing. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask if there's a general consensus on Mary Horgan's suggestion that a two-year or four-year time period -- that we bump the burden a little bit -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one that says subsequent petitions on the same question require 10 percent additional signatures for each subsequent attempt. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe we want -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've got to have a time limit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We might want to put a time frame on that, somebody comes back eight years or ten years. Especially in this county the situation changes, but at least two years or four years -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's fine. I just want to see a percentage increase in that so it's not the same group driving the same question over -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Mr. Weigel can play with the wording between now and when we bring this back. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He means carefully draft. MR. WEIGEL: And, again, a couple of those places where we have time frames of 210 days before an election, things of that nature, the easy caveat to add is except as otherwise required by law. And, therefore, you can preserve the flexibility if there's a law that says contrary to what you're attempting to do here. And for those places -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to continue. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. DORRILL: You have one speaker. Miss Fitch. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a -- MS. FITCH: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Are you going to object to us continuing this for one week? MS. FITCH: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to continue this for a week. Are you objecting to that? MS. FITCH: No, I'm not. I just wanted to compliment Commissioner Constantine and the county manager for getting this thing started. It's a program that we've been discussing at the state level for quite some time, so we just wanted to give you our encouragement to continue this rather than to put it on the shelf somewhere. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Do we have any public comments? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We need to vote on that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're going to. We're going to. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? There are none. That will be continued. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 96-127 RE PETITION SNR-96-2, ROY RADLOVACKI REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE OF THAT PORTION OF SAND HILL STREET LYING NORTH OF S.R. 92 TO CUSHING LAND LOCATED IN THE MARCO BEACH SUBDIVISION IN SEC. 16, T52S, R26E - ADOPTED Since we don't have any public comment, we'll go to our afternoon section, advertised public hearings, 12(C)(1). Mr. Radlovacki, are you here? Would you come forward, please, Mr. Radlovacki. Mr. Reischl, would you tell us what's going on here? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a street name change on Marco Island for a portion of Sand Hill Street which is not north of San Marco Road which is not connected to the portion of Sand Hill Street south of San Marco Road. As you can see from the location map I attached that Sand Hill Street proceeds north across 92 and turns into Tahiti Road. Sand Hill Street is approximately 400 feet to the west of that intersection. That portion of Sand Hill Street is about 500 feet in length. There are eight lots that abut it. And Mr. Radlovacki has supplied signatures from six of the eight people, and I believe he's said he's obtained the last two in favor of this change also. As current there are no houses that face on that portion of Sand Hill Street. Their addresses are all on the cross streets. And the significance of that today is that the proposed change to Cushing Lane is in honor of archeologist Frank Cushing, who I'm sure Mr. Radlovacki will be a little more knowledgeable than me. It's the hundredth anniversary of the discovery of the Key Marco cat. MR. RADLOVACKI: Yes, my name is Roy Radlovacki. Good afternoon. One hundred years ago today maybe to this hour Frank Cushing was sitting in the mud on Marco, and he discovered the cat. We are lucky to have this meeting today. We -- we feel there's a -- there's a -- there's a significance here also in that this street connects State Road 92 or San Marco Road to Tommy Barfield Elementary School. And hopefully for the next hundred years the children or the pupils of that school will be reminded of that dig. And I was fortunate enough to find a street that -- that just, you know, fit that need, you know, that those -- those kids will see. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask a quick question here up front? MR. RADLOVACKI: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Replace that speaker. Everyone does that. They turn around. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you -- just to confirm, you did receive affirmative reaction from all eight -- MR. RADLOVACKI: I received the -- the petition was -- was received from seven of the eight property owners. I submitted six to Fred Reischl, and then after I -- I submitted the six to him, I received another one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any objection from the one that doesn't -- MR. RADLOVACKI: No, no. I -- they were -- two of the -- two of the property owners were local. They lived on Marco. There was only one house on that street. The other six were from out of state. There was -- there was a point there where I was going to give up. It was a Sunday night, and I wasn't receiving these petitions back, and I -- I said a prayer, and I don't do that too often, and the next morning I received three in the mail. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will teach you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we -- oops, you need to close the public hearing first. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing first. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you done that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I just did that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks for doing that. Item #15A DISCUSSION REGARDING LEE TRAN BUS TO BE AT COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ON 3/18/96 FOR INSPECTION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Communications, Mr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: I have two. For the board's information, officials with Lee Tran have currently established a date of March the 18th as part of their time and motion study, and they're going to have a Lee Tran bus here on March the 18th for those of you who are interested to see the bus and participate in the time and motion study as they run one of the conceptual routes. We will tell you the time for that on the 18th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're looking for 3.6 million; that public transportation thing pops to mind right away. We'll see what happens -- Item #15B TRI-COUNTY MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 4/15/96 MR. DORRILL: The other item is that Lee County has contacted us to discuss not only that item, but -- but other items at a next tri-county meeting tentatively set, but I need some concurrence with this, on April the 15th. I know that that is a date that's not near and dear to the heart of Miss Matthews in particular, but that it's what they suggested. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: How much money do they want now? MR. DORRILL: They didn't say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They might be announcing what they've given us with the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sure. Mr. Weigel. Item #15C REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 83-7 - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK UNDER SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM MR. WEIGEL: Just one point -- thank you, Mr. Chairman -- you had mentioned that county ordinance 83-7. I believe copies were being made for the commissioners. But I want to make sure that if you, in fact, wish the county attorney to do the supporting repeal and advertisement for a date certain or wait for further direction from you or the board. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to look at it and actually have an idea, but I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, what I thought we directed you to do was bring it back under a regular agenda item so that we could look it over and repeal it if that is what we wanted to do. MR. WEIGEL: To bring it back for repeal as an action item, then we would advertise it and bring it back, and I just want to make sure -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can certainly decide whether or not to. But the discussion is shall we or shall we not repeal it, so bring us -- my vote is bring us back a repeal ordinance. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Nothing else. Item #15D ENCOURAGEMENT OF RESIDENTS TO REGISTER TO VOTE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, I have one item. Mr. Erlichman when he spoke at public comment reminded me of a phone call this morning I had from Mr. Perkins. And, you know, it really might be a good idea if we were to consider when the registration books open again for the two weeks prior to when they close -- I guess, in early August is when they would close again, but that we do some little advertising on Tuesdays before the books close to encourage people to register to vote. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So instead of a little sign saying BCC on break or whatever it says -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Encourage them to -- to register and that they can pick up the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just happen to have it handy right there. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that they can pick up the registration applications at the clerk's office and all the satellite offices and so forth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just real quickly on the memo that I dated last week. I met with Linda Sullivan from code enforcement and the county attorney's office in regard to the land code issue. We might have something specific to bring forward by next Tuesday, if not next Tuesday, the one after. If the board wants to go in that direction, great. If not, then we can discuss it later. Item #15E EHS SETTLEMENT - TO BE PLACED ON 3/12/96 AGENDA CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have two items. One is Mr. Dotrill and I have been discussing the business about the EHS settlement, and he offered to put it on next week's agenda, which I think is a great idea, so we can discuss it. The other is you got a memo which seems to be the memo issue, doesn't it, Commissioner Hancock, on -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This week let's sit down and talk. Item #15F BILLIE FAMILY/RESTRICTION OF CHICKEE HUTS DISCUSSED COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on the Billy family. My -- my proposal -- I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but I think what we could do is regulate the health and safety issues via fire code and sanitary code and either exempt the residential chickee structures themselves as an ag property or, frankly, prioritize the code enforcement list such that that -- that particular issue ends up wherever it belongs which is way near the bottom. I just wondered if there was enough support on the board for that to be given any staff direction. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I have two concerns with that, and I appreciate the fact both you and Commissioner Hancock are trying to come up with something that we can work with. But the first scenario you described, if we allow the chickee huts in the ag district -- we went through a problem a number of years ago when I was on the code enforcement board prior to being on the board with migrant housing, and conditions werenwt really appropriate. And as itws drawn out here -- let me read from the memo -- would be available to anyone -- the exemption would be available to anyone. The exemption would be available to other entities, chickee hut, regardless of their specificity. My concern is that a chickee hut, meeting whatever that standard of chickee hut would be, would be built and then used to house migrant farm workers all over the ag district. And I donwt think thatws what we want to encourage. And on the second one, as far as us prioritizing what code enforcement enforces or not, I just donwt think thatws appropriate. If we get into priorities and read violations, theywll never ever be enforced because theywll never make it to the top of the list. And thatws, I think, crossing the line of us setting policy and letting them do their job. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, as a matter of fact, the -- the reason why we have a code enforcement board is specifically to prevent the board of commissioners from getting into code enforcement actions because then you would -- you would have ordinance enforcement being subject to political whims, and that is exactly the reason why we donwt do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the time -- let me just ask one more question. You donwt need to answer this today. As you bring this back, I have one question on Commissioner Hancockws suggestion, and that is wewve still got a couple of little legal issues. I understand the purpose of what youwre doing of trying to take care of the safety ones. Legally you canwt have more than one unit per 5 acres of ag, and we need to deal with that. And also was the residential thing as an accessory use; I donwt know how that works. Iwm sure thatws what you probably worked on at the time, but those are the two questions that immediately came to mind when I read your -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are elements. What I -- all I hope to do is just to say this is a list of things that allows for a traditional way of life that the Indians want to practice without violating county codes or state building codes. I think there is a way to do that. And with the help of Miss Sullivan and the county attorneyws office, wewre going to try to identify those things. And so thatws all Iwm trying to bring back is a recognition of the uniqueness of what they want to -- how they want to live and how they can within our framework rather than creating a new ordinance and then trying to enforce the difference between a traditional chickee and one built by someone else. COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: If I can just -- because we do need to talk about this just a little bit is -- I trust that you know, Commissioner Hancock, despite your great intentions, that memo was not well received by -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By a group of people that says they shouldnlt be subject to any laws. COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Okay. But -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So instead of making them do all their cooking in one place, we could address the health and safety concerns. If they can pass fire codes and sanitary codes, then you don't care where they have their electricity. And if -- if the concern on the chickee huts is that -- is that we just don't want to have migrant housing, then we can have it, you know -- I think we can come up with a definition for Seminole traditional chickee. And the last thing I'm going to say is we already have that density issue out there. There are bunkhouses in ag property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we need to do is enforce those as well. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Come on now. You're not going to enforce bunkhouses on ranches. I mean, this is getting too far afield. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is not an agenda item. It's just a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a petition. Please allow us to communicate at this one forum that we have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying that I would ask you to take your idea through legal and through code enforcement to find out if it's -- if there are some hitches. I read it, and I believe there are some legal hitches such as state building code that we don't have the ability to exempt them from and so forth. So my point is I'm trying to follow a path of making sure that legally what I'm proposing is possible before bringing it to the board in any form. I think that step has to happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then the prioritization of their enforcement is up to them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, they've already -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: By them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Code enforcement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: But it's complaint driven. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to give you a list of complaints and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with it. The problem is the Board of County Commissioners is getting a lot of heat because of the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- violation of law. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I personally would like to see some way to work this out for them. The problem is the Board of County Commissioners is not involved in this, and we shouldn't be involved in this. This is a code enforcement action, and as I explained before, we are prohibited by law, Mr. Weigel, from interfering with code enforcement actions. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If what I put together can be given to code enforcement and they use it, fine. Is that acceptable? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Of course. That's their call. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The Board of County Commissioners is not going to sit up here and set policy for code enforcement to follow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are policies and ordinances which they're required to follow, and we don't need to interfere into that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have nothing under BCC. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson, do you have anything under BCC? MS. FILSON: Lunch. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16Ala RESOLUTION 96-108 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50501-026; OWNER OF RECORD - BONNIE M. CHRISTIAN See Pages Item #16Alb RESOLUTION 96-109 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50531-059; OWNER OF RECORD - DORIS GROSSMAN See Pages Item #16Alc RESOLUTION 96-110 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50628-023; OWNER OF RECORD - ELIANNE FRANCIS See Pages Item #16Ald RESOLUTION 96-111 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50630-091; OWNER OF RECORD - VALENTIN GONZALEZ AND MIGDALIA GONZALEZ See Pages Item #16Ale RESOLUTION 96-112 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50712-038; OWNER OF RECORD - IMPERIAL FIVE, INC. See Pages Item #16Alf RESOLUTION 96-113 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50720-017; OWNER OF RECORD - HAYEL MASSOUD, NASSER NASSER See Pages Item #16Alg RESOLUTION 96-114 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50725-002; OWNER OF RECORD - DELTONA CORPORATION See Pages Item #16Alh RESOLUTION 96-115 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50810-043; OWNER OF RECORD - NORBERTO PEREZ-URRIAAND ZOILA PEREZ-URRIA See Pages Item #16Ali RESOLUTION 96-116 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50919-047; OWNER OF RECORD - MABEL H. ALBRECHT, ET AL See Pages Item #16Alj RESOLUTION 96-117 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50921-129; OWNER OF RECORD - LEONARD J. BUBRI, NICHOLAS KARALIS See Pages Item #16Alk RESOLUTION 96-118 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 50927-086; OWNER OF RECORD - ERIC A. MAiNDELL See Pages Item #16All - This item deleted Item #16Alm RESOLUTION 96-119 RE LIEN RESOLUTION TO EFFECT THE ABATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO. 51009-052 ; OWNER OF RECORD - BARBARA K. HAMORY See Pages Item #16Aln - Withdrawn Item #16B1 WORK ORDER FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO COUNTY-WIDE UTILITY MAPPING See Pages Item #16B2 AWARD BID #96-2475 TO HIGHPOINT GENERAL CONTRACTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $292,572.00 TO CONSTRUCT A CHLORINE BUILDING ENCLOSURE AT THE SOUTH REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT Item #16B3 AWARD BID #96-2480 TO NAUTILUS DREDGING & DOCKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,000.00 FOR MARCO ISLAND BEACH GRADING Item #16B4 RESOLUTION 96-120 RE LEGISLATIVE FUNDING FOR FLORIDA BEACH PROJECTS See Pages Item #16D1 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES See Pages Item #16D2 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 96-253 AND 96-262 Item #16E2 WAIVER OF EMS FEES FOR THE NUVEEN MASTERS TENNIS TOURNAMENT Item #16G1 CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1995 REAL PROPERTY NO. DATE 204 - 205 2/21/96 1995 TANGIBLE PERSON PROPERTY 1995-58 2/20/96 Item #16G2 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES HATCHING GRANT FUNDS AWARDED FOR DISPATCHER TRAINING Item #16H2 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 CARRYFORWARD AND APPROVE THE USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUNDS (608) Item #1611 SETTLEMENT WITH U.S. HOMES CORPORATION AS A RESULT OF STIPULATIONS MADE BY U.S. HOMES DURING FEBRUARY, 1996 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS PROCEEDING IN WHICH U.S. HOMES SOUGHT TO MODIFY AN ORDER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL DENYING U.S. HOMES A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME REAL ESTATE OFFICE See Pages There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:33 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan