Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/29/2009 B (Budget Workshop) June 29, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 29, 2009 BUDGET HEARINGS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in BUDGET SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Frank Halas Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Sue Filson, BCe Executive Manager Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County will conduct Budget Workshops on Monday, June 29, 2009 and Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. Workshops will be held in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida to hear the following: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FY 2010 BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULE Monday, June 29, 2009 - 9:00 a.m. General Overview Courts and Related Agencies (State Attorney and Public Defender) Airport Authority Community Development Transportation Services Public Services Administrative Services Public Utilities Debt Service Management Offices (Pelican Bay) County Attorney BCC Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 9:00 a.m. Constitutional Officers: Elections Sheriff Other Constitutional Officers requesting to address the BCC 1 :00 p.m. Public Comment Page 1 June 29-30, 2009 June 29, 2009 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this wonderful budget hearing. This is going to be the toughest budget hearing I think we've ever been in, in -- this will be our ninth for most us here sitting on the commission. And I want to tell you, this is not a pleasant thing. I really want to just leave, but I guess I have to stay. I welcome you this morning. This is Monday, June 29th. And I would ask that you stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, I think I'll turn it right over to you, County Manager Mudd. BUDGET WORKSHOP GENERAL OVERVIEW MR. MUDD: Thank you, ma'am. On the visualizer what you basically have is the agenda for the next two days and workshops. What we'll do right now is we'll start with a general overview, which I'll do, and then we'll go to courts and related agencies, Airport Authority, community developments, transportation services, public services. And when we're on those particular items, I'll just put -- I'll just put my pen next to them so the folks in the audience or on TV can see where we're at. But we're going to general overview at this particular juncture. What I have done in the past is to try to dissect the budget guidance and try to let folks get an idea of what we were told to do and where we are right now. Adherence to the FY 10 budget guidance, first general fund millage, the board told us to take a look at two presentations in your budget book. Your budget book has a millage-neutral piece, and it has a tax-neutral piece, and we've done that. Page 2 June 29,2009 Millage-neutral presentation with millage rate at 3.1469, which was the millage rate from last year, equates to approximately a 15 percent reduction in net costs to the general fund. A tax-neutral presentation has a millage rate of 3.6009. The taxable value increase -- or decrease was 11.39 percent countywide. The FY10 proposed millage is 3.6009, which is the TRIM rollback rate. The difference of .45 mills or 14.4 percent. The FY09 millage is 3.1469 in this budget book, which is the first time in my life since I've been the County Manager, we have no UFR funds available and/or requested. Don't have a letter from anyone asking for dollars for unfinanced requirements. So -- and we might hear some folks today talk about unfinanced requirements, but there are no UFR requests nor are there UFR funds available based on the budgets that are being presented. Now, municipal services taxing district, which is your MSTD, which is your 111 fund, again, two presentations, millage-neutral and tax-neutral. Your millage-neutral presentation has a millage rate of .6912, equates to approximately a 15 percent reduction in the net costs to the MS TD general fund. Again, 111. Your tax-neutral presentation has a millage rate of .8070, taxable value decrease of 13.12 in the unincorporated area. Now, I want to make sure that you understand. What I just told you before in the general fund, the taxable value decrease countywide was 11.39 percent. In the unincorporated area of Collier County it was a 13.12 percent decrease in taxable value. Your FY10 proposed millage is .8070, which is the TRIM rollback rate. A difference of .1158 mills or 16.75 percent. Your FY09 millage is .6912. Again, there were no UFR funds available nor any requests on the 111 side of the house. The general fund capital millage. One of the things that the board sets aside every year is they put a third of a mill down for the general fund capital millage. What does that mean? Well, we've used Page 3 June 29, 2009 these in the past to do voting machines, we've used these in the past to do software upgrades, we've used these in the past to do antenna upgrades across the county for emergency services, and we've done those kind of things sparingly, but we get at those particular processes. If you have major rehab items that need to be done in your facilities, we've used those in the past. This is a rare exception again, okay, because your impact fees are down, you do have impact fee debt out there, and if you take a look at that .33 mill equivalent, it turns out to be $23.2 million; 22.5 million is being used for debt service, of which 9.4 is non-impact fee debt service, and 13.1 is impact fee debt service. So your entire third of a mill that you set aside for general fund capital millage isn't doing much outside of paying debt service at this particular juncture. One of the things that staff has done with your, with your appr- -- with my recommendation and your approval is to make sure that we account for every bit of general fund moneys that are being used for impact fee debt service, that we account for them so that when the impact fees do come back where they have been traditionally, then we can use those dollars in order to pay back the general fund, so to speak, sunset some of that debt so that we can turn that non-reoccurring money into reoccurring savings so that you can make a future tax cut. Now, what have we got in the savings account, so to speak, for impact fee debt from the general fund? Some $46 million. So we've -- we've accounted for every nickel of that so that we've got it so it's laid out in every different fund. So when that does happen and the economy does turn over, we should be in a pretty good stead. The other piece on the -- on the budget guidance is .15 mills for stormwater, and over half of that money right now is being spent to make good on the LASIP permit, the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, because of the 14-year permit that we have. A Page 4 June 29, 2009 lot of that work right now is being done in Commissioner Fiala's district; some at the northern part is in eommissioner Henning's district. The other thing we have in the budget guidance is how -- how did we do with revenue centric budgets, and then basically talk about what happens with the tax-neutral and the millage-neutral, and did we get there based on the guidance. Board of County Commissioners on the tax-neutral side of the -- side of the house, agencies and program, I have a no; millage-neutral, yes; County Attorney -- and you can see how those basically flush out in the process. The tax-neutral-- as far as the sheriff is concerned; he's in the tax-neutral side of the house. On the millage-neutral he's not, nor are any of the other Constitutionals, so I just don't mean to pick on him. The next item we'll talk a little bit about is how we take a look at what we call the pie. You've heard me say it before. You live and die by the pie. In 2004 the board laid out what the pie structure was, what everybody had, a percentage of the general fund, and what I'm basically relaying on this chart is to say who's still within that pie and who isn't. I will say, in the -- for the sheriff's, in his regard, a lot of that had to do with the additional money that you gave to him last year during the UFR discussion, and that pushed him outside of that particular issue. But there's kind of where we sit. Stormwater didn't exist at the time. The other issue on the budget guidance was no new positions. I only have one new position, and it's the Marco Island Museum. It was an agreement that the Board of County Commissioners did prior to the Naples Depot with Marco Island, that they would go out and collect moneys and build a museum and then turn it over to the county to operate. My staff has basically determined that it would take one position in order to do that, and that's why you have that one body that Page 5 June 29, 2009 sits there. Now, we've shifted folks all over the place in the County Manager's organization trying to maintain the services to the taxpayers of Collier eounty. The other issue that you have in budget guidance is, did we provide metrics or not. County Manager did; the sheriff did; elections didn't; tax collector, not applicable; clerk, not applicable; property appraiser, no. And that kind of lays it out. Reserves. The other big issue that I would say to you. Part of the budget guidance was reserves for contingencies at 2.5 percent in tax-neutral and in millage-neutral. We do not meet that guidance. We are about $1.6 million shy; is that correct, Mark? MR. ISACKSON: That's correct. MR. MUDD: In that particular regard, reserves for contingencies. That's important to remember as we head into hurricane season, because hurricanes are contingencies. Now, for the viewing audience -- and I've showed this to the board before and I've updated again. Because you read the newspaper, outside of pop art tiles for sale, none of the ex-county manager in Lee County -- and I don't know what that will do for their general fund, however -- but if you take a look at the differences in millage rates between Lee County and Collier County, it's pretty significant. And then you take a look at additional millage rates for libraries that Lee County has that Collier County doesn't, all-hazard protection fund, which is another MSTU that Lee County has that Collier County does not, and they do have a Conservation Lee or Conservation Collier like we do. They take a half a mill; our projection for Conservation Collier's .2329. If you add up all those millage rates, the difference, Lee eounty sitting at around 4.5 mills compared to what we had in '09, which was 3.3. And then you start taking a look at the unincorporated. They do have an unincorporated MSTD, which they collected .8398, and ours Page 6 June 29,2009 was at .6912. And then they have a franchise fee. So what they do is they collect money as a -- as an add-on to electric bills in Lee County that brings in about $9.9 million a year. So why am I spending so much time on this? Well, new companies are coming into Lee County and they're basically putting money down to entice them to come, 10, $20 million, 30 million. Don't worry about a Red Sox stadium that's coming in. I'm not saying that these are good ideas, but you're trying to figure out where the money is coming from and why doesn't Collier County have those assets to draw from to get the Cubs or whatever else people are talking about. I didn't know we had such a great Cubs fan layout until I got off of 1-75 at the Davis exit until I saw the signs about the Cubs. And,oh, I guess we've got some fans. And it's not Leo Ochs from Chicago, because he's a White Sox fan. And so what I will tell you is that's where those dollars are coming from in Lee County versus eollier eounty in order to get things done. And they basically tax their people in order to have those funds available. And there is a franchise fee, which is not small by any stretch of the imagination, that keeps coming forward. So why am I spending so much time on the Lee County thing? Because the other thing, part of the metrics is, how are we doing in Collier County compared to those counties that you have basically told us to compare ourselves against? So what I have on this first slide on the visualizer is adjusted operating budget per capita unincorporated -- I'm looked at 2008 versus 2009, and I see Collier County as far as dollars per capita, okay. The difference, why we're up a little bit in 2009 is because we had some people leave Collier County. So we've got less population in order to stretch those costs against it. But if you take a look, it was a marginal increase as far as this particular item is concerned. And when you look across the other counties that we're Page 7 June 29, 2009 comparing ourselves against, we still are a pretty good deal to the taxpayers of Collier County. What I will also -- what I will also talk about is funded employees per thousand population unincorporated, 08/09. That's the other metric that we traditionally use in order to get that done. And you can kind of take a look to say, okay, yep, we went down in unincorporated population. We also went down in the number of employees that were out there servicing the citizens of Collier County, as did the majority of other counties that we compare ourselves with. But I will tell you, we've made our adjustments appropriately. We've tried to maintain good quality of service for the taxpayers of this particular county while we're watching every dollar that's being spent, and we're doing a pretty good job at it. And I believe this slide also supplies that particular information. One of the things that we also need to talk about just as opening remarks are going through the budget guidance, did we adhere to it or not, how did the eounty Manager's agency look as far as our metrics are concerned. Now let's try to give you some overviews so you know what we've done historically in the county as far as millage rates are concerned and unincorporated so you'll have an idea so it's fresh in your mind as we continue this dialogue and this discussion over the next day or so. You'll see from 001 what the millage rate was in the general fund, okay. You'll notice that it sat at around 3.8 from FY02 through FY06, and then we started to do some decreasing based on House Bill 1 bravo, Amendment I, some discretionary cuts that the board decided to take, and then we've sat down here for the last two years, 08/09, at 3.147. I'd like to think of it as pie, which is the numerical equivalent. And this year our recommendation, again, is to tax-neutral, is what the staff recommended at budget direction time. And I believe, based on what I've read and what I've seen and what I've examined and questioned, staff is still at the tax-neutral proposal. And that would Page 8 June 29, 2009 basically bring us up from a 3.14, as I stated just a little bit earlier, to a 3.6 millage rate in the general fund. And likewise, in 111, we'll go through that ten-year stretch. As we look, we're sitting pretty close at .8500 across the way. In '08 and '09, we brought her down to .6. Recommendation for FY10 at tax- neutral would be a .8 millage rate for 111. Now, where is the money going? Some commissioners -- I don't mean to bore you. Some have seen this in a public workshop, and I'll try to -- at least try to gussy it up and get it so it's more current. Hey, of your bill -- and this is good for the people out their in the audience, because I really don't believe people know where their money goes when they pay their taxes, nor do they pay attention to their Truth-In-Millage Notice. But over 50 percent of your particular -- or your tax bill, your ad valorem tax bill, is out there in the school board side of the house, okay. Mosquito control, South Florida Water Management Board, independent fire districts, okay? Voters have some debt that's out there. They decided that they wanted to do the Naples Caribbean Gardens, okay, at 1.5 mills. Now, I'm proud to say today that that particular millage will sunset this year in '10 because the board's direction not to go out to bond the long-term bond issue but to basically work it with commercial paper and get it paid off as fast as we can, and that's a significant savings to the taxpayers of this county. What do I mean by significant savings? That's about $11 million. Now, voter-approved debt. You've got pollution control, which was a voter-approved particular millage rate, but the debt side of the house comes into Conservation Collier, and that will go up for re-election or referendum with the voters in 2013 to see if they want to continue that particular program. Now, if you take a look at county general fund discretionary, general fund nondiscretionary; 9.1, 18.1. What does that equal? It Page 9 June 29, 2009 tells the county and the county commissioners, okay, that they pretty much have a look at 27.2 percent of the tax bill. That's all you have purview over. The rest is decided by someone else. So it's important to know that when this board looks, you say, well, my whole tax bill, Board of County Commissioners is responsible for that. That's not the case. The Board of County Commissioners has no responsibility over the millage rate for the school board and their different categories that they have for taxing. Then if you go -- if you go and you break that 27.2 down just a little bit more and you say, okay, now -- you take a look at the 27.2 and you break it down and you look at the Constitutional Officers' house, they're 50 -- they represent 50 percent of that, okay. So you take a look at how their budgets layout, and then you look at the County Manager, what he -- what you basically put me in charge of, okay. We basically look at 24.2 percent of that particular item. When you start notching those down, the board pretty much only has oversight for about 7.8 percent of the total tax bill, and that's pretty meager. The other item I'd like to bring to your attention -- and I don't mean to have everybody get a magnifying glass. Let's see if I can get this so it's -- so I can break it out just a little bit. If you take a look, this year's budget at tax-neutral is a 15.67 percent reduction over what it was last year, and so that's the overall budget side of the house. I tried to follow LM. Stackles' (phonetic) report in the paper today. It was a little difficult. But that's a significant decrease as far as our budgets. I mean, we haven't been -- we haven't been at an $895-million budget since around 2003, best I can tell. So that's been pretty significant as far as a reduction is concerned, and I'll talk about where those reductions came from in just a little bit. The other thing I'll also tell you is your capital project is way down, okay. I remember when your capital proj ect for utilities and transportation were over 700 million, okay, and you're -- and you're Page 10 June 29, 2009 down around 339,000,000 right now. So you're down over $400,000,000 in that particular regard. If you'll look at your millage-neutral reduction -- I mentioned before the tax-neutral side of the house -- you are down 15.67 percent. If the board chooses to go millage-neutral, your reduction will be 18.97 percent. I talked a little bit ago about discretionary, and I don't feel like I want to jump around, but there's some key points that this slide basically lays out. And it states that, you know, when you talk about that 11.4 decrease in taxable value countywide, it equates to about a $30-million cut or decrease in revenues or when you equate it to the discretionary side of the house, a 35.7 percent decrease in your discretionary portion of the general fund budget, and that's basically those items that the board has oversight for. Now, I mentioned a little bit earlier that -- when I was talking about the historic millage rates that -- I said that the board had taken actions over the years, may have been House bravo -- House Bill 1 bravo where it basically said we had a reduction that we needed to take of 9.1 percent, capping the amount of moneys that you as a board can basically set as far as millage rate is concerned. And so what I tried to do is show you visually, talk about -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you zoom out on that so everyone can see it. MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, okay, thank you. And -- that better, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. MR. MUDD: I'm dealing with two sets of glasses. The -- what's the board's done since 2007 through 2009, may it be a House Bill 1 Bravo, may it be the board saying they didn't want to -- to increase taxes to the total amount of the 26 percent increase that was out there and they wanted to go something less than that, may it be Amendment I -- and what's happened over these three years-- Page 11 June 29, 2009 and it's been kind of a composite and it's -- it's basically been aggregate moved along, what the board's done is they've reduced tax by $77.6 million. Now, when you do that, and it's in the discretionary side of the house, you're trying to cut headcount, you're trying to modify hours of libraries or whatever else you can do in order to make that work, and that's been a significant reduction for the taxpayers of Collier County, but it did come with some costs. Now, let's talk about the costs just a little bit, because this is one where I was out there with walking pneumonia at the Hilton sitting with -- on a panel with one of the commissioners on the dais, okay, trying to talk to the residents and taxpayers of Collier County trying to figure out what the impacts of Amendment I would be. You remember I showed you on a previous slide, I said, we're chasing $30 million, okay, for the cuts in order to get to them. So let's talk about chasing the 30 million. And what I'm about ready to tell you is, if the board did not compensate for the referendum, which was overwhelming in this particular county -- a lot of counties did not account for the Amendment 1. They basically just went to the rollback rate and said, we're not going to listen. What happened in '09, the board cut $13.1 million for Amendment 1. Plus in FY09, mid-year cuts basically came out, and we did basically things like fuel savings, workers' compensation savings for almost a million dollars, property and casualty savings of $762,000; VSIP for 393,000; holding vacant positions, reducing travel, employee development; the sheriff reduced his particular budget by $2.2 million; Supervisor of Elections pitched in; the courts, the state attorney, the public defender, and they're all listed; administrative services reduced IT hours, cut cell phones; public services, we had some reductions for the 4th of July; we made some adjustments to library hours in order to make things happen; transportation, pitched in turning off streetlights, reducing chemicals Page 12 June 29, 2009 for stormwater, reducing road surfacing, and it came out to be $7.2 million. These were all the things that myself and Commissioner Coyle and the community were grasping for last -- not this last January, a year ago January, trying to figure out what the impacts were going to be with Amendment 1. Now, you'll notice the mid -- the mid-year adjustments were 7.2. If the board did not cut $13.1 million -- you had the $7.2 million, you could have taken it from the 13.1 -- it would have left you $5.9 million that were reoccurring, and as you entered, so you'd still have the 13.1, you'd have the 5.9 from the previous year after the mid-year cuts, which would give you a total of $19 million, reoccurring dollars that you could use in this year to adjust the millage rates if you wanted to. The Caribbean Garden levy. Now, I don't like talking about this levy much, but I want to make sure that you know that it's out there and it will sunset. I think it's very dangerous for this board to talk about the millage rate that -- from the Caribbean Gardens that is sunsetting after a voter referendum and saying, well, we'll use that millage as an increment, okay, and not cut it or add it or whatever in your' 1 0 budget year. You've got to deal with your -- with your contract with the community. The TRIM notice is going to show that the Caribbean Garden debt is extinguished and the millage rate's not there, and it will be a line item. And from a voter's standpoint, if you voted for that particular measure, seeing that on your TRIM notice says, you know what, they were good to their word. We did the referendum, we extinguished it, it is zero, and we do have the zoo now. So that's a pretty significant point. But if you talk about that, extinguishing that debt, and you take a look at the numeric that I just went through, you pretty much get to that 30 million that you're looking for this year, okay, as far as chasing that particular item. And I know the Productivity Committee has been Page 13 June 29, 2009 busy at that for the last -- for the last couple of months trying to see if they could get themselves to a millage-neutral budget. One of the other things that exacerbates our particular dilemma in Collier County -- and, again, a lot of people don't understand that we receive sales tax from the state, okay, and it comes into the coffers of Collier County. And I don't want to say it's directly proportional with how much we pay in Collier County, but it's basically got on a formula that's across statewide. But if you take a look at where we were in 2006, our sales tax collections, okay, that were coming into county coffers for 34 million. Well, that's kind of eroded over the years, and now in our 2010 projection -- well, 2009, you came in at 26.9, our projections that we're getting from the state say it will be at 24.8, okay. That's almost a $1 O-million reduction on an annual basis from where we were in 2006. And, oh, by the way, you still have to make those cuts because you don't have the revenue that basically comes in, and it doesn't necessarily give a direct reflection on your ad valorem pIece. The other part that we get from the state is state revenue sharing, and I'd like to use this pie chart to give you an idea of what that's done over the years, okay. We had a high of (sic) 2007 where our state revenue sharing was sitting at, okay. In '09 it's now down at 6.9, almost seven million, so it's down two million, and it looks like we'll be down two-and-a-half million in the 2010 budget. So when we talked about tax-neutral and we talked about a minus 3 percent cut across the board, it's to make up for the lack of sales tax that we get from the state, the lack of revenue sharing. And I just had a conversation with our tax collector about a week ago that basically said, now, how many people didn't pay their taxes this year? And at one time when I was looking, you add up the numbers, it could be as high as 13 million. It looks like it's going to come in right around $4.6 million which we'll be in the hole for as far Page 14 June 29, 2009 as people that didn't pay their taxes as this year ends. So we still have to make that particular up. So if you take a look at the difference in sales tax, revenue sharing, and then the lack of folks that paid their taxes, we're close to $9 million that we have to find, and that's the minus 3 percent that's tax-neutral. So there still is a cut to the budget when you talk about tax-neutral, and a lot of that has to do with, how do we make up for the lack of some of the things that are coming in from the state. Another piece, we talk about VSIP a little bit, Voluntary Separation Incentive Program. Why? Because the biggest -- the biggest dilemma you have in budget when you're trying to do cuts -- and it's one I know that the productivity grappled with with some success, and with some unsuccess, and it had to do with . . non-reoccurrIng versus reoccurrIng revenues. If you're going to cut the tax rate and not have revenue come in, okay, you're cutting a reoccurring source. And if you're using one-time money, okay, to fill the void, sounds like the State of Florida. You know, raid the trust funds, balance the budget, and then your nightmare gets worse next year. And so some of -- some of the things that were suggested we'll talk about later. But you've got to pay attention to reoccurring and non-reoccurring particular sources of moneys and revenues. Well, we've been really successful with the VSIP program. Now, how do you take -- how do you take one-time moneys, okay, and make them reoccurring so you can make cuts? One of the ways we've done it is to use the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program so that we have savings that go from year to year so as we set our ranks, we can -- we can also adjust the amount of money that we -- that we use for our personnel costs. And you can see, if you look at your debt savings of 09/10 -- and they're cumulative, and you get the benefit of cumulative because VSIP is a three-year program. Page 15 June 29, 2009 If you choose to retire, we'll help you with your medical and dental program for that three-year program from time of retirement till you get to be 65. So you'll get that benefit of that person no longer on the payroll, and at the same time they wean off on your benefit structure as it moves along. The other -- the other piece I want to make sure that you are aware of is, you've got about $1.1 million worth of requirements that aren't in this budget. Back on 6/9, your audit contract is $560,000, your annual audit contract through the clerk on an annual basis. Your court shortfall that came up at the most recent board meeting was $144,000, and we just got a bill from the Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice, for $483,773 that we'll all have to figure out how to play on that particular issue. So what I will say to you in your budget books, you don't have $1.1 million worth of requirements that you have to pay. So if you'd just keep that in your mind's eye as we proceed to go forward. Commissioner, I think I've talked enough. Let me have the first -- front sheet. And if you have any questions of me right now, I'll be glad -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- to answer them, or we can continue and move on with our agenda. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to explain that once you've completed your presentation, I'm going to call on Janet Vasey to present from the Productivity Committee. We -- every year we work with the Productivity Committee, and we ask them to give us their suggestion on what we can do to make this budget even better, and Janet will come up and present that, and then -- then we'll move forward after that. And I've also suggested to Janet that if -- as we hit each of the topics, public services, administration and so forth, if the Productivity Committee has any input, she or Jim Gibson or Gina Down -- and Page 16 June 29, 2009 they've worked this out amongst them -- they'll come up and present an opinion from the Productivity Committee. Just so everybody knows how we're stacking this up. And now, Mr. Mudd, I have some questions first from Commissioner Henning. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered pretty much all of my questions. I just want to go over what tax-neutral is. That's the same property taxes that we had last year? MR. MUDD: Sir, I believe -- yes, sir, and it changes, and I believe Ms. Vasey is going to cover that a little bit. The tax-neutral position is -- and the way the premise would be, you would pay the same taxes that you paid last year this year, this next coming year in '10. That holds very true for non-homesteaded properties, okay. It changes a little bit for homesteaded properties. And what I asked Janet to do when we were doing this -- and she has a way, a very gifted way, to take some very complicated things and try to lay those out, and she has done that on a chart that was included with the Productivity Committee letter that you received on 19 June. So there's a little bit of a -- there's a little bit of a delta, and she'll talk about that because it goes with homestead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I meant was what it means to the county, what tax-neutral means. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It would provide us the same amount of tax dollars coming into the county coffers as we had last year minus the differences from sales tax, state sales tax, state revenue sharing, and those particular property owners, the $4.6 million that didn't pay their property taxes. And that's where the hole would be, and that's why we need a minus 3 percent reduction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then also wouldn't it include the mid-year tax cuts of $7 million? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, yes, sir. Those cuts are cut. Page 1 7 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does 4 percent of the property taxes that are not collected -- how much money would that result in? Didn't you say it was 4 percent? MR. MUDD: It was 4.6 million that they didn't -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, 4.6 million. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I don't have a question of the County Manager. I think the staff has done a wonderful job providing us the alternatives between the millage-neutral and tax-neutral position. My question is about the way we proceed from here. It is going to be very difficult, I think, for the staff to come here and present both positions and then have us ask questions about both positions, because at some point in time we're going to have to settle on one position to take, and then we'll have to talk with them again about how they're going to get to that point. So in order to get to the bottom line more quickly, I wonder if the other commissioners would think it would be more appropriate for us to express our preference for millage-neutral or tax-neutral positions. And if we find out that the majority of the commission wants to go with one or the other, then we can ask the staff to deal with that particular issue when they come before us, and that way we can resolve it all in one hearing and not waste their time about talking about an alternative that we don't have enough commissioners to really agree upon. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, I'm certainly willing to do that. How about the other commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. CHAIRMAN FIALA: eommissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, that's three of us, so I guess we can -- all right. Would you like to then begin? Page 18 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: My position is I think we need to work for a millage-neutral agreement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Millage-neutral? COMMISSIONER eOYLE: Millage-neutral, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to have to go the opposite side of the table, and it's going to be tax-neutral. The reason is, I have some real concerns when we start looking at millage-neutral in regards to making sure that we have the necessary reserves, the necessary personnel in the case that we have an event, a wind event in this county, to make sure that we can get this county up and running. So I also have some other concerns about closing libraries, take -- in regards to DAS and other concerns, and I don't think we accomplish anything by letting more and more people go. The end result is, you have that much more unemployment in the county. So I'm with being tax - neutral. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll go next and say that I am also a tax-neutral person. And Commissioner Halas, you just expressed all of my feelings. So I don't even need to repeat them, but I totally agree. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Millage-neutral, and I believe with the productivity's help, we can get there. I think there's some other things that we can do so we don't have to have new fees, understanding that a lot of families out there are -- have lost at least one income. They had -- many of the retirees have lost their retirement savings or it's down 30 to 40 percent. I'd -- I think 15 percent is a heck of a lot better than 30 or 40 percent, what the public has to see. So I'm looking forward to going through the presentations and the feedback from my colleagues. Page 19 June 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I could, I'm trying to find what we're trying to accomplish by this little survey at the beginning of the meeting. I want to hear everything that has to be presented. And I'm not saying that the millage-neutral is the answer; I don't really think it is. I don't think that the tax-neutral is totally the answer. I want to see everything as it comes up to be able to evaluate it as it comes forward, but I definitely don't think our answer is going to be in -- excuse me -- in millage-neutral. It's going -- but maybe it's somewhere's between the two. I'm a little lost how I'm supposed to come up. I don't want to bless this budget as it is one way or the other. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, because there are places where we're able to -- I sat down with Janet Vasey the other day, and she made some really good points about -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She did. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- places we can save, and so -- and that would come into the millage-neutral play and so forth. So with your -- you kind of voted for both of them. It's kind of like a tie. So maybe we'd better just move forward and get both sides. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really think so. I wouldn't feel comfortable, you know, trying to say this is it and walking out the door. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, and that's fine. We've all spoken. And Commissioner Coyle, thank you so much for bringing up that suggestion. And we shall move forward. Let's see. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. I'll wait for Janet. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, you had -- eOMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you're finished, okay. And Page 20 June 29, 2009 Commissioner Coyle, you're finished? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished, yep. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Janet Vasey, would you like to come up? Janet, you look so different. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jim, is that different from what we handed out -- what we got earlier? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, great. I appreciate it. MS. VASEY: Hi. Janet Vasey, for the record. I'm speaking for the Productivity Committee. As you recall, you asked us to review the budget this year because of all the financial constraints. We were happy to do so. We have to admit, referencing your previous discussion, we kind of started at the millage-neutral -- or at the tax-neutral level and tried to see what could be cut to get down to the millage-neutral. And frankly, we didn't get there. In the general fund, the reduction is -- or the problem is $30 million, and we came up with $22 million of adjustments. Now, not all of them are cuts. And in the unincorporated general fund we came up with $5 million of adjustments to get to the millage-neutral level in that account. What we tried to do was -- we had kind of four primary guiding principles. One, we wanted to try to reduce costs where we could. We wanted to increase revenues where we needed to. We wanted to avoid reducing services that were desired by the public. And we felt like you-all were -- had expressed that on many occasions, and we've often dealt in AUIRs and other things with levels of service, and so we tried to maintain those to the extent possible, and then we wanted to minimize the property tax increases, if possible. As Jim mentioned, we did spend some time on a review of the property tax situation and who would pay a tax increase. Do you have your Productivity Committee reviews? I don't Page 21 June 29, 2009 really have anything on this for the visualizers because it's very, very small, but I can -- I think I can, you know, verbalize it. It's the attachment 1 to the documents. But basically what it is -- the first example we looked at -- we spent a lot of time with the Property Appraiser's Office and found out that of -- of the single-family homes, 70 percent of them have homestead exemptions, and of the condos, 30 percent are homestead. And then we looked at how many of these properties have Save Our Homes benefit, because that is very crucial to who pays how much of the tax, and about 60 percent of those homesteaded properties have -- have some -- have some Save Our Homes benefit. And what that looks like, if you have a piece of property, say, that starts out at $400,000 last year in the appraised value -- okay, yeah, that's it. Is that -- is that readable? Oh, good. MR. MUDD: You said 400, you'd be down -- you'd be down here. MS. VASEY: Let's start with market value, the top line. MR. MUDD: Sure. MS. VASEY: Okay. Top line, market value, $400,000 in FY09. If you go to the next column, what's happening -- this shows you by area what's happening in FYI0. Naples has a reduction of6 percent; North Naples, 9 percent reduction; Marco, 12; East Naples, 13; and Golden Gate, 20. If you have a Save Our Homes benefit though and -- your assessed value may be -- will probably be lower than the 400,000, say, 300,000, and that goes across the line for each one of those areas. Then you have the homestead exemption coming down maybe for a -- for a $400,000 market-value home, you're only being taxed on 250,000. So if you look at that, the millage rate in '09 was the pie that Jim talks about, I have 3.149 -- -469, and then the proposed budget goes up to 3.6009. So that's an increase of $113 in a property that-- that has a taxable value of $250,000 if you have the full budget Page 22 June 29, 2009 increase, and that represents 14 percent. Now, you look across the line, this property is -- while the market value's coming down, the taxable value still remains below that. So everybody has the same $113 increase. If your taxable value is 300,000, everybody gets 136. If it's 400,000, the increase is 182. If it's 500,000, the increase is 227, and 600,000, the increase is 272. The thing to take home here is that any tax increases that you approve will have a -- will have the full effect on anybody with Save Our Homes benefit. So if you have a 14 percent increase in your millage rate, that's the increase in the taxes. And Jim's absolutely right, the county's a small part of it, but we're hearing things that the other elements, the other taxing authorities are doing, and we did kind of a rough cut of what might happen if the school board had a .75 and the fire districts come up with some increases and mosquito control -- and you have a lot of MSTUs that are having increases. And you know, you put that all together, the increase could be substantial for the taxpayer. Not all attributed to you, but it could be substantial. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Janet, may I interrupt you one moment? MS. VASEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In today's market, in today's real estate market, what is the average market value of a home? Is 300,000 about average? I don't think it's 400,000. What-- MS . VASEY: I did not talk to the property appraiser about that. I don't really know. I was just trying to give some representative values. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Okay, thank you. MS. VASEY: Let's see if there's anything else on that one. Okay. Looking at the next chart, chart 2 that I have in your packet, shows the situation where a person does not -- where a property does not have the homestead exemption, and that one follows Page 23 June 29, 2009 the more classic lines with the property values going down, the change in the millage rate will affect things differently. Here again, let's start with a property in '09 that is, say, $350,000. Then you take the property value decrease for each one of the areas. That's the top line. Now here your taxable value is mirror -- will mirror that, so everything goes down, taxable value goes down. Like in Golden Gate, a $350,000 home with a 20 percent reduction in property values, the taxable value was 280. So looking at the bottom line for that first section, in Naples where property values dropped 6 percent, you would still have a property tax increase of $84, and that's because the property tax that's being proposed here increases 14 percent. Property value decreases 6 percent. So you're going to have -- paying more taxes. In North Naples, it would be 48. In Marco Island and East Naples, you're getting pretty much where the increase in the millage rate would be offset by the decrease in the property values, and in Golden Gate you'd have a negative of -- a reduction in taxes of $93. And then I did a couple of other examples at the $400,000 level, 500,000 and 600,000. And let's just take the 500- one. I won't go over all of them. But you start with an increase in property taxes for the 500- of$119, down to 65 for North Naples, down to 11 for Marco, minus 7, East Naples, and minus 133 for Golden Gate. So you can see what happens. For the homestead exemption with Save Our Homes benefit, full effect of any millage increase. For the properties without the homestead exemption, it varies depending on what area it is and what the property value decrease was. And I have to say that that analysis would have been impossible without the property appraiser. They were very helpful. Okay. What I wanted to go through -- I have a handout for you, and we can put this on the visualizer too. I was just going to just show you an overview of what we came up with, and then we'll go into more detail with each one of the divisions as they come up, with our Page 24 June 29, 2009 analysis. And in general, the 001 general fund, we came up with $12.2 million of potential reductions. Some of these are cuts, some of them are increases in revenue, and one of the -- one of the items is a transfer of costs. The first one relates to employer matching for the 457 retirement account for the general-- for the County Manager's Office. Upper level management has been getting a -- an employer contribution match for money that the individual puts into their retirement account. Related sort of to merit pay. They didn't benefit as much from merit pay as rank and file, and some people were bumping against the top of their employment bands, and so that was an additional funding. And that has been going on for years, but with the -- with no merit pay this year, we said -- we would recommend that that not be included. The next item is library books. We had -- I'll talk over the whole issue of what we consider funded. But library books was one of the minor ones where we thought that there could be some money used from the trust fund to buy the library books instead of using 001. We had .6 million, 600,000, for revenue for special events and the dreaded beach parking. The special events has to do with $100,000 for some of these park events that were very low on the priority list for parks to -- you know, if they were going to cut money out of programs, those would be lost. And we thought perhaps people would be willing to make a small payment for those -- for those special events. We used the example of the county fair. A lot of people go to the county fair. It's $8 parking, and then it's $8 a person for the adults to get in, and then there's charges for the rides. And, you know, that's sort of high, but we thought people would be willing to pay a small amount to go to some of these events. And one of our principles here is, when money gets tight, you look very carefully at who benefits from the services, and sometimes Page 25 June 29, 2009 you go to users. You go to user fees as opposed to having the whole county pay. And that's, you know, a matter of what your policy is. We throw this on the table as suggestions. If you hate it, you hate it, but we thought it was worth talking about. The money in here for beach parking is not the full $75. We talked about everything from maybe a $30 fee, annual fee, which we thought might be reasonable, up to $75 one. The committee was sort of split. I put in half a million dollars for that as sort of a placeholder. The full $75 would generate about a million dollars in revenue and-- you know, so this could go up or down depending on what you would decide. Facilities repair and maintenance. There's $2 million between your millage-neutral and your tax-neutral levels, and we took a look at that and thought about a million dollars of it could probably be delayed or deferred. One big item in there, we questioned whether it was necessary or not, but we'll go into that in more detail. There was $1.2 million of increased costs in the unincorporated general fund in transportation, and we felt like some of these costs were more appropriately chargeable to Fund 001, and we'd be happy to discuss those in more detail with you when we get to transportation. We also had some transportation issues for lighting and mowing. And we brought the transportation capital down to the millage-neutral level, accepting a million-one of reduction relating to that. We thought that was not serious. A lot of times -- maybe I should back up and just tell you. When -- you've, for years now, been under constrained resources, and a lot of the things that could be reduced based on percentage reductions across the board have already occurred. And so in this review, we looked at relative priorities. Where is it that things, not fair, across the board, everybody taking the same cut, but where is it that you could cut with the least impact. And so some of these areas reflect those priorities that we had, and you may Page 26 June 29, 2009 have different ones. Revenue reserves. When you -- some of these items would reduce the property taxes from the tax-neutral level about $10 million. So there is a tail to the revenue reserve that relates to that, so we took a little piece for that. We had some money for contingencies. And then we'll discuss in detail the re- -- the reduction for excess self-insurance reserves. There's about $35 million in your reserves for some of these self-insurance programs. And Jim Gibson did an excellent analysis of what's actually required and whether we could take some of that money out because it's not really necessary. So this is the County Manager piece, and below you'll find the piece of the sheriffs for that, of 1.1. So our recommendations are about $6 million for the County Manager. The sheriffs reduction, the big piece there, is $5 million, and that's for the 4 percent attrition that is your county policy. Basically your policy has always been -- well, not always, but it is this year -- 4 percent. It has been different percentages in different years. And how that is calculated by the county staff is, you look at your funded program, and you have so many people on board, and then over the year people leave and new people are hired, and that's where you get your attrition lag. And so you don't have to pay for all those people for a full year because they come and go during the year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Janet, let me interrupt you for a moment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I just -- Janet, you're doing a wonderful job. The problem is, we're going through the whole thing at one time, and I really want to see us dissect these things item by item with a counterpoint from county staff. Rather-- MS. VASEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- than get through the whole thing and then have to start all over again. MS. VASEY: Okay. I-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. That's my own Page 27 June 29, 2009 feelings. I don't know how the rest of this commission feels. MS. VASEY: Okay. That's fine. We'll deal with that in more detail on each one of these divisions and with the sheriff. If you'll turn to the next page I'll show you, this is something -- I mentioned before that one of our guiding principles was to avoid reducing services that were desired by the public, and also we did not want to increase taxes. So we looked at how much -- what millage rate -- what county millage rate was charged in FY09 and what the relative rate would be in FYI O. And the Caribbean Gardens, as Jim mentioned, is being paid off either the end of '09 or just a little piece in '10, so I assumed it -- okay, let's pay it off in '09. The millage rate is .15, and that generates about 10 or $11 million. We used a conservative 10. Now, we said retaining the millage rate in FY 10 will not increase the county millage rate paid by the taxpayers over the rate they paid in FY09. They paid it for Caribbean Gardens in '09. We thought perhaps they'd be willing to continue that millage rate in FYI0 for really essential services that they want. And we've heard some things in the paper relating to the animals and libraries, but when we looked at the thing -- at the different parts of the budget that was in that delta between the millage -- the millage- neutral and the tax-neutral, several things struck us as essential. One was the three ground units in EMS. That is sort of unfunded at the millage-neutral level, and plus another seven people, I think, in addition to the three units. And the helicopter operations that were cut. So we said, that's important services. That's important to their community. There was some for public health, prescriptions for the needy, David Lawrence, disadvantaged transportation, a little piece for CA T, the Domestic Animal Service adoptions, library branches, keeping those opened, Parks and Rec services that would be a hardship to some people if they weren't available, especially in these Page 28 June 29, 2009 periods of constrained resources, and then we plugged in -- the sheriff didn't actually work from the millage level, but we said, in this 10 million, about half of it could be allocated towards -- towards the sheriff if he was at a millage-neutral level. So that's what we did. We're not saying that you should sneak it in on the county or anything -- on the taxpayers, but they paid that level of taxes in '09, and to continue that level to provide services that they want, we thought it was worth an argument. Okay. And the last one quickly is the general -- the unincorporated general fund and basically that $5 million between the millage-neutral and the tax-neutral. We were able to get all the way to millage-neutral on that one. We started with an increase to Code Enforcement because they got cut very sharply, then we thought that needed to be brought back up to the FY09 level because of all the additional work they're doing on foreclosures. They're doing all of that without additional people, and we felt that that was an important effort to the community. So we plussed that up. Here's the transportation one we'll get into later about whether certain costs should be included in this fund or in Fund 001, small cut to the parks, and then some technical kinds of things for contingencies, cash flow. And then, we also deal with this one, but the unincorporated general fund has loaned Fund 131 -- I guess that's Joe Schmitt's fund-- $1.4 million, and there's all kinds of loans all the time, and that's not a problem. It's just, perhaps we could find another source of funding for that loan so that it doesn't create a tax increase in this unincorporated general fund. That's what I've got, and we're available to talk about any of these issues as we go along. And we have to say, too, that we put -- we did this at your request. We put a tremendous workload on the staff because we had written questions, we had subcommittee Page 29 June 29, 2009 meetings just constantly, we had full committee meetings where they attended, and they have been amazing in responding to all our needs. They probably won't agree with us on everything, but that's just the way it is. But we appreciate their support. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't leave, Janet. MS. VASEY: And the Sheriffs Office, too. They were very help in meeting with us. Yes? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Janet -- well, I think you did -- well, Productivity Committee did an excellent job. MS. VASEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't agree with everything, but I like the work that you did. A couple questions. Did you ask -- because I'm finding out that some departments are not -- that their requests for services are much less than they were in the last two years, and then some of them have risen. Did you ask to see what kind of -- what kind level of service and comparable? MS. VASEY: Yes, we did. We asked a lot of questions in that area, and we spent a lot of time with their performance measures just hoping in some places to see what the workload was in one year and how it increased or decreased in the next year, and we had a lot of discussions about that. Sometimes we felt like they didn't do -- they didn't have enough in the performance measures for us to really get our hands on, and we made -- we made, you know, notes on that, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. VASEY: Yeah, we did look at that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's an important thing as we move forward is, you know, what is the demand of the public out there, and I'm hearing nationwide that the library services are Page 30 June 29, 2009 increasing because people are doing away with their Internet and taking their laptop or using the library computer to, you know, look for jobs and so on and so forth. My next question is, and I'm really questioning, why didn't you make recommendations about the carry-forward from last year? MS. VASEY: We had a lot of recommendations on reserves. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reserves. MS . VASEY: Yeah, how much was being held in reserve for a variety of reasons. We looked at carry-forward, and in many instances it was substantially lower than the prior year. We didn't find anything that raised a big flag with us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. VASEY: Frankly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm talking about things like capital improvements that we didn't do this year and they'll be done like 09/010-type thing. One example is the refurbishing of Building F, this building. And I'm thinking, okay, if you do a beach fee, beach parking fee, they're coming in here and seeing, you know, everything being refurbished. I'm not sure if that will set very well with them, those type of things. As -- and I'm sure everybody else gets comments of, okay, why are you putting landscaping in this community park when you're saying you don't have any money? Those types of things, and it's true. You know, why are you asking me for more money or why are you doing these capital improvements and here you want more money? MR. MUDD: Janet, if I could help just a little bit. I'm not speaking for the Productivity Committee. earry - forwards is moneys that you've budgeted, may they be from non-reoccurring sources when you had dollars that you were putting against unfinanced requirements where they didn't get done and moved forward. In your particular example that you used, Page 3 1 June 29, 2009 Commissioner Henning, is Building F, when we're renovating, for instance, we're going to bring the finance department out of leased spaces and bring them up into the fourth floor of this particular building and basically make improvements so that they can come in there and do that function. That saves rental money. One of the things that Janet -- or the Productivity Committee's got on their particular sheet is to put -- I'll turn the slide -- is to cut a million dollars out of facility repair and maintenance. Part of those cuts has to do with the rent money that you saved when you came out of rental and you're going into facilities. So part of that, we're taking that one-time money and making it reoccurring so that you can make that cut, and that's a perfect example. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, eommissioner Coyle brought up about the ski facility at Sugden Park. What was that at, $1.5 million facility that was on our agenda two meetings ago? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Skiing or skating? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Skating, was it skating? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it was sailing, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sailing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Marla, how much was that? MS. RAMSEY: Half a million. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Half a million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then we're talking about beach fees. You know, those types of things the public sees, and I've been getting comments on those. That's what I'm talking about. Thank you. That's all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas next. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Janet, again, I also say that you did an outstanding job, the Productivity Committee, going through this. I do have some real concerns when you look at revenue reserves. I'm concerned about -- being an old farm boy, I don't like to eat the Page 32 June 29, 2009 seed corn, because I think next year's going to be even worse as far as meeting our total. I also have some concerns about self-insured reserves. Let's hope that we don't need to get into -- involved in that, but sometimes you have some catastrophic concerns in regards -- when you're being self- insured as far as medical. I have a concern about that. That, I think, is my biggest thing, especially when you're looking at $1.1 million. With today's medical costs and the amount of people that we have here insured, I've got a problem with that. I also -- I think I'll address the others when we get into lighting and mowing. I can tell you that people in my district are very emphatic that we keep the sidewalks trimmed and we keep the medians trimmed when they're not being -- when there's no landscaping at. I also have some concerns about facility maintenance and repair. It's like when you own a house, whether you like to face up to the fact or not, you have items that need to be repaired, like painting, maybe a roof repaired, lanai repaired, or whatever else. So I have some concerns on that. And then I've also -- it's going to be an interesting discussion when we get into transportation. We've added a huge amount of road structure here, infrastructure here in this county in the last six years, to the tune of about $860 million. And it's like when you buy a new car, you have to change the oil. You pay me now or pay me later. And I hope we don't get into the same situation as the federal government when they built the interstate and then didn't provide any maintenance for keeping up the road systems in this country. So that's just some of my comments at this point in time. Thank you. eHAIRMAN FIALA: eommissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Well, I'd like to chime in with and agree with the rest of my commissioners in that the Productivity Committee's contribution is tremendous to how we get to Page 33 June 29, 2009 where we need to be as far as a balanced budget and trying to be as fair as possible to all. I'm kind of lost where we're going to go with this now. I want to make sure that at some point in time we're going to have these points interjected when we have the different departments come forward where we can have you come back up and we can start back and forth on what is the benefits against the loss to the public regarding each and every item. I hope this isn't just a presentation where you're going to sit down and that's the end of it and this is the only guideline we have is bullet points on a piece of paper. That's not going to work. We do need to have detailed answers from the different department heads as to exactly why this is a good or bad idea to cut back on these things. The only thing on here that I'm very concerned, and that's the idea that we're going to start charging our everyday citizens for such things as beach pass, even if it's a small amount, the beach stickers, then that leaves the door open for what happens next. And the access to the beach and the rights to the beach are something that people move down here expecting, the same thing with our libraries. We need to keep our libraries reasonably whole without charging for the library card. I know in some communities they do it, but this isn't some communities. The average working person out there is feeling the effects of what's taking place there, and we need to keep these amenities in place. Such beautiful things that we offer the public such as the winter carnivals, the Christmas Around the World in Immokalee, the Snowfest we have, the different concerts that we have occasionally during the year which I assume we're going to get into a discussion with parks and recs that they're pretty close to a break even, but I may be wrong on that. But in any case, these are amenities that the general public has Page 34 June 29, 2009 benefited from greatly, and these are items that I want to hold the line on as we go forward. Also -- which isn't in the budget, and I just have to make sure that my fellow commissioners are well aware of the fact that I haven't missed it, is the lack of funds for limerock roads. Commissioner Coyle's favorite subject. And if I didn't mention it at least once -- and I'm sure I'll mention it many times. I understand these are tough times, but the people that are living on these limerock roads -- and I do appreciate transportation efforts in the past and my fellow commissioners coming up with funds to get about 80 percent of the people that live on limerock roads, their roads have been paved. There's still a large number of them out there that haven't. These are tough times, and I realize that this is not an item that will probably fit in this year. And if I'm going to be setting that aside for a year, then I expect that the other commissioners are going to step forward for some sacred cows within their district to be able to set them aside for a year or turn them down. But one of the things I hope that we can do at the end of the day, and if we don't have any funding for limerock roads -- and I'm not saying I've given this item up. I just -- I can't do that -- but that we leave it on all future budgets so that it's a point of discussion, or else it's going to -- you know, it's extremely important to at least one commissioner down here at this end. And with that, thank you very much. MS. VASEY: Just to address your two concerns, may I just say that we are here for the next two days. We'll be here to discuss with each -- when you have your appropriate divisions here. We'll be here to talk and they can present their positions, we'll present ours, and you can ask all the questions you want. And Commissioner Halas, we'll just try to persuade you to our point of view. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Coletta, that's what I had asked them to do. As each one of these subjects comes up, to Page 35 June 29, 2009 weigh in from the Productivity Committee point of view just to help us along. You came up with so many wonderful suggestions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wonderful. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Things I -- personally I would have never thought of, and I truly appreciate that. And I had some -- you're next, but I had some questions also. In the library books from the trust fund, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what trust fund. MS. VASEY: There's a library trust fund that has, I don't know, 3-, $400,000 in it that is there to supplement the book program in the libraries, and we can talk about that in -- MR. MUDD: Normally what happens is people will die, okay -- and I've been thinking about that a lot lately -- that when they die they leave a legacy. Sometimes they leave part of their estate to the library and it goes to the trust fund and they want their dollars to be there to give an incremental benefit to the particular library service. In this particular regard, the suggestion is to take that legacy that people have left after their death and basically use those moneys to supplant what people would normally pay for taxes. I'm not too sure the intent of that trust fund is being met when that particular increment goes. But to Commissioner Coletta's issue, I'll be glad at the end to summarize -- because as Janet would say, we don't necessarily agree. Sometimes we agree to disagree. But I'll also talk about those particular issues. So that could cause some -- it might solve a problem now, but I don't think it does anything for your trust funds for future beneficiaries, okay, for people to continue to put those dollars in. So what you have is a non-reoccurring program that you want to use to solve a budget shortfall that's going to be reoccurring. So when it's not there next year, what do you do in order to fix it, and that's the dilemma that you're going to face. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then Janet, I had one more Page 36 June 29, 2009 question. Normally the Productivity Committee has a recommendation regarding the Economic Development Council and funding for them, but I didn't see anything this year. Did you have a recommendation on that? MR. MUDD: It's zeroed in our budget, ma'am. MS. VASEY: There's nothing in the budget. MR. MUDD: There's no money in the budget at all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope that when you looked at the libraries and in this case the funding for books, that this was for books and not videos. I'm tired of us being in competition with Blockbuster, that -- I feel that in order to keep the libraries open, the libraries should be a source of reference material for periodicals, books, and computers. But as far as dealing with first-run videos, that's something that should be done in the private sector, and I hope that that was addressed in your suggestions as far as the Productivity Committee. MS. VASEY: We had a lot of discussion on that issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. VASEY: And we'll talk about it when we get there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Janet. Thank you so much. And thank you, all of our Productivity Committee members. We really appreciate all your hard work. MS. VASEY: Yeah. Everybody -- it is a full committee review, and we all spent a lot of time on it. So you can either like it or accept it or not, but we did our best effort. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: And the other piece outside of the Productivity Committee, Janet sat in every budget review of every department that I had. It's an open invite for her every year. Her husband hates me because he loses his wife when that happens. And I will tell you, she Page 37 June 29, 2009 is a great benefit to this particular community in that regard. She has some tough questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much. You know, we have about eight minutes. Do you want to attempt-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take a break. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to take a break now before we get into courts? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right now. COURTS AND RELATED AGENCIES (STATE ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC DEFENDER) MR. MUDD: Ma'am, if you -- you have the state attorney, the public defender, you've got a judge or two here. If we could go and try to -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd just like to get that one done. MR. MUDD: -- get courts and related agencies, state attorney, public defender, I believe we can get some very important people back to work. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, yes. I figure we have eight minutes, we can do that. MR. MUDD: Mark, you going to lead this? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'll do my best. MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hi. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I'm Mark Middlebrook, the Senior Deputy Court Administrator for the 20th Judicial Circuit. I'm Chief of Operations here in Collier County. We have submitted our 09/10 budget to the county. We have cut Page 38 June 29, 2009 our budget as much as we possible can to the point that the budget office and the manager's office has repeatedly asked us if we've cut too much. Weare the third branch of government. Weare an equal branch, and we're a .53, which includes the state attorney and public defender, or .53 of 1 percent of the county's budget. And with that, I will take any questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I have a great explanation about probations and why it shouldn't be privatized, but if you put out a request for a proposal that deals with working with the sheriffs and other concerns you have, wouldn't that address -- and put it in the contract, you must perform certain things, knowing as it -- as it even states here, that realizing that other counties have saved money. Wouldn't it be prudent to go out to some sort of a bid to privatize that? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That would be a decision for you to make whether it would be prudent. I would tell you it would not be prudent at this point knowing the private probation offices that operate within the state. Myself and Chuck Rice, who's our criminal justice director, are both on the state board of directors for the Florida Association of Community eorrections, which is made up of state, county, DJJ, and some federal probation offices. I assure you when I tell you that the private probation offices come in with a bid to save money because they do not provide the same level of service. And you could possibly place those requirements into your bid and they will have the contract, if you will, and it would take probably a year or two, which a lot of counties are Page 39 June 29, 2009 finding out, to realize that they are not operating at the same level as your previous county probation office. Additionally, the chief judge by statute would have to sign off on that. I don't believe, as I sit here, that the chief judge would be very willing to sign off on any private probation offices' services in this circuit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just because of your knowledge, I think you should be involved in drawing up some kind of contract and even let the existing probation office do it. But my understanding, it's a significant savings. County Manager, have you ever looked at that? MR. MUDD: No, sir. I've heard it from the Clerk's Office that it could be savings. In the past, about three years ago, we kind of looked at it, and in some particular issues where if probation was contracted out -- and I can't tell you how well it did or didn't do because I didn't have that information, but I will tell you, you can contract it out or at least they did three years ago. When I say they, a couple -- a couple of counties. The probation moneys coming in, revenue as far as the contract, the companies that bid them basically ran with the revenues that came in as well as providing the facilities for the particular office. What I didn't get -- and I have no way to determine that -- was how successful and what kind of service was provided by that particular entity, and I believe that information is several years old. But I also believe that I've -- that I would have received that same kind of information from the Clerk's Office. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's something that I think that we should pursue personally. Mr. Middlebrook, the courts are -- have less clients, I guess I would say, felonies and misdemeanors? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Misdemeanors are down approximately 22 percent. Felonies are down a little less than 10. Page 40 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But your budget doesn't reflect that. In fact, I think there's a mistake on the first page. The -- I'm sorry, Page 5. Actually, the transfer to -- from fund '08 -- or fund -- the general fund last year was 971,000, and you're asking for $1.2 million. You came into a 14 percent decrease because you have less money coming in, but it actually is going to cost the taxpayers more. Their service charges -- and you stated this to the board at our last meeting, that your probation is down, and that's where your service charges -- why your service charges are 31 percent down? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, probation numbers are down from our average, yes. Weare also down four positions in probation, so we have reduced our probation numbers of personnel in accordance to our probation numbers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're providing less service because the service is not required, but you're asking for the taxpayers to increase that. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We're providing the same level of service that we provided for the last 14 years. We have less people because we have less probationers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, personally I would like to see that reduced to the guidance that we gave, what was that, 14 percent, County Manager? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there was two-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the courts. MR. MUDD: There was two guidances that were put out. Tax- neutral was minus 3 percent, and millage-neutral was minus 15 percent. I will tell you that you need to take a look at -- if you're looking at Page 5 and you're taking a look at those lines, a transfer from 001 to Page 41 June 29, 2009 the general fund, net cost to the general fund, you'll see that there's a 34.5 percent decrease as far as -- as far as the court-related agencies are concerned. So from the net cost side of the house -- and Mark will have to help me a little bit in the exact issue. But when you talk about net costs, you've got revenues coming in, and then you've got revenues going out. They normally come into the general fund. And what we have are revenues on the court side of the house are down. And so the net cost that you got to the general fund is down some 34.5 percent. So if you look at both of those numbers, I think it gives you a truer picture. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you've got to add those numbers and then -- MR. ISACKSON: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: There are certain components of the court's operations that are budgeted directly in 001, and those costs have gone down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's gone down about 3 percent? MR. ISACKSON: Well, last year if you take the $830,000 net cost and you also take the transfer from the general fund, which was 971,000, you've upped it about a million eight. And if you look at the transfer this year, it's actually down a little bit. Transfer and the net cost combined, it's actually down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 1.7? MR. ISACKSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But not 3 percent? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, I'd like to point out, Commissioner, that there are several areas where the county paid the full freight because of certain costs that have been paid for by fees that we've been allowed to charge, and the county hasn't had to pay any of Page 42 June 29, 2009 those costs, for instance, the public guardianship. Since 2004 the county saved approximately $1 million that they were paying previously out of the general fund. That -- majority of that cost up -- well, all of that cost up until this year was paid for out of a fee source. So the county has seen significant savings in certain areas. Other areas they have not. We must operate, we have to provide service, we have to provide access, and there's a cost to that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, absolutely. But the call for service is down. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: In criminal. Foreclosures are up. We do in a month in foreclosures what we did in a year. So, you know, it's apples and oranges. In one side, we're down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're right. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We have made adjustments; we are moving people all around to address the needs. Weare bare bones. We really are. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That foreclosures is overwhelming a lot of people. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has your commitments increased because of state unfunded mandates to the court system? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: The changes in 2004 have caused us to have to totally re-evaluate how we operate. The cost to the county, I believe, is actually a little bit less if -- I wouldn't say significantly less -- than it was in 2004 to this point. So when you say unfunded mandates, there are some things that are unfunded, but they aren't necessarily a state mandate, but they are a necessity. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Can you briefly describe a couple of these that are impacting your way of doing business? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, the probation office is a Page 43 June 29, 2009 county-funded program. That is the majority of our budget. There's 28 full-time employees in probation. We have 10.6 in the rest of the operation; however -- and the state does require probation in certain charges. Having a probation department is -- there's no state law that requires you to do that, per se; however, we have to have a probation department. So that would be one. Additionally, the state has attempted to offset some of these costs with some type of fee that the county has enacted these ordinances to collect these fees, and they have substantially helped. Technology is one area. Several million dollars has gone into that fee that normally would have come out of the county's general fund. We have a fund for building -- for court buildings. They've just doubled that allocation fee to $30 from $15, which should bring in another million dollars a year to the county. So we have done our best to offset all of our operations as best we can with the influx of these -- this fee money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My next question is, you heard the discussion early on this morning in regards to tax-neutral versus millage-neutral. MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In millage-neutral, can you operate efficiently? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: We cannot operate, no, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would this be a detriment of the citizens of this community if we forced you to run millage-neutral? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: It would. We would -- part of our operation is part of the public safety component. That would be completely decimated, that side of it. Our probation department works hand in hand with the Sheriffs Office. We do our best to keep the community safe when it involves the probationers. We spend more time with a defendant, convicted person, than Page 44 June 29, 2009 anybody else in the system. The deputies spend maybe 40 minutes arresting them, processing them, they get before the Court. It may be a ten -- ten-minute event. Then we spend 30 minutes a month, if not a week, depending on their charge, talking to them and ensuring that the judge's direction is being followed. We would -- we would have to cut the probation department because we can't operate with a partial probation department. Additionally, probation is an alternative sentencing tool utilized by the judges. With no probation department, you would have to build an 1 ,800-bed jail to house the people that are currently on probation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you foresee that if we tried to go in the millage-neutral basis in regards to the court system that there's a possibility that crime rate could go up in this county? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: I would -- I would almost positively assure you that if we were in a millage-neutral posture in conjunction with our operation, that requirement being placed upon the sheriff, we would have a significant crime increase. And you only have to look to our northern county or to our eastern counties to see the impact of a public safety component that is not operating at a level to protect its citizens. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You have -- have you did due diligence as best as you can see in this budget in regards to addressing the concerns to making sure that you can provide the service necessary in the court system and that there's no other way of cutting the particular budget you have this year? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes, sir, absolutely. And I'm actually starting to be concerned, as the colonel is, that we may have cut too much for this budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, everyone. Jim, is there anything further we need now? Page 45 June 29, 2009 MR. MUDD: Unless -- and we're going to go from Mark. Judge Manalich, do you have anything to add? JUDGE MANALICH: I think Mr. Middlebrook's covered it pretty well. We do understand, under our separation of powers, ladies and gentlemen, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here. We understand the public service you're performing and scrutinizing in these difficult budget times, all of our numbers. All of I would say is, you know, one of the great framers of our Constitution, Jefferson, once said that the fair and impartial administration of justice is one of the most sacred duties of any government. We're trying to uphold that tradition that we're very proud of, while the same time getting down to bare bones. And I think Commissioner Henning -- you know, I compliment him for raising a valid question on the privatization of probation; however, on that, my response would be united with Mr. Middlebrook in that as a judge I can tell you that our county is particularly effective. When we put people on probation as an alternative to jail, that's a big decision that we have to make, because some of these people would otherwise be incarcerated. If we're going to be backing the community, then we need to make sure that our probation have the capability to adequately monitor, because we often have these people having issues when they're out. And it's a probation department that can work hand in hand with law enforcement and adequately supervise. It's critical to the success and the safety in the community for that. So we understand you have some tough decisions, but we would like you to consider that our presentation is pretty bare bones. Thank you. MR. MUDD: State Attorney's Office? MR. RUSSELL: No. Ours is pretty basic. It's basically building and information technology with one jail reduction program, which seems to have been effective. Page 46 June 29, 2009 And other than that, unless there are any questions, our reductions reflect it. And I agree for the court's end, there are other programs, such as pretrial release programs where people are put out by the judge to be released pending the disposition of the case while it's pending in court. And there are studies that have been done that show that the oversight provided by those probation officers is significantly more effective than those who are just out on a surety bond in terms of showing up and complying with the conditions. And that's sort of gratuitous with them. MR. MUDD: Public Defender's Office. MS. SMITH: Good morning. We have done our best to reduce our costs as well. We believe we've done a good job of getting to just essential services at this point. I've submitted the budget and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if you remember correctly -- and I'm not in the Public Defender's Office right now. But if you remember a couple years ago, we added some attorneys and some staff in the Public Defender's Office and the State Attorney's Office to try to alleviate some of the problems that we had on the docket so that we could get people that were waiting to go to court, get them out of jail, get them sentenced or out into probation so that we could move things along, and that had -- has had a wonderful effect as far as decreasing the population of our jail. Now, I can't -- I can't tell you that it's the only reason that we've had a reduction in our jail, but it's been significant. If you can't get those people off the docket and get them into the courtroom, you don't get them out of the jail. And if they're in the jail, they're costing us money. And Commissioner eoyle can -- he is your representative on the task force. He's the Chair of that task force that basically talks about jail overcrowding and whatnot in the Public Safety Committee, I believe, and we've had great success. Page 47 June 29, 2009 Right now the population in our jail today is the same population we had in 2004. I will also tell you, because of that population decrease, the master plan for the jail that looked like it was going to need an expansion doesn't look like it's going to need any expansion past 2014, so it's saving us all kinds of money. The ICE program that the sheriff has in getting those illegals out of this country is saving us gobs of money also. So -- and unless you want to undo some of those things that you've done in prior years to get us in this beneficial program, if you go to millage-neutral to Mr. Middlebrook and the state attorney and the public defender, you'll have to undue those particular issues. And my recommendation is that you don't do so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Steve, you're down about 20 percent, right, in your agency? MR. RUSSELL: We show a 40 percent reduction, but within that, one of the things that happened there was, by going to the new facility, we eliminated rent that we were paying, because we had been subdividing and subdividing our office for years. So that's a savings, a recurring savings, and then there was some shifts. We are down, but part of that is that, and then there's some other reductions. We've shifted our IT to another area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But as far as the need for service, I understand it's down about 20 percent. MR. RUSSELL: Well, I'd reflect what Mark said. We've seen that for a couple years in -- I've got five counties I've got to look at. We have shifted positions over the last two years out of Collier in terms of people. These aren't county-funded positions, they are state funded. We've reduced our state budget 12 percent. We'd keep 25,30 positions open around the county. And even before the economic downturn, we ran about 15 percent below our fair share of what we should have on the state basis for those positions. I Page 48 June 29, 2009 mean, if that's what you're saying. So we are down, and our positions reflect that. We have all these open positions, and we have shifted out of Collier eounty some of those. But we still need the building and we still need the line, so that doesn't change. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's it, right? MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you very much, and thank you again to the colonel and Mr. Y onkosky's staff for helping us through this most difficult process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, everyone -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- thank you for being here. We are going to take a ten-minute break now. (A brief recess was had.) AIRPORT AUTHORITY MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. On our agenda the next item is the Airport Authority. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 22 back in our section. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, Board of County Commissioners, tab, Page 20. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. COOK: Are you ready? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you -- yes, would you like to begin? MS. COOK: Madam Chairman, yes. Theresa eook, Executive Director for the Collier County Airport Authority. And with me is Byron Meade, Chairman of the Airport Authority Board. Our proposed fiscal year 2010 budget is in line with the county Page 49 June 29, 2009 directives. Our operating budget is approximately $3,168,000 proposed for fiscal year 2010, and of that we're asking for 467,500 as a loan from the county general funds to operate the three airports with approximately 16 personnel. That's the millage-neutral. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's tax-neutral. MS. COOK: Excuse me, that's tax-neutral. For millage-neutral we're asking for approximately $409,000 of our $3 million operating budget. If there's any questions that I can answer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's see. Commissioner Coyle said yes first, and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the money you're requesting from the general fund, County Manager, what are the implications if that money is loaned to them from another governmental agency other than the general fund? MR. MUDD: First of all, you have to -- you have to find out where you're going to loan the money from, okay. I mean -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Utilities. MR. MUDD: The where? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Utilities. MR. MUDD: Ma'am, sir, they're done. Ma'am, sir. When we went to -- when we went and did the Elks Club, you basically -- and you're also using public utilities to shore up your lack of bond covenants because your insurers have gone below the rating that the bond covenants asked for. So Mr. DeLony is on tap for 4 million for the Elks Club, and he's on tap for close to $9 million shoring up your bond covenants whereby your insurance companies in America haven't been able to Page 50 June 29, 2009 keep their ratings. So you've done Mr. DeLony in in the public utilities side of the house as far as someplace to go find dollars and still let him keep his ratings that he needs for the bonds that he's got. And we just received a notice from Fitch that says they want to come down and take a look at the entire credit statute -- the entire credit structure of the county to make sure that we still maintain our credit rating. So at this particular juncture, there isn't a whole lot to grab that doesn't put something at risk from the public utilities side of the house. We pretty much already tapped them, sir. MR. ISACKSON: Just want to comment on that, Commissioner. We did have that ratings conference call with the representatives from Fitch, and one of their questions that we spent quite a bit of time was on the matter that County Manager Mudd just mentioned, and that's funding up this surety issue and what we're going to do if, in fact, we need to contribute more than the $9 million that was already requested of us and we've already funded up. And our response to that was that we would have to review that with our finance committee. So there's a potential that we would be back before you before September with another executive summary that talks about additional dollars having to be pledged to the debt service reserve funds for this Issue, so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the only place to pledge those is from the general fund? MR. ISACKSON: Well, the question was, where are you going to get the additional dollars from? And my point is, we may have to go other funds like you're suggesting in this particular case in order to do that, not the general fund. eOMMISSIONER COYLE: So you do have apparently some flexibility in public utilities, but you're anticipating having to use that for another more important purpose? MR. ISACKSON: Well, again, we haven't identified what the Page 51 June 29, 2009 source is. Frankly we would have to do some brainstorming to figure that out if we're required to do that additional fund up, and we don't know that yet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning. eOMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of tax-neutral for the Airport Authority. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tax-neutral for the Airport Authority? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Millage-neutral, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, millage-neutral for the Airport Authority. eommissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you went to tax-neutral-- excuse me -- millage-neutral, what services or what airports would be closed down? MS. eOOK: Excuse me. Commissioner Halas, we have no intention of closing any airports down. We've arranged our budgets so that if we went with millage-neutral, that our indirect costs would be decreased and we would decrease our engineering services. The engineering services that we've -- we contract out are for designs and plans to build buildings, taxiways, runway extensions, whatever is required by the FAA for the designing of those. They also help us to prepare grant applications that require design engineering and architectural. Without those services, we reduce our ability to acquire more grants. In 2009, we acquired over $2 million in grants for the airports. So if you reduce that amount, I think it's approximately 20 -- $36,000, we lose the opportunity for almost $2 million in grants, maybe more. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Does this institute any kind Page 52 June 29, 2009 of a safety problem at our airports? MS. COOK: Without directly saying that we have a safety problem at the airports, we have safety issues. For instance, the taxiway at Marco Island has been permitted after ten years. It's been designed, and we're starting Phase I for the development of moving the parking lot so that we can put in the apron. So, yes, that is a major safety issue for the Marco Airport. We have -- we anticipate that the future years are going to be more difficult also. We have operated the airports with 16 personnel. If our -- we're looking at those reductions for the following year before we start -- before we -- we don't want to reduce staff at this point when you have five people for running an airport 24/7. On weekends not necessarily 24 hours a day, but they're on call for that. Five people to run those airports, make sure that the runways are cleared when aircraft come in, the clearance zones are clear for those aircraft, and provide the essential services out there, we're going to save that for the last alternative hopefully in the following years, not that the -- we anticipate in the following years. We are not going to have a safety issue this year. We're going to cover those bases with whatever means we can. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What have you got planned that would be -- could be a safety issue at Immokalee Airport; anything? MS. COOK: At the Immokalee Airport is where we have our five personnel. Those personnel are constantly out there checking the runway lightings. We just refurbished them. There was a $140,000 project we did in house for $20,000. We have qualified people that can change those lightings and take care of a lot of the maintenance and infrastructure needs of that airport. Without the -- just the minimal funds to keep those airports operating so that the personnel can do that in house, then you are going to start looking at safety Issues. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. At these two major airports, Page 53 June 29, 2009 Marco and Immokalee, who takes care of the ground maintenance? MS. eOOK: Our staff takes care of ground maintenance. Not only at all three airports, including the Everglades, we've also got mitigation projects for the Marco taxiway and mitigation for the Everglades taxiway that we're responsible for for five years that we do in Rookery Bay. It's over 300 acres. And with the operations field staff of approximately seven people that are able to get out in those fields, they're taking care ofa $165,000 project every year for five years that we would have to contract out if we didn't have that staff motivated and ready to get out there and do that kind of stuff for us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Interesting. Ifwe went to millage- neutral and we did this again next year, how would this affect the two operations? MS. COOK: We've looked at this. We would anticipate we would cut staffing back -- hourly staffing back by the -- by eight hours a week, putting them at 32 hours. We have salaried staff that are willing to increase their hours and work and cover weekends and make sure that safety and security of the airports is still intact. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The plan that you presently have where you say you were going to reduce engineering services, is this going to have an effect in regards to the taxiway at Marco Airport? MS. COOK: That's a very precarious situation because of the budget restraints right now. We've got to do a lot of lobbying, we have to have our engineers on hand and available to respond to any technical information the FAA needs to go forward. But that's one of our stronger goals, making sure that that taxiway gets done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that is a safety issue? MS. COOK: If you have aircraft landing and taking off in the same runway and no one -- at no taxiway, it can be quite intimidating. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is the -- do you have the aircraft count that take off and landings during our peak time when Page 54 June 29, 2009 tourists are here? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that at Marco? COMMISSIONER HALAS: At Marco. MS. COOK: We did have a rough estimate. Mr. Tweedy? MR. TWEEDY: We estimate about 16,000 annual operations, 80 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 16,000? MR. TWEEDY: Annually. About 80 percent of them are during season. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You've answered my questions. I think I would have to -- we're dealing with the safety issue here, I'm going to have to go with tax-neutral on that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Couple of things now. First off, we're talking about the return that we're going to get with the money that you get as far as what you get back from your grants and mainly from the, what, FAA, is it? MS. COOK: We've been getting FAA grants, FDOT grants, and USDA grants, and we're going to go after EDA grants. We're consistently in the grant-writing process and the grant-acceptance process and the grant-development process. eOMMISSIONER COLETTA: So let me understand correctly. You already have a skeleton crew -- MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that if you cut back on that, what would happen? You would have to like close the airports for the night and not allow people to land? I'm not too sure what happens. MS. COOK: I can give you a scenario. We've -- we have a skeleton crew at Marco during peak season. We have one individual at training and one person out sick, or on bereavement leave, so we end up -- there was an employee that had to -- that did work approximately 90 hours in one workweek, and he got -- the safety Page 55 June 29, 2009 issues increase as a person is overworked and a little more stressed out, and there was an incident that could have -- there was an incident that could have become more escalated if we weren't able to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's your fallback if you have a -- two people out and there's nobody to replace them? What do you do in a case like that? MS. COOK: Management steps in, does what they can to do that at this point. But we have -- at four people, two on -- one in customer service, they both can do customer services, one customer, one fueling, then alternating that. You get three aircraft in at a time, you've got two people out fueling, no one in doing customer service. We even have finance and secretarial staff come out and handle the desk to cover those operations during that time. We can close the airport, but then you decrease your revenue, aircraft coming in -- they come in after hours, we put staff out there, they pay for that time. They pay for landing on the ramp, they pay for those staff hours. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that supports itself? MS. COOK: The Marco Airport definitely supports itself. In fact, it probably supports half of the Immokalee Airport. And the Immokalee Airport is coming into its own. We've increased fuel sales at Immokalee by about $50,000 last year. We've got increased aircraft operations going on out there, and we anticipate that the manufacturing building, hopefully to be completed by the end of this year, will bring in another 150,000 per year -- that's a conservative estimate -- to the airport. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the Everglades City Airport, what's the shortfall this year? MS. COOK: Everglades City Airport typically runs between $75,000 and $95,000 a year to operate. But please keep in mind that the FAA gives us entitlements for each airport, and the Everglades Page 56 June 29, 2009 Airport is one of those, and it gets $150,000 a year entitlement for projects. And if the Everglades Airport is not in a position, such as we finished the taxiway this year or early next year, the $150,000 that's entitled to it the following year, if there's no project at Everglades, we are allowed to use that at Immokalee to do projects there, or Marco. So that's $450,000 a year that we're getting from the FAA. And if you spend 75,000 at Everglades to keep it running, you get 150,000 for proj ect development, I think you're getting a fair trade for your money. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can any of this money be used for business development? MS. COOK: The money that the FAA provides is almost exclusively not eligible for revenue-producing product. It's for capital, for building -- not all buildings, but airport terminal buildings, runways, taxiways, anything inside the airport fence line. It's not used for capital. It's not used for business development. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How much of this budget is for business development? MS. COOK: Of our budget is for business development? We had the same staff, so we have to do everything with the staff. We've been working with the community, the CRA in Immokalee. We just started working with the chamber. We're trying to develop -- put a real development of incubator service into the incubator that was never really an incubator out there. They built a building and put a long-term lease on it, and we're able to use another facility out there to help promote small business; because Immokalee, since I've been here, I've not seen that it's really going to attract large biomedical facilities. It's going to attract the small businesses, the two- and three-employer businesses, until those grow, such as Salazar, and can build a building -- or not build a building but rent a building from us for -- 20,000-square-foot building because they've grown in Immokalee, become a part of Immokalee, hired the people from Page 57 June 29, 2009 Immokalee, and are bringing revenue and jobs to Immokalee. Those are the people that we need to promote, help grow, and that's what we're working with -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's just an undetermined portion of your time that's spent on it, rather than actual dollars, per se, that are segregated out. MS. COOK: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I've got one more question related to the Immokalee Airport, if I may. Do we -- this coming year, the plans that we have for the Immokalee Airport, the master plan is completed now, and it's ready to go, correct? MS. COOK: On that note, Commissioner Coletta, the master plan that you -- that this board -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about the airport master plan. MS. COOK: Airport master plan for Immokalee, this board approved -- the FAA approved in April. It's the first one that this county has had approved by the FAA in 23 years. All those projects in that master plan are set up, budgeted -- I mean, not budgeted, but they're -- the cost estimates are in the master plan. And we're working toward -- we have an application on probably the first five of the one- to five-year plan for the Immokalee Airport into the FAA. While they're sitting in the FAA determining whether or not they're going to get budgeted, we're working trying to get grants in the USDA and EDA to get anything that's not eligible for FAA funding or DOT funding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where are you with the tower and the expansion of the runway? MS. COOK: We have a grant application to the FAA for the land acquisition of the runway. We've already done a preliminary survey of the land outside of the airport property, done the Page 58 June 29, 2009 environmental on that land outside the property. We've been in negotiations. I believe the transportation department and the real estate department and the attorney's office for the county are in negotiations with Collier Enterprise to purchase that land. In the meantime, we're still going forward with trying to get grants and so forth to proceed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has there ever been a cost benefit done on the expansion outside of the Airport Authority's property that they own now? MS. COOK: There has not been a cost benefit to purchasing the 103 acres. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct. In other words -- the reason I'm asking the question is I heard from a person that's supposedly in the know that the land outside of the Airport Authority as far as expanding the runway is, what do you want to call it, an overkill, that it won't serve any purpose for what the intent and purposes of the airport would be now and in the future. MS. COOK: The airport currently has enough property on it to extend the 6,500 feet, which is currently at 5,000 which will accommodate quite a large group of aircraft operations. The land outside of the airport, certain parts of it would have to have an vacation or easement. I have to first state that it was -- the master plan was done in accordance with the FAA requirements and was publicly advertised and there was a committee that sat on that board, and that's the recommendations that I would give to you today, that that committee unanimously approved extension to 7,300 feet and preserving the land for the extension of that runway. Now, on a professional-- if you want my professional input on whether or not that land needs to be acquired right now, I can give you different information on that, but that's not been my direction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow, you're playing it safe. Page 59 June 29, 2009 Okay. So in other words, I should pursue a little bit of research into the subject matter myself, if I understand what you're saying? MS. COOK: I can provide you with a lot of information, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please do. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner eoyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me about the $736,000 reserve for contingencies in your capital improvement program. MS. COOK: Approximately four years ago when we sat -- our first workshop with the County Commission, County Manager and the Chairman at that time -- well, the County Manager made the recommendation that in order to leverage the grants that we can get for the Immokalee Airport improvements in the future, the county would set aside $750,000 per year. That 736,000 that's currently in there is a part of that set-asides for grants for developments at the Immokalee Airport only. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do you have specific grants in mind? MS. COOK: Yes. If I had the master plan in front of me, I would tell you that the specific grants in mind are, were, are the runway extension, hangars, corporate hangars. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you'd go to capital 5 under airport, and we got you to -- which is a couple pages over from where Mark told you to go, capital 5 right there at the bottom of the page, basically gets specifically into what grants are sitting there. Do you see it, sir? CHAIRMAN FIALA: What page is that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on Page 5 under the tab for capital improvement programs. I see it. I also see $736,000 for the balance of general fund transfer not allocated to a specific project. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the same amount of money? Page 60 June 29, 2009 The amounts are slightly different. But is that the same amount of money we're talking about? MS. COOK: It's the same pool of money, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Sir, the -- four years ago when you -- when you got their master plan or at least their concept of their master plan, their dollar amount that they were looking at the Immokalee Airport -- I'm talking about lights, I'm talking about the tower, I'm talking about the runway extension, some taxiway adjustment, was over $30 million. We basically asked at that time what the FAA cost share would be. At that time the Board made the decision if they needed 30, they'd put $3 million off to the side so we could -- part of it is so we quit -- quit -- stop listening to the whine about not having enough money in order to get the runway extended and the improvements that needed to be done. This Board has been very conscientious to make sure that you've been putting that $750,000 away. This is the only year that you haven't been able -- because it's not in the budget and we're recommending that you defer it through 2011. But you've put $2,250,000 away from fiscal year 2007 through 2009 to get to that -- that $3 million reserve. And Theresa has used those dollars to cost share those particular grants to basically put you on the -- on the straight and narrow, so to speak, to get at what this board wanted to have done with those reserve dollars, and that's to get the Immokalee Airport so that it was expanded. It had lights on it, and it had a -- and it had a tower. But Theresa, you know the details better than I do. MS. COOK: One million of that is used to leverage the US -- in the USDA grant of a hundred -- the building should cost approximately $150,000 -- $1.5 million. We anticipate getting 150,000 back from that. If this -- if my board and this commission were to go through with the land Page 61 June 29, 2009 acquisition of 500,000 -- of a mill and some dollars for the runway extension, we were anticipating doing a $500,000 down payment and paying over the years. The FAA would reimburse us -- would give us 150,000 entitlement money each year, which the land acquisition was eligible for. So 500,000 down, FAA gives us 150,000 a year, reimbursing us on the land acquisition that we did, and then we pay the term. The building being built, $150,000 in revenue. So you're getting $300,000 in revenue against the funds that you set aside. So in approximately four years you've replaced the 1.5 million that you put out there for revenue building and land acquisition. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't finished. I really don't understand yet what you just told me. You're asking for another $736,100 from the county? MS. COOK: No, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or do you already have that part of that money? MS. COOK: That is the money that is sitting there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, last year in FY08 and FY09, there was no money in that particular category. Reserves for contingencies was zero -- MS. COOK: I believe -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but your reserves for capital were 1.819 million. MS. COOK: I believe that they moved those moneys from one classification to another. COMMISSIONER eOYLE: You moved them from reserves for capital to reserve for contingencies; is that true, or part of it? Page 62 June 29, 2009 MS. COOK: I believe that that's -- I think the general concept is correct. I'm not sure about the actual -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You see, what I'm really trying to get at -- I'm not trying to suggest to you that you stop trying to expand the airport, that's wonderful, but if it's a reserve for contingencies, that means you don't really have any specific project to allocate it to, okay. It's something that's likely to come up in the future. You have to spend some money on something you didn't anticipate, but you certainly can't be in a position of saying that you don't anticipate expanding the runway or paving the runway or a taxiway or something of that nature. So I'm trying to get to the bottom of that 761 -- or $736,100 that's sitting in that reserve for contingencies. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think Ms. Usher has the answer to that particular case. What she did is she moved the dollars to contingencies because right -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: From where? MS. USHER: I moved them from reserve for capital. COMMISSIONER eOYLE: Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. MS. USHER: All I did was just move them into another line for contingency so that they would have access to that money easier so that they -- I know they were in the middle of buying property, and I just wanted that money just more easily accessible so that when they settled on the acquisition price and they're ready to go to contract, that it was easier to move that money. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do you have a proposal to buy specific property? MS. COOK: The County Attorney's Office is finalizing a contract for purchase that this board will see before we go forward with it, to purchase land. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's you're timing for that? MS . COOK: I believe that -- Page 63 June 29, 2009 MR. TWEEDY: Two months. MS. COOK: -- August 11 th we'll have the contract approved by our -- by the Airport Authority Board, and then the first meeting that this board has we'll be bringing that back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that will be which fiscal year? MS. COOK: September, fiscal year, FY09. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now we're dealing with an FYO 1 0 budget. MS. COOK: Because we don't have it committed somewhere, I believe they have to put it where -- MR. MUDD: Carry-forward. MS. COOK: Carry-forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you do commit it and spend it in September of this year -- MS. COOK: Then that will change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. COOK: Except I do not believe that we'll close on the contract until after the new fiscal year. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And one of the -- one of the things in the contract that came up was the company that owns the land -- and you could probably figure out who it is -- basically wanted to have a cellar to the -- cellar, as C-E-L-L-A-R, to price, okay. So they wanted a minimal price per acre. And I basically came up on the net along with transportation that basically said, that's not how we do it here, and you should know better. We basically go out for two appraisals and we take the average and we come back to the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe that's the change to the particular arrangement that's transpiring right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, last question. Is the amount that you're going to spend for this particular contract land acquisition approximately equal to $736,1 OO? MS. COOK: No, Commissioner Coyle. The dollars sitting -- we Page 64 June 29, 2009 have other projects on the horizon. We have FAA grant-entitlement money that is coming in in July, and we had to roll over approximately $149,000 of that. And we had anticipated putting some more apron on at the Immokalee Airport, in front of the taxiway that's closed right now, because we put an apron there, that's a major cost toward the next development, which is bringing in a corporate hangar, and we could probably get private individuals to put in the corporate hangar if the major hurdle of the apron is already put down for them. So we can leverage that $150,000. I believe it costs us $6,000. So that's just one item, and it's a small number of that 736-, but there's also the EDA grant that we're going to try -- we can't get private enterprise to build that building at corporate hangar, then we're going to go for an EDA grant, which may require a matching grant or a portion of a grant. So what we're doing as we were directed is going after grants to build the infrastructure at the airport and leveraging those until we get a grant. And from day one, the USDA application for the current one we're building the Salazar building with, we put the application in last year, approximately May, and it took us till February to get the USDA approval. They tell you that it's pro- -- most likely, and so we just -- we budget this money to be there, but we can't say it's going to be spent on that project till we get it in writing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I told you that was my last question, but you raised another one. Of the total amount of money that you had available for reserves for capital and/or reserves for contingencies, you have used all of it with the exception of $736,100; is that a true statement? MS. COOK: That is a true statement with the clause that we've spent 1 million of it on a revenue-producing building that we believe that the agreement was we could put that 150,000 per year back into that pool of money so that we can leverage it again in the future. Page 65 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, do you have a source of revenue that's at least in the contract? MS. COOK: When it's constructed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: She answered my question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a question also. I think it's wonderful what you're doing over at Immokalee, and I know you've put a lot of attention in there, and you've brought that airport up faster than I've ever seen anything moving, and I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that we're not going to pour in the money into Immokalee and forget about that taxiway on Marco Island, because that is the funding source to keep Immokalee going more or less. And I realize the exuberance in getting it done, but I want to make sure we don't forsake then the Marco Island Airport in doing that. MS. COOK: Commissioner Fiala, the Marco Taxiway is of the highest priority and safety issue for any of the airports. We have gotten several groups, Florida Airports Council and individuals representing the International Council of Airports and other entities in the FAA. We're starting our lobbying, we started a couple weeks ago, met with some individuals and put letters out there and going to visit Washington in person and try and get that funding in place. We've got individuals from the Marco community that are advocates for safe aviation that are going to be joining us in doing that. But we have been proceeding. We've got a $200,000 grant from the FAA to design that taxiway, and it's going to be completed here this week. And we're relocating the parking lot. It's actually been -- we're awarding the contract August 11 th so you'll see the parking lot relocated, the apron expanded because the taxiway's going to take away some of the apron. Page 66 June 29, 2009 The FAA and FDOT may not have the funds -- and they say they don't have funds, but they've already put in over two-and-a-half-million dollars to get that done. They're not going to stop now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that would bring us to the Community Development -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. MUDD: -- portion of the agenda for today. While people are moving around just a little bit, Commissioners, I do want to remind you the moneys that you -- there was a decision that was made several years ago that the moneys that come from the general fund or from the tax base that go into the Airport Authority are not forgotten, so that when the Airport Authority becomes a real money maker in Collier County, that you have a debt that needs to be repaid. And so what I would say to you on this chart that's on -- that's on the visualizer right now is, your money to be repaid sometime in the future from the Airport Authority is $21 million. Now, why do I bring this up? Unlike the Naples Airport Authority where the money comes in and nothing goes back out to the City of Naples, you have the ability because of this loan arrangement to get those dollars back to you and to this county and to the taxpayers. So that's why it was set up years ago so that you have that ability to do so, that those moneys aren't forgotten. We basically sit on a fence, so to speak, as we deal with the FAA and other agencies that do grants. They don't like this arrangement, okay, by any stretch of the Page 67 June 29, 2009 imagination. But we straddled the fence in order to make sure that future generations in Collier -- you just also say it, Collier Countyians, will benefit from those particular revenues that were done in the past and given to them as they -- as they get ready to flourish as an Airport Authority. So you'll be able to get at those dollars plus interest so that when the airport is flush with dollars the moneys will come back to the taxpayers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for that information. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MR. MUDD: Again, we're at Community Development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on that one. Are we working off what we received on Friday for Community Development's budget? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, your Community Development Administrator. We're working off your budget. We also gave you a read-ahead that answered a -- hopefully answered some of your questions. Certainly we're available to answer questions in that read-ahead as well. That was nothing more than a primer just to help you understand how we got to where we are and how we developed our budget. So whatever your questions -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one -- this one looks like fee increases. My only question is, did DSAC see this? MR. SeHMITT: We've discussed it extensively. They've not seen that document in particular. That was done last week. But we talked to DSAC specifically about the impacts of our budget and gone over in detail. And I plan to review that this morning in just a short Page 68 June 29, 2009 introduction as to what we're going to talk about so I can set the stage. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I haven't seen that particular document that you have in your hand. Maybe Leo's got it in his in-box. But what I will tell you is, Mr. Schmitt and his organization have been working on two studies, one for permitting and one for planning. We can call it 113, 131 -- MR. SeHMITT: Right. MR. MUDD: -- to take a look at the appropriateness of the fees that are being charged versus what the fees need to be and to basically get those studies. And then once they're finished with that, brief the DSAC and whomever and bring it back to the Board of County Commissioners for the scrutiny that you always place on any fees and fee schedules. But I wanted to make sure that Mr. Schmitt made sure that you were aware of that fact, that those studies are in the process and that he is going to come back to you sometime either the latter part of the summer or the first thing in the fall to talk about the appropriateness of the fee structures that you have in Community Development. I will tell you, based on what I've seen in this particular book -- and I'm talking about now the budget book -- Mr. Schmitt's budget is pretty much bare bones. I will -- I'm concerned that if this economy wants to take off again -- and I'm talking about the building side of the house -- that Mr. Schmitt is not in a position where he's going to be able to meet that increased demand based on what he's got right now, and that concerns me, and that's why I wanted to make sure that he talked about the particular item. Again, I haven't seen that thing that you showed, Commissioner Henning, but I believe that was something that Mr. Schmitt was going to discuss today. But without further ado -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Without further ado, let me call on Commissioner Coy Ie -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but he would prefer Page 69 June 29, 2009 to ask something before Mr. Schmitt starts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm asking this or bringing it up at this point in time so that you can react to it. I don't need a detailed explanation. I've seen your most recent publication. I understand the issue on the fees and on the staff. But here's -- there's probably no other department here who is more severely impacted by the economic downturn than your department. And at a time when we had lots of building going on and lots of fees and a full staff, we were getting criticism about not processing things quickly enough. But now that we have fewer permits, not so many fees, and you've really cut staff to the bone, you're really placed in the same position all over again. There's no way you can handle the workload as efficiently now as you'd like to do it, and there's no way, as the County Manager has pointed out, that you can ramp up quickly if the economy turns around. You have, no doubt, lost a lot of knowledgeable, skilled people in the process. And I'm saying this because what I'm about to propose applies to the entire governmental organization here. I would much prefer that we adopt an alternative to terminating people and losing the skills that we're going to need in another year or two years. And so rather than picking a few people out of each department and saying, we're going to have to terminate these people -- unless they're just not productive people. If they're not productive people, by all means, you need to do that. But I presume we're way beyond that point. So here's what I would like to propose to you. If we gave one -- if we gave every employee in Collier County, including Commissioners -- you see, we're sitting here talking about eliminating jobs for employees, and we're not feeling the pain. Okay. We're not participating in that process. So I would suggest that we consider a situation where we have Page 70 June 29, 2009 every employee in Collier County Government, including Commissioners, get one furloughed day per month. Now, according to my calculations, that saves millions of dollars, probably close to three-and-a-half or $4 million a year. Now, I believe it is a level of pain that almost everyone could live with, and I think it is preferable to keeping government employees hanging in the balance not knowing whether we're going to be eliminating their jobs from one month to the next; because we're getting to the point where in order to serve the people of Collier County, we have to give some certainty to our employees and do the jobs that they -- we expect them to do. Now, I move beyond that and go to your fee structure. I think-- I think you should coordinate with DSAC as you have proposed and see if you can reach some fair agreement to make sure that the staff is properly compensated for the work they do in this community development area. If that fails, then you definitely should consider subcontracting this and charging the subcontract charges to the petitioner. And so I fully agree with your observations on that particular issue. So I would really like to have this issue of staffing considered by every department as we go through the process. If one furlough day per month is considered excessive and it has an adverse impact upon the people, maybe we could go to one every two months or something, but we could save millions of dollars doing that, and we can avoid putting people out of work and perhaps creating more foreclosed homes and disrupting people's lives. At least we can keep people on the payroll here. So I'd really very much appreciate it if we could take a look at that. eHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, would you like to -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I'm going to run through a brief rundown so you -- to lay the groundwork and kind of map out where we are. With me today -- okay. With me today is my team, Randy Page 71 June 29, 2009 Cohen, Bob Dunn, Diane Flagg, Bill Lorenz, Jamie French, and Gary Mulley. Basically we have a $23 million budget in front of you, and our mission is shown, and certainly it goes without saying, but the government oversight and regulation of development, enforcement of the various codes, and also enforcement of impact fees and the private utility oversight, cable franchise. The key points of this budget, it's 26.4 percent lower than last year, adopted budget, and I -- as we looked at the benchmark, it's about almost 58, little over 58 percent lower than 2007. It's down 24 percent in the Building Review and permitting fund, Fund 113, and it's down 46 percent in building -- or in the Zoning and Land Use Review and permitting fund, Fund 131. Well, we're well within your budget guidance. We're down to 1 71 FTE of the authorized 299. And I stress authorized. Those are your approved positions but they're unfunded. So that does allow me the capacity to grow if, in fact, we receive the revenue. But 175 under the millage-neutral, 180 under the tax-neutral. That difference is in Code Enforcement, which we do need to address. These are the assigned versus authorized when you look at the various organizations, and I do note that environmental and engineering is one department. I separated them just so you could see how many positions are vacant. Actions taken this year. We already have a full hiring freeze. One hundred eleven current positions are frozen, and we've had three separate reductions in force. We're relocating staff where possible. I have a full freeze on all capital expenses, greatly tightened our controls over operating expenses both this year and into this 2010 budget. We've had mandatory furloughs. I've had one-week mandatory furloughs we've had this year for the Funds 113 and 131, and now I'm on a mandatory one-day furlough or another way to say it, a four-day, 32-hour workweek for those two activities. Page 72 June 29, 2009 And there's all bans on overtime, and release of all job bankers to exclude those that were hired so Diane can deal with the timely submittal and review of lien searches dealing with foreclosure. Basically, and currently, it's really not a -- it's a shortfall in fee revenue. It's not workload. The workload has sustained itself. I addressed that both in your read-ahead, and I can cover that briefly if you so wish, but really where we're in trouble now are the big-ticket items, the money makers. Those kinds of jobs that we kind of considered as lost leaders is where our preponderance of our work is comIng In. We've also -- this budget calls for a continued burn of our reserves, and there is no fee schedule increase in this budget. We will be coming back to you with that, but this is basically -- we will continue to burn our reserves, and we will fall short, significant (sic) short, of our three-month reserve as established both by the DSAC, the CBIA, and the Productivity Committee. Let me go into 113. This is our Building Department fund. Fund balance carry-forward is about $1.6 million. That is -- that's our reserve we're carrying forward into this -- at the beginning of this fiscal year. This budget proj ects a drop in the reserves as shown to about $98,000 or a loss of about 1.5 million. And workload has stabilized, as I said. We're doing approximately 20,000 permits, certainly significant reduction from what we had in 2006 where we had almost 47,000 permits. Fee revenues declined about 24 percent compared -- in a cumulative total of 64 percent when looking at 2006 revenue. Here's my options under 113. The bottom line under 113 is, we're going to burn about one-and-a-half million dollars in reserves. I can prevent that by reducing the staff another 15, and that would be targeted primarily at field inspectors, plan reviewers, contractor licensing, and permitting technicians. I'd like to point out that Page 73 June 29, 2009 contractor licensing also supports the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island. And that would essentially place my Building Department in a caretaker status, and we would deal with applications on a first-in, first-out basis. They would queue and we would just have to deal with the reduction in force. The other option is to increase fees, and we've already discussed this with the DSAe at great length, and the DSAC certainly understands the position we're in. I have a consultant here today if you ask -- wish to ask any questions of the consultant that's currently working from PMG Associates. We gave you back a material that there's been no increase in the Building Department since '96. We did change the valuation tables in 2003, but for all intent and purposes, we've been operating pretty much on the same fees. We're projecting that we will complete this study and come back to you in September with a detailed analysis of the individual fees to support the activities where costs can clearly be shown through the empirical data to be disconnected from the services that we're providing. Well, the bottom line is, we either proceed with fee increase to fund operations and build and sustain reserves, or we take immediate actions to cut staff. That's the only place I can go. 131 is just as bleak. The proposed 131 budget has been reduced by almost 46 percent. This budget, again, presupposes a loan from the general fund, and that's been worked out through the budget offices to pay for the health and life insurance of the indirect allocations that are placed on the -- those respective departments. Allowing these expenses to defer into the future will certainly give us the time to pursue corrective measures and long-term -- at least long-term solutions. The loan also will create about a $357,000-loan payment that will Page 74 June 29, 2009 be due in 210 and helps us, again, looking at increasing our reserves. Failure to fund reserves will result in Fund 131 being able -- unable to remain solvent, and going into 2011, it will essentially be broke, unable to respond in a timely manner to a future rebound in business, and certainly be unable to meet its Fund 111 obligations. We have three options under this -- under Fund 131. Again, one of the first is to reduce staff. I'd be reducing those departments. Again, that's the environmental, engineering, and zoning by F -- it's 8 FTE from the 37 down to 29. I do note that at one time we had 97 performing those functions; 60 positions have been lost, and this would be another eight. This will -- additional impact or reduction would adversely impact review times for development applications and land use petitions, again, with queuing of those projects. I have staff right now multitasked working plan reviews, working the front counter and the other activities in order to at least meet the demand of the industry. Basically, the other option would be looking at increase in revenue, the reserves, of approximately 30 percent. And Tindale Oliver is -- was hired to look at our activities in 131 and is tracking and looking at some of the activities that we're doing in 131. Again, this study is also being conducted with full industry involvement. Last, of course, would continue to supplement 131, or I would have to eliminate those kind of activities where I receive no fee revenue. And we've asked Steve to help us look at that as well, Steve Tindale from Tindale Oliver, and my staff, to look at those activities that we perform in support of your code, in support of the activities that would have to be eliminated for lack of funding. Bottom line is, as noted, most of what we do is a -- is a fee- for-service organization. Those fees are for prepaid activities, and the reserves are needed in order to meet our future commitments, inspections, especially close-outs and turnovers and those type of things. That's the reserves I needed for that. Page 75 June 29, 2009 We estimate that we need at least three months of reserves to meet payroll and related financial demands. And as -- again, this was a recommendation more specifically from the clerk's audit in 2003. Failure to take action now -- and that would be in your September board meeting, which I'm going to be coming back to you -- would result in further expense reductions and most likely cutting, again, of our critical staff. And as Commissioner Coyle pointed out, it's the intellectual capital, the folks that we've trained, and especially in the departments that have to conduct those reviews. In summation, we believe we've made all the necessary reductions commensurate with the economic downturn of the industry, and provided that we demonstrate and justify a fee increase or identify other sources of revenue to sustain current operations, we believe that this budget represents the sufficient staff to serve the community, our customers, and the industry. Subject to your questions, that concludes my presentation. My staff and I are available certainly to answer your questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a couple commissioners wanting to ask some questions, but first we have a speaker, and we'll hear that speaker. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You have one speaker for this item. It's Tammie Nemecek. MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon, Ms. Chairman and eommissioners. We've enjoyed a public/private partnership between the Economic Development Council and the Board of County Commissioners since 1997/98 when that public/private partnership was started. In that year the Board of County eommissioners agreed to help assist in the diversification of our economy by funding that at $250,000. Page 76 June 29, 2009 In fiscal year '01, that amount was increased to $400,000, and it's remained at that level. Aside from some special projects that you've asked us to do over the years, it's remained at that level over the last nine fiscal years, and that is the request from the organization today in order continue the Economic Development efforts. We've gone through this past year an enormous effort with regards to Project Innovation to help the community better understand what the needs of this community are over the long-term. And one of the mantras that has come out of Proj ect Innovation initiative is, this is a marathon, not a sprint. We have just heard how bad the economic downturn is. We are all hurting with regards to this. I deal with businesses every day that are hurting, but the companies that we work with are those that are going to help sustain us over the long-term. Weare your last line of defense in this community to be able to diversify the economy, get us back up and running, and move on. There is a return on investment for these dollars, and I did send you a report that shows, of the 130 companies that we've worked with over the last several years' worth of public/private partnership, that's affected nearly 7,000 jobs in this community and provided over $800 million of direct economic impact in the community in wages and capital investment. For every dollar that you've invested in our efforts, including incentive dollars, there's been a return on the investment of about $160. I don't know that there's many departments out there that can say that, sorry, but these are the private sector businesses that need our help in order to be able to maintain here in the community, to be able to grow here in the community. And I will tell you that today, more than ever, your support and your foresight in helping to create an economy by design in Collier County is needed and not to give up on it today when we're needing you the most and the community needs you most to support this effort. Page 77 June 29, 2009 We've got some great things on the horizon, and I'm very concerned that cuts at this point in time are going to put those activities severely in jeopardy. I think we have an opportunity to really turn this economy around with some significant proj ects, and we can't do that without your help. So I'm asking you to seek and find -- we have funded this initiative over the last many years through occupational license fees. That is part of our public/private partnership agreement. Those fees are -- $700,000 were collected last year. Each year we don't ask for that full amount. It's usually about half of the amount of occupational license fees that are collected. So I'm asking you to, again, look at those occupational license fees that were collected at about $700,000 and allocate at least 400,000 of that for economic development and diversification initiatives that we need to support today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Tammie. MS. NEMECEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we have Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under the -- this is a question that I'm going to direct both to County Manager and to Joe Schmitt. Under tax-neutral, do we have the skill sets in place with the people that are presently employed in your department to address the concerns that this community may have in regards to if we have a hurricane? MR. SCHMITT: Well, under the -- the folks -- it's two different apples and oranges here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm talking about the people in Code Enforcement; I'm talking about the inspectors. All these people have -- they have basically a job to perform to make sure that we get this community up and running. My question is, do we have the skill sets today under tax-neutral to meet this need, and under revenue neutral, how many more people would we lose? MR. SCHMITT: The -- Fund 111 does not impact the Building Page 78 June 29, 2009 Department, so the folks that would be impacted under either scenario, under tax-neutral or revenue neutral, does not impact the Building Department. They're funded 100 percent by fee for services, fee revenue. So that's building -- that's the building fund, Fund 113. Code Enforcement, on the other hand, is a Fund 111 general fund, unincorporated general fund. The budget under one scenario shows it at -- billed at 37, and then there's several different scenarios in your -- in your book where we would bring that department all the way back up to its 50. But there's an addend of 42 -- or correction, there's an add back of five positions. So yes, in that department, the Code Enforcement folks are the principal staff that go out and do the preliminary damage assessments of the residential community. My building inspectors focus primarily on public buildings and assessment and damage assessments in public buildings, hospitals, government buildings, the capability of the infrastructure of a government to come back to become a viable entity after a hurricane. So there is an impact. It's primarily though in Diane's organization, because under the millage-neutral position, she will actually lose 13 positions. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about people that would be doing the permitting of getting structures back in order? MR. SCHMITT: Well, that would be on my building permit side and on the zoning side. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The people -- MR. SCHMITT: That's going to depend on a fee revenue, whether -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm asking about if -- in regards to, if we have a storm event, do you have the skill sets in place to take care of these -- of this community? MR. FRENCH: No. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but certainly not at the capacity we had a Page 79 June 29, 2009 year ago or two years ago. There is a -- the Building Department is authorized 100. It's going to be filled at 56 folks. And if I lose another eight -- MR. MUDD: Joe, let me -- MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: -- get at what the commissioner asked. Commissioner asked about the future. You're talking tax-neutral, millage-neutral. You're talking about the' 1 0 budget. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it exactly. MR. MUDD: Okay. And right now if something doesn't happen as far as your revenues are concerned in the fall, may it be fee increases or whatever, you're going to be severely stretched next year if you have to respond to a hurricane, go out and basically determine if those particular residences and businesses are able to be occupied again or if they need to have red Xs put on them or whatever. MR. SCHMITT: That simple, yes, we're impacted. MR. MUDD: So to answer his question, if something doesn't change in the fall as far as his structure is concerned, he will not have revenues in order to support the staff and you'll have problems the next hurricane season. MR. SCHMITT: eorrect. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whether it's tax-neutral or whether it's millage-neutral? MR. MUDD: It makes no difference because he's not-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much more of a degradation would we have with the tax -- with the millage-neutral with the skill sets that we need to address these? MR. SCHMITT: Well, Diane would lose -- she loses 13 folks in code. MR. MUDD: What I tried to do prior to the weekend is try to give each commissioner a layout between all the organizations and give you a summation of these books on what millage-neutral versus Page 80 June 29, 2009 tax-neutral is concerned. And if you look at Page, what is it, 14, 18 of that particular handout that I provided all the commissioners, it states COMMISSIONER HALAS: 13D. MR. MUDD: But if you take a look at Code Enforcement unincorporated general fund millage-neutral, it's a cut of $342,000. Personnel impacts, 13 FTEs would be eliminated. The majority of the positions are field investigators, which would adversely affect the response times and investigative resources to board and the cases. Those are code enforcement cases. That's -- this is the part of Joe's organization that basically has tax implications. The Jamie French part of the operation where he goes out and inspects the buildings with teams are basically out of the permitting section with Bob Dunn, Jamie French, and everybody combines in order to do that. Now, that's based on fees and that's based on what his reserve levels are. What he basically said to you -- he being Mr. Schmitt, presented to the board, was basically saying he's working down his reserves to a three-month level. And what he didn't tell you was, we've been working diligently in -- with Joe's organization in a very detailed manner with the County Manager's organization, office, to make sure that as he draws down his organization that he draws it down in such a manner that he preserves the services that are required by the community and he tries to maintain the expertise within his organization, and we look at it by the "eaches," to the point in time that I told Joe, okay, you've got to tell me what your skeleton organization looks like, what that cadre looks like as far as the manning is concerned in each one of the functions and -- based on reserve funding. And we've done that and we've stuck to that plan. It's not been easy, but we've stuck to that plan. We're to the point in time, though, Mr. Schmitt needs to come back to this board sometime late summer, first part of fall, to see if the Page 81 June 29, 2009 boards can approve a fee increase for services that are provided based on the studies that I told Joe he needed to go out and get. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I wanted to just ask. Janet, did the Productivity Committee want to weigh in on this at some point in time? MS. VASEY: Yes, we did have two issues, whenever. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've got a couple more commissioners. We should be going to lunch shortly too. Maybe what I'll do is get Productivity Committee to weigh in after we get back from lunch, if that's okay. Commissioners Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Schmitt, I, along with my commissioners, share the concern about where we're going to be in another year or so with the amount of people that you're letting go. We're going to be in a very bad predicament when it comes times to start bringing people back online. I mean, you're down to the most qualified people that are left, and we're talking about cutting back on them. And it's -- and everything is tied into the amount of funds that you take in. You're on a fee basis. What you take in, you can spend. That isn't true with Lee County, I understand. They're set up on a different parameter where they take money from the general fund. I believe other counties do too, and we can't change this overnight. And this is a bad time to try to dip into general funds to try to make anything else work. But some time ago I seen the issue of the, oh, the different changes to the Land Development Codes that are taking place. We have a number of people out there that are asking for certain preferences and they want to be able to have everything move at a faster schedule to accommodate their particular needs. I think a lot of them may be tied into the need to be the hometown democracy issue Page 82 June 29, 2009 that's coming on the ballot, at which point in time, you know, everything's up for grab one more time. Is there any possibility that you might be able to arrange through your department to hire some of these people back and they'd be dedicated to work just on particular issues for certain clients and get full reimbursement from them, and that would make you whole and it would be able -- enable us to be able to keep a person or two more on staff that's totally qualified till this bad economic times pass? Is there a possibility you could do that? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but let me address the one issue, hometown democracy. Primarily the impact is going to be on the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Your Comprehensive Plan -- our comprehensive planning staff is general-fund supported, so some of the general fund does subsidize that operation and the comprehensive planning, and that is part of the schedule for the GMP amendments, trying to get them in prior to the voters voting on that initiative. But now the other -- let me address the issue about reimbursement. The real -- the reality on most of the things we do on the zoning and land use side, the -- if I charge them -- and it's going to be a significant amount of money, whether they pay it or not -- I mean, when I'm talking significant, you're talking probably 50-, $100,000 additional fee, if they certainly want to pay it. W e'lllook at, would that be able to bring in additional staff? I don't think so. On average, on average, when you just, off the cuff, you're talking 900- to $100,000 per FTE, when you're talking everything. When you're talking -- MR. MUDD: Burden. MR. SCHMITT: -- fully burdened rate, plus operating the building, CDES. Our fees pay for the operation of that building. There are no -- very little taxpayer money involved in that building. That building was built with permitting fees, and everything we do down there is operated out of revenue, a fee revenue. Page 83 June 29, 2009 So would they pay the money? I don't think so, unless I can get the number of applications in. And, again, then we're talking about a fee increase to support operations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's just talk about realities on this. At this point in time you have a building with a lot of empty spaces. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If you bring no one in to occupy those spaces, regardless of who pays their salary, if there's still empty spaces, that's a cost we have to absorb. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly we might be able to give special consideration because of the circumstances, one, to be able to help move the client, who is the petitioner out there, issue forward to some sort of determination and, two, be able to get some people employed again in a meaningful way. Possibly we might want to rethink this business of having to assign every single cost going right down the line to this particular situation. We're not gaining anything by not having people work. That's the way I think of it. I don't see where we're going to do any harm to the system if during these troubled economic times, if we forego the idea that we're going to have to charge every single part of the business cost back to this part. I don't think that's necessary. I don't know if my fellow commissioners would agree with that or not. But the other issue is the EDC. How did we come up with the particular number that we have down here of$137,000? MR. MUDD: Those are the requirements, sir, that -- when the items came in front of the Board of County Commissioners when they were doing QTI or any of the incentive programs, when that new business came onboard, the board approved the particular item, may it be broadband or whatever it is, you have multi-year commitments on that particular item, and there's $137,000 worth of commitments that Page 84 June 29, 2009 still -- people could come in and provide you their voucher and you must pay that based on the agreements that this board has approved in prior years. That's how the $137,000 came -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that all $137 (sic) will be committed or is a number of these falling off the table? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It used to be almost $2 million a year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that. I realize that, Mr. Mudd. MR. MUDD: We've come way back. Do I believe -- it's coming in slowly. It's not -- it has a lot to do with how many jobs that particular company brings forward, new jobs, before they can come get those dollars, and they also have to prove that, so. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I don't want to bring up the subject too many times, but we got down that there's no turn- back money and that we shouldn't be considering it. Well, of course, there's going to be turn-back money of some sort, but we also got a budget year next year that's going to be even more troublesome than this year, so I can understand how we might want to hold any turn- back moneys that get into reserves to try to help us get through next year's problems. But with that said, is there any possibility at all that there's -- there might be something on the horizon that we might be able to recognize extraordinary circumstances? In other words, if the EDC came forward with something that was absolutely unbelievable in the next couple of months, that we might be able to go in and tap some funds for something that -- I'm just looking at any kind of eventuality. I'm looking for any kind of hope I can in the horizon to try to keep this entity alive so that when we start to make the recovery, they're going to be in place. MR. MUDD: Sir, if you're talking about -- if you're talking about $400,000, there's probably an opportunity in the near future, Page 85 June 29, 2009 what's near future, six months, depending on how many people in your district go through red lights, that you'll have $400,000 that you'll be able to use in order to fund the EDC. But if you get an extraordinary venture that wants to come forward to Collier County, $400,000 isn't going to give you the incentive money, the initiation money that you need in order to bring that particular venture here. So I don't -- I don't want to -- and I don't believe Ms. Nemecek will say that the $400,000 that basically runs the office expenses, or at least the county's portion of the office expenses for the EDC, is going to bring you that incubator-type business that's going to be the panacea for growth, for future growth for Collier County. I think you're going to need -- you're going to need millions of dollars in order to incentivize that particular company to come, i.e., or some private landowners that want to come forward and donate that land and/or maybe some private donations in order to do that, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the 137,000 is just taking care of previous commitments. It's not paying any types of dues? MR. MUDD: Nope. It's previous commitments by this board, . SIr. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, we're not going to really be an active member of the EDC after this budget cycle? MR. MUDD: If that's what the board approves, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry. I don't want to belabor this too long, but I hate the idea of us being put on the sidelines because of that. What is the dues, the actual dues to the EDC so that under even worst -- MR. MUDD: It's not dues. What you've done in the past is you've provided $400,000 a year in order to offset some of the costs of that particular office, and I will -- and I will tell you based on some of Page 86 June 29, 2009 the documentation that I've reviewed, they receive, oh, about anywhere from 500- to $585,000 a year from the private sector to help offset that particular cost, too. Now, Ms. Nemecek could probably give you the more current numbers, but I think I'm pretty close, Tammie. MS. NEMECEK: Typically our budget has run -- although this year it's down because of private sector investment as well. But typically we run about anywhere between 30 and 40 percent public sector and 60 to 70 percent private sector funding. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, Ms. Nemecek, you mentioned the fact that you see the money being in what fund was that now? MS. NEMECEK: Occupational license. In our public/private partnership agreement, we specifically note occupation license fees each year and then the funding as a source of funding for the economic development activities. And it was done that way for business to pay for business basically. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, the occupational license fees, have they been dedicated in the past, and if they were, where are they going now? MR. MUDD: Not in their entirety, no, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But a portion of them? MR. MUDD: Well, part of the occupational licensing fees basically run the occupational licensing section of Community Development's and whatnot. MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct that. MR. MUDD: Go ahead. MR. SeHMITT: The business tax receipts, and that's the tax collector. I have three people that reside in our building, but I have nothing to do with that operation. But that's the -- occupational licenses are now called business tax receipts. That's if you're going to open a business, you have to go down and file and register through the Page 87 June 29, 2009 Tax Collector's Office. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was the original intent for them to be dedicated for development? MR. SCHMITT: That money -- and I'm going to defer to the manager. But that money comes in from the tax collector to the general fund. Our commitment was, a public/private partnership was a $400,000 budgeted amount that we provided through 001 to the EDe to fund the public/private partnership. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, would you like to wait till after lunch to ask your question, or would you like to move forward now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll hold mine off. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll wait till after lunch. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I think we're going to take a lunch break right now. When we come back, Commissioner Coy Ie, Commissioner Henning, and then Janet Vasey will-- oh, and Halas, okay. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll call this meeting back to order. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was it ever in order? MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. And when we last took a break for lunch, you had Mr. Schmitt up here and his staff from Community Development. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And now I have three commissioners, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas, and then we'll call up the Productivity Committee. So we'll start with Commissioner Coyle. eOMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm going to address three areas. First I'll address your fee for service area, then I'll address staffing, and then I'll address the Economic Development Council. Let's go with the fee for service. Now, it appears to me that our Page 88 June 29, 2009 job as commissioners is to try to find a way to solve a problem without just throwing more money at it, okay, particularly more tax money at it. I'm not here to help the staff justify your current budget. I'm here to try to find ways, new ways of doing things, so we can provide the services to our constituents more efficiently, and I want to help you to do that. And so what I will do is make a motion that this commission approve your efforts to negotiate higher fees for your services so that you can cover your costs, okay. You've made that proposal. Nobody has indicated whether they'll approve it or not. I'm indicating to you that I will vote in favor of that. With respect to staff reductions, I'm encouraging you not to make staff reductions. I think we should make staff reductions through furloughs to all county employees, including commissioners, so that you don't have to make critical staff reductions. And number three, with respect to money to provide to Economic Development Council, any entrepreneur will tell you that if a company is having trouble financially, the last thing you want to do is fire your salespeople. EDC is our salesperson. When they attract new businesses to Collier County, they provide jobs; they provide fees for our Community Development organization; they provide impact fees; they diversify our economy; they minimize the impact of economic downturn such as what we're experiencing now. There are lots of companies in the United States that are very, very profitable and successful despite the current economic circumstances. We want to get more of those companies in Collier County to insulate us from the kinds of problems we're having today. And oh, by the way, if we attract these companies here, they will be building buildings, no doubt, and they're going to create jobs in addition to their own staff that they will have here. Page 89 June 29, 2009 So I think we need to continue to fund economic development in Collier County. Now is not the time to fire our salespeople when we have a perfect opportunity to start diversifying our economy and creating higher paying jobs in Collier County that are not dependent upon development, tourism, and agriculture. So there are the three elements of a proposal I'm going to make, Madam Chair, is that we approve Mr. Schmitt's recommendation to negotiate higher fees for his services; number two, that we will implement a countywide furlough program so that we can have the money necessary to retain critical staff to service our constituents; and that we also provide the money to the Economic Development Council. That's my motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already -- we already approved for Mr. Schmitt to hire a consultant to look at his fees. I mean, I can't approve a fee without knowing what the fee is. But I think we're -- I think it was at last -- no, two meetings ago we approved the consultant. MR. SCHMITT: Actually, Commissioner, the consultants were hired through professional services contracts and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- right, and both of them were -- I have two different consultants, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they were approved by the board? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let me ask you a follow-up question then. Are any of the revenues that are likely to result from those fee increases included in your budget? MR. SCHMITT: They're not in this budget, no, sir. Those will -- those revenues will help delay the burn on the reserves. So we can Page 90 June 29, 2009 -- because I'll be below -- this budget proj ects that I will be below the three-month average that I should retain in order to be able to provide services, especially prepaid services. The consultants were asked to look at that, and we are proj ecting to come back to you in September with a full lay-down of the fees and the proposed fees and the justification for those fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it will go through development services. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. We're required to bring it through DSAC, and it will go through DSAC. And they're well aware of it. They're well aware of both contracts that we have. And they will be involved in every aspect of the development of the fee schedule. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Before I call on Commissioner Halas -- or Commissioner Henning, excuse me, I had asked earlier in the meeting when the Productivity Committee was giving their report and they were talking about, you know, just the price of the homes -- they didn't say average or anything, but I asked the question, what is the average price of the market value in today's market, and so I got an answer back, and I just thought it was rather interesting. Median -- and here's my answer. Median sales price for May, 2009, was $179,950. Man, about three years ago, wasn't it 525,000? Wow. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you don't mind, if I can just interject something here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is a difference between the median sales price and the median taxable value in Collier County, because the median sale price takes into consideration only those homes that are selling, and the homes that are selling are generally the ones that are on the lower end of the value. The thing that is most important to us in determining tax revenue Page 91 June 29, 2009 is to determine what the median actually -- the mean -- the mean assessed value for taxation is, and that's going to be substantially higher than that number. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we'll -- I think we'll also see it, as I have just been told, continuing to drop over the next couple of years. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. That's also what they're going to be paying taxes on, isn't it, the price that they paid for the house? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, but that doesn't -- that's what they'll pay taxes on, but all the people who didn't sell their homes will be paying taxes on their assessed values that are substantial -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or not paying taxes at all, like we just found out earlier in the meeting. Right. Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we look at the occupational license fees? And I know that's a statutorily control thing, too. But, you know, I'm told that Collier County is way off on their occupational fees, and -- the next thing, question is, where is the occupational license or business tax license fees going? MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, that's a -- that's a revenue source in the general fund. It averages somewhere between 600-, $650,000 a year. It is an unrestricted revenue source. We use that money for all general-fund purposes. So that's where that money resides. It's within the general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's already being accounted for. Mr. Schmitt, you said that your permits, your money-maker permits are down. Which ones are those? MR. SCHMITT: Well, when you look at our permit structure and our permitting and -- you're primarily looking at new buildings, Page 92 June 29, 2009 single- family and multifamily buildings and commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Those are the money makers? MR. SCHMITT: Those are the -- yes. They're the money makers. They're the ones we're issuing now. And I'll turn to Bob. But primarily a lot of the work is renovation or reroofing or AC swap-outs or those kind of things that are single-discipline permits, and they could be 150 to $250. It's not -- it's not a permit that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: New construction. MR. SCHMITT: New construction. So primarily, the answer to your question, it's a good answer, is it's all new construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, Page 11, you're proposing, if you do a millage-neutral, to do away with the verbatim minutes for the Planning Commission? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, that -- that was deemed to be a general fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have petitions going to the Planning Commission? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not included in the -- those fees? MR. SCHMITT: It is -- it is not. It was a fee that we -- that was a service we provided at the board direction. We had -- we had verbatim minutes, we went back to summary minutes. The board probably two-and-a-half, three years ago, directed it go back to verbatim minutes. I do not bill the applicants for that. It's a cost that we incur, but it was not part of our fee schedule. eOMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the way it's going to stay in your new fee structure? MR. SCHMITT: That will -- that will be in the fee schedule. It will be noted as -- if we're going to have verbatim minutes in the Planning Commission, which is certainly beneficial, I've got to have -- Page 93 June 29, 2009 I'm going to have to recoup that cost. It will either be a direct billing to the applicant or it will spread over the Fund 131 in general. eOMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think some of the taxpayers would be outraged to know that they're paying for some of these petitions; personal opinion. The -- on code enforcement, Diane, did you take a look at that? MS. FLAGG: I did, Commissioner, and it is the five, and then the balance is the Ope staff. So the difference is five in Golden Gate City and then seven in the operations staff. I think the point to the code enforcement budget, because the cuts are significantly more than minus three -- because the minus three is really a minus 9 percent, which is why it's so many positions eliminated, because the millage-neutral and tax-neutral are based upon code fines collected as opposed to just a flat minus three or minus 15 based upon the FY09 budget. That's why those -- why there's so many positions that are being eliminated under this budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's just -- that one is in operations? MS. FLAGG: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- let's see. Mr. Schmitt, you still have a debt service? MR. SCHMITT: Most -- go ahead, Gary. I'll let Gary answer that. MR. MULLEE: For the record, Gary Mullee, financial manager. Yeah, we still have a couple debt payments left on the garage. We went ahead and paid off the building. We paid off our bonds. But there's a -- I think it's $250,000 or so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: $253,000. MR. MULLEE: I was off by three. So yeah, it's for the garage, the new garage in the back of the building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MULLEE: And I think that will be paid off in a couple Page 94 June 29, 2009 years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that comes out of? MR. MULHERE: 113. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way to stretch that? I mean, if that -- that could be a source, stretch those payments? MR. ISACKSON : Well, that's -- Commissioner, that's -- that debt service fund, it's Debt Service Fund 210. There are a number of different amortizations in there of this -- CDES is one portion of that payment. If you're asking, can we look at a possible refunding or refinancing of that, the finance committee looks at those things all the time, but at this point has determined, no, it's not worth it. So the answer to your question is, probably not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can't take it from transportation? I told Norm I was going to pick on him. That's it. And, you know, Commissioner Coletta -- Coyle's idea on furloughs is, I think, very prudent. I mean, what I see, and particularly this operation is, you have, based upon seniority, it's who's there or not. And if you're having your senior staff do the work that the people on the road were doing, that is very costly to do so, and I'm not sure if that's the way to do it. I know that's none of our business to say who should be laid off or something like that, but it's an expensive way to go when you just -- when you go by seniority. That's my opinion. That's it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I want to go back to a question I asked before we broke for lunch -- and I'll direct this to Jamie -- and that was in regards to the personnel who are left now in Community Development under the auspices of Joe Schmitt. In regards to an event such as a hurricane, my question was -- and I hope I wasn't -- maybe I wasn't clear enough -- do we have the assets, I said skill sets, which is people -- each person has skill sets for making an evaluation -- of getting this community back up online. Page 95 June 29, 2009 Do we have the people, and what -- is there a particular time line that this has to be accomplished if we had a hurricane? MR. FRENCH: Well, Commissioner, for the record, Jamie French. I serve as the operations manager for Joe at Community Development. And I would tell you that current staffing levels -- and I want to be very careful with this because I'm going to base it off an event like a Wilma. I would struggle at this point in time with the staffing levels we have to be able to provide the services that we were able to provide during a Wilma. If we were to lose any more of that operational force or -- it's not that we don't have the people that are qualified. I don't have -- I won't have the manpower in order to get those assessments back to Mr. Summers' operation within a -- within a reasonable amount of time. Now, granted, reasonable is generally judged by -- and I would have to defer to Mr. Summers' organization for a clear FEMA definition. But generally when we're given the all-clear, we're told by the state that they want feedback within four hours. We have a four -- we generally space that out within four to seven hours. Now, if I'm left with ten building inspectors and I've got to go out and do assessment on infrastructure and on government buildings or if I've got to send code enforcement staff out and I've only got half the staff that I currently have now and I've got to blanket the entire county, I'm going to have to -- and I don't want to say I want to work smarter because that would infer that I've been working dumb all along, but I would have to look at additional resources. I would have to look at going to rent a helicopter. I'd have to look at maybe contracting out a GIS person to be able to run my application, because within our organization now, I'm a -- we're a couple GIS people down. So in order to get those numbers back and to provide those services, my answer would be no. If you were to say, can we look at something different to get Page 96 June 29, 2009 those numbers? Certainly. There may be -- there may be opportunities out there. But currently at our staffing levels, based off of our program, based off of your bill-back ordinance, I would not meet the time commitments that are generally expected of us by the EOC, by our state partners or by our federal partners. Now don't forget, that also includes the emergency permitting. When FEMA Blue Roof came into town, they sent two people. It was my operations staff that got trained, and we were the ones writing those affidavits to get the blue roofs on homes, and that was done at the county expense. That was -- the federal government did not -- I mean, we may have been reimbursed on it, but the up-front cost came directly out of our organization. So, no, sir, we would not have the manpower -- we currently don't have the manpower to be able to support a Wilma-type event. If it was a small tropical storm, a brush-by, something like that -- and that doesn't even count if we got a cry-out from another government that said, hey, we need some help, City of Naples, City of Marco, Everglades City. I don't have the manpower to dedicate to that within our current -- within our current plans. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if we went to tax-neutral-- excuse me -- revenue -- millage-neutral, we'd even be in worse shape. MR. FRENCH: I'm just going to sum it up, sir, because I don't know the technicalities behind all the numbers. But I would tell you, if you continue to cut staff within that organization -- and the responsibility continues to be on CDES to provide you, as it should be, under the building official to provide you those damage assessments and habitability-assessment numbers, we're not going to be able to get those to the state within the amount of time that they would prefer or they would like. And, again, that's going to just slow the federal funding coming back into -- back into Collier County, and we will serve as a bottleneck to that function, there's no doubt in my mind. Page 97 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I don't want us to become, where we get involved with the situation that was in New Orleans with Katrina and they couldn't get the federal assets there in time. That's my concern. The other concern that I have -- I understand where EDS (sic) is -- needs funding, I'm just wondering if all other avenues have been researched out, such as eventual capital groups. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you mean EDC? COMMISSIONER HALAS: EDC, excuse me -- where maybe there's some venture-capital groups out there that are willing to help pick up some of the slack here where we need to have private sector get involved in this. I think that's a possibility. MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Tammie Nemecek. We do raise about 60 percent, a little over $600,000 a year, from private-sector initiatives, as well as we're always seeking out grant opportunities. We've been able to provide some international assistance through a grant that we received from Enterprise Florida. We're doing some other outreach through a grant that we received through Workforce Florida. So we're constantly seeking out those sources of revenue as well. I guess the point though, too, is being a partner in this initiative in the public/private partnership that, you know, there's that component of it that I would hope that we'd continue working together in order to help do this. I think the private sector and -- as it was established, has agreed to fund 50 percent of the initiatives and the county agreed to fund 50 percent of the initiatives per our agreement, and the private sector has consistently stepped up to a greater degree over the number of years that we've been doing this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I hope you understand where we are, that the most important thing right now, as far as I'm concerned, is health, safety, and welfare. And I'm hoping that there's Page 98 June 29, 2009 -- there's some venture-capital groups out there that you can sell to them in regards to the accomplishments that you've done, and I'm sure that they would like to probably step up to the plate, and maybe there's some benefits for these venture-capital groups to get involved. My concern right now is, I just asked the question here, are we ready in case of an event? Let's hope it never happens, but I just want to make sure that -- we're the ones that are going to be on the firing line if we can't provide the services after an event. So I want to make sure that I got everything that's at our -- at our hands as commissioners to make sure that we take care of the people here in this county, and I'm hoping that there will be other people out there that are willing to step up to the plate to help with your initiative. Yes, we signed a contract or have an agreement, but there's a time and a place where there's moneys available, and then there's a time and place when the money's not available, and this is getting down to the point of, do we do the funding? And I'm more concerned about what's going to be coming down the road next year, because I think things are not going to be any more rosier than they are right now. MS. NEMECEK: One point I would like to make, that we're part of your emergency response team as well. We worked closely with Jamie during Hurricane Wilma and used our volunteer efforts in order to visit with over 3,000 businesses in the community that were damaged by Hurricane Wilma and distributed over a million dollars in emergency response dollars from the State of Florida through the Bridge Loan Program to those businesses. So actually the funding that we get is going to impact your emergency responses through our efforts as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MS. NEMECEK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, you have your light on, and I had asked Janet to come up. Would you prefer to talk before Page 99 June 29, 2009 Janet or after? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I would prefer to talk before and after Janet. CHAIRMAN FIALA: One or the other, not both. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's see how it goes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Look if, we have to do this all day, I'm going to say it nine more times here for every department we go through. Number one -- and this is new, it's not repeat. You don't build a church to accommodate the crowds on Easter Sunday, okay, because if you do, it's half empty for most of the year. We can't staff up for a hurricane and maintain that staff all year long. The way we do that is we take our resources, people who are not out doing building inspections for somebody to get a permit or build something for, we take people and reallocate the people. So there are lots of things that we're not going to be doing during a hurricane event that will free up people to spend time on dealing with the hurricane. Secondly, that's one of the reasons we have reserves. It's not something that is in your operating expense. So let's not get the idea that we've got to budget for a hurricane, particularly when we're struggling just to make ends meet right now. We do that by reallocating resources. Now, the proposal I've made, which has so far been completely ignored, is that you not reduce your staff, right? MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that we all absorb some reductions in cost so that we don't have to layoff critical employees. So I need to make that clear. And if necessary I'll do it nine more times today with each department until somebody decides that they're going to give me an answer or they're going to vote in favor of it. Page 100 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did. MS. VASEY: Oh, sorry. I have a couple of issues relating to CDES. The first one -- could I just draw your attention to Page 2 of the CDES budget? All of the issues that you have here are -- the increases between millage-neutral and tax-neutral, they're all in the 111 fund. And if you recall-- I know you-all memorized what I said earlier, but in the unincorporated fund analysis that we did, we considered that we can get to millage-neutral without cutting people. In fact, we have actually increased code enforcement by $400,000 over and above -- we're actually bringing them to the FYQO level of operations, recognizing that the work that they do in the foreclosure area -- they picked up that whole responsibility without any additional resources, people, dollars, anything, and -- and it is of significant value to the community. So we recommend increasing 400,000 to that. Now, if you could go to Page 4, the other issue that we had was with the loan -- right under the heading of Fund 131, zoning, engineering, environmental, there's the paragraph that deals with the loan, and it was a $1.4 million loan in FY09 to pay from 111 to 131 for health, life insurance, and indirect cost allocation expenses. And it would be repaid over the next four years. And basically, we recommended that another source for that loan be found rather than the unincorporated general fund, which is, of course, taxpayer funded, so that we can get to a millage-neutral level. There's no problem. Funds are -- we have loans back and forth to a lot of the funds. We just recommend that it not come out of 111 because we can get to millage-neutral if you don't take it out of 111. So those are the two issues that we had, and we made no cuts to the CDES personnel or anything in 111. I think some of these other issues were related to the planning function. But to 111, no cuts. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the 1.4 million would not be taken out Page 101 June 29, 2009 of 111 ? MS. VASEY: Right. Find another funding source. There are other funds out there that have balances. We didn't look to make a recommendation of a particular fund, but there are other funds out there that have reserves that could be used for this. We just felt like it shouldn't be out of 111, because if we don't have to have that loan in FY09, then that money will come in to FY10 in the carryover, and it can be used then to spend on the requirements -- you know, the needed requirements in FY 1 O. So that was our analysis. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mark, do you have a suggestion on that? MR. ISACKSON: Well, I -- Janet and I have -- we've talked about this a number of different times. We've also talked about it in the confines of the budget hearings with Mr. Schmitt. The -- most of the loans that have come have come from capital project funds, and they've been used, the loans have been for capital purposes. This is patently an operating loan, which is not a capital loan. So I -- in our estimation, the money needs to come from an operating account, first off. That, I think, would be the prudent play. And understand that this money will eventually benefit the general fund because the indirect cost void -- the health insurance draw a void -- are issues that relate to the general fund, and specifically the indirect costs. So if you're asking staff to go back and look at, are there other avenues that could be pursued. I think that it's -- I think it would be prudent to use an operating fund, and our recommendation is to take this money from 111. Now, 111 is in a position to do this because we have a two-and-a-half-million-dollar windfall that we receive this year for the communications services tax. That is money -- and Jamie can speak to this a little bit, but that is money we receive this year, one time above and beyond, as a rebate from the State of Florida. We Page 102 June 29, 2009 usually get about $5 million a year. This year it will be $7.5 million in '09 forecast. Not in '10. In '10 it will fall back to the $5 million level. So when we looked at all of this in an accumulative standpoint, that's the direction or the recommendation at least that we're offering in terms of how to support and backfill Mr. Schmitt's operation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds good to me. MS . VASEY: We just felt that it shouldn't -- these kinds of things should not affect the taxpayer by taking this money out and not allowing this money to be used as it should be used, as it is appropriately funded into 111. We could have a situation with no tax increase in FYI 0 except for taking this money out, and we felt very strongly that it should be put back. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do you have any other comments on this? MS. VASEY: Actually I do have one other thing. I was listening to Commissioner Coyle. And if you look at option one in our presentation, we provide you a variety of information on personnel costs, what a 2 percent reduction in pay would be across the board, a one-day-per-month furlough would be. All of that information is provided there. We made no recommendation to do any of those things. We had asked staff for that information, they had accumulated it, and we provided it to you, you know, for your use. But basically the furlough information is on Page 7, and a one-day-per-month furlough would save about a million dollars in the County Manager's organization in 001 and half a million dollars in 111; and the sheriff estimated that a one-day furlough would save $3.6 million, but that the furloughs would adversely affect mandated posts in corrections and communications center, which would probably require overtime to take care of that. So, you know, it's not a clear $3.6 million gain, and that does not Page 103 June 29, 2009 include utilities or any of the other. That's just 001 for the Sheriff and County Manager and 111. So just drawing your attention to that information. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to emphasize that's for one -- MS. VASEY: One day per month. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Per month. MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: For an entire year? MS. VASEY: For the whole year, yeah. And like I said, there were pay cuts in there, and we did look at the drop program, but our County Attorney kind of turned us off on that one, so -- because the drop program had a variety of savings if you terminated the people in drop, but apparently that's not a good legal move, so -- but we put it all out there for you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: Madam Chair, if I can offer something to the discussion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MR. ISACKSON: The -- over the lunch hour we had ran some numbers regarding Commissioner Coyle's idea to have a one-day-per-month furlough, just County Manager's side of the house in the general fund -- has nothing to do with the sheriffs operations -- that number would be a little over $1 million. In 111 the number would be about 525,000. Countywide, within the County Manager's agency, you're looking at a 4.- -- roughly $4.2 million. Now, I think -- I think the issue that we need to raise is, having that back to the benefit of the general fund, you would have to look at how much of the general fund is supporting those other operations within the -- that are non-001 or non-Ill-funded operations. For example, EMS receives a transfer. So in that particular fund, there may be some residual benefit into the general fund or into 111. Page 104 June 29, 2009 So that just gives you some rough idea on what we're talking about in terms of dollars and cents. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm -- like I said, I'm for it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion just so we don't have to hear it every presentation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All three or just that particular phase? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the furlough once a month. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you're seconding just the furlough once a month for everybody -- I have some questions on that, too, because I'm -- it's really not clear to me. When you're talking about this, you're talking about just the County Manager's agency? You're not talking about the Constitutional Officers or anything? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't think we can force them to do anything like that, but I would recommend it. I believe the Clerk has already done that. So I don't see anything wrong with it. You know, I just can't believe that losing one person per month is going to have a major impact on operations. We can all work a little bit longer or a little bit harder to make up for that if we have to. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now the people who are really getting hit hard are the people who are bottom of the ladder, and they're losing their jobs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well -- and I've been -- I think I've said at previous meetings, I don't want to lose another person. And I think it's a good way of not losing another person, I mean, if we all give a little bit. And I've heard employees at different times say to me they wouldn't mind giving up a day just so that they're always going to have a job. And I believe that that's true. But anyway -- but I didn't -- I didn't know who all this affected and so forth. You -- you know, what different departments. I worry about the Sheriffs Office because, you know, they've got safety Page 105 June 29, 2009 personnel out there, and I worry about EMS because they have people out there saving lives. I just wanted to find out who exactly we were talking about. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and I'm talking about commissioners, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, yeah, but that's -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're never here in the office. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You kidding me? Let's compare workloads, okay? Not how long you spend at it, but what you do -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's mandate that they take off one day a month. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you know-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be more efficient if they did. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My wife would love that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I don't think the commissioners would be worrying about that. That wasn't the point. The point is, I wanted to know which other departments and how it would affect us. I think it's a good idea, and I -- the most important and most wonderful part of that whole idea is not to let another person go. We've already let key people go that I think are instrumental in helping us. All of our staff that have had background, they've had history, people that have had experience, knowledge, education, and they're not even working anymore, and we really need them and they're not here. I wouldn't want to see another person go either. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: A question I have -- I'm willing to give up my one-day pay. Does that go back to the state or does that go back -- would that go in the general fund? MR. KLATZKOW: You can't. Excuse me. You can't -- I'm sorry, but as a matter of law, I don't really think you can cut your own Page 106 June 29, 2009 salaries. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why not? MR. KLATZKOW: I just don't think you can. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'm asking is, can we-- will it go into the general fund or will it go back to the state? MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to voluntarily write a check to the general fund, that's fine, but you're going to still get your full paycheck. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're trying to say something, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's an easy way to deal with that, and when we get to the county commissioners' budget, I'm going to discuss it. We each have an expense account of $4,000 a year, and we don't have to spend $4,000 a year multiplied by five commissioners, okay? We can stop -- we can start paying for some of our own expenses. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Somebody's got a cell phone near a microphone? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we can find ways to save money there, and we can start paying some of our own expenses equivalent to one day per month. So there are ways to handle that, and it goes right back into the general fund. So it's not a difficult thing at all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, did you want to -- being that there's a motion and now a second on the floor for that particular part of your original motion and you say you wanted to talk about it later, do you want to let that motion ride until we talk about it later under the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which motion, the one about the furlough? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where would we decide to Page 107 June 29, 2009 implement it? I mean, it's something that involves the entire county -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: For us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, not just under Board of County Commissioners. It involves the manager's agency. So I think it's appropriate to do it now and apply it to everything, that way you get some idea -- you've got $4.2 million -- I mean, if you decide to do this, you've got $4.2 million roughly to play with right now for something. It could go to retaining staff here. It could go to giving the EDC some money. You've got the communications tax so-called windfall. Ifit hasn't already been allocated to something, you've got some of that to be used for some purpose. So, you know, these are things that are awfully fuzzy, and we've got to start pinning them down and saying how we're going to use them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea. It's just that we haven't heard all the options that are open for us for the whole budget, and I think it's inappropriate to bring this up as the solve-all before we get through our budget cycle as far as hearing everybody and what's got to be offered. Have we asked anybody, any of the staff people, before this how this is going to impact their department? I can tell you right now Joe Schmitt is just running on fumes now. He doesn't have much more to go with. And if we're going to make it across the board for everyone, his department is going to probably suffer irreparable harm. I mean, there's examples -- I'm talking, Commissioner Henning. MR. SCHMITT: I'm already on a furlough program, one-day-a-week furlough. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You already do. But if you had to do something in addition to that, that would be just dangerous as Page 1 08 June 29, 2009 anything. So I mean, why don't we go through the whole thing, listen to what everybody else has to say and ask them that question as we're going through it, how will this affect your department? We already had a couple come forward we can't really call back now. But I would like to know what the ramifications would be. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta, we already have the motion on the floor and we have a second, so we have to vote on it; isn't that correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's no problem. I just wanted to interj ect my concern, and the reason for my concern is that we don't have a complete picture. And Commissioner Coyle brought up some other issues that were kind of one-sided, especially about the commission's budget and about travel and all that. True, we can cut that budget back, but he's saying that, you know, we can make it up out of our own salary, which we could do. The problem is, we have three commissioners that are very dedicated to what they're doing, they take on everything in the world out there to make sure this county's represented where they should be; two other commissioners are just so-so with it as far as that goes, and I don't know how that would go towards the direction we need to be. Everything has to have a balance at it. And I'm a little bit concerned. But once again, too, I just wanted to bring that up as we go forward. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to bring it up when we go forward. We're going to bring it up under county commissioner's staff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So should we just table that motion then until that time; is that what you're -- Page 109 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- just saying? We're going to bring -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to bring it up every time we have a department discussion because it affects the departments. If you find a way to help Joe retain some of his staff, how is that hurting him? That's what we're doing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's not going to hurt him more if we share the pain with him to help him keep his staff. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now, let me just find out -- we do need to vote on this motion because it's on the floor; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: You have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. So I have a motion on the floor and a second. Further discussion? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel the same way that Commissioner Coletta does in this regards. I believe that -- I think this motion warrants a vote, but I think that we should wait until we hear the whole picture before we make a decision on this. So if this is going to be a motion -- if this is going to be called, I can tell you that I'm going to vote against it with the idea that we can revisit this motion at a later date after we've heard all sides vent what they bring forward on this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And personally, I really like the idea because I like keeping our people, but I feel-- I will feel more comfortable voting on it later on as well, just because, you know, at first blush it sounds just wonderful. I just want to make sure something's not going to come up and bite us in the butt later on. So, I mean, as we work through this thing, I'd rather vote on it at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Coletta? Page 110 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a question of procedure. Can a person keep bringing a motion, the same motion, back every single 15 minutes; is that possible? MR. KLATZKOW: Once you vote on it, we're done unless somebody else wants to bring it up for reconsideration. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I withdraw the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I find that interesting. I kind of thought you would. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to bring it up every single time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I get a thank you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you don't, because you're not telling these people what they're going to have to do. Right now you're leaving them in the position where they're telling -- how many members of your staff are going to be fired? MS. FLAGG: There's 13 in code enforcement on revenue neutral, or millage-neutral; tax-neutral is eight, minus eight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So anywhere from eight to 13 people are going to be eliminated from their staff. You have given them no alternatives whatsoever. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got my light on before Henning did. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But in any case, you're presuming that we're going to vote a millage-neutral budget. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. She just said eight if it's tax-neutral. So if you vote for tax-neutral, she has to reduce it by eight. If you go with millage-neutral, she has to reduce it by 13. MS. FLAGG: And I will tell you, the foreclosures are increasing, not decreasing. Page 111 June 29, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Unless, of course, there's other sources of revenue to augment, as Commissioner Coyle mentioned-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is what I'm trying to give you. MR. SCHMITT: -- which would be, we'd stay at current staffing but find other ways to pay for the staff. Meaning that money would have to come into the general fund, because code enforcement is a Fund 111 unincorporated general fund. So we would -- you know, roughly figure, again, about a hundred thousand dollars per FTE. I mean, I'm rounding off, but when you look at all costs, it may be a little bit less in code enforcement, but you're looking at anywhere from $700,000 to maybe a million to make up for the shortfall. If we keep all 13, we're going to have to find money to pay for that. MR. ISACKSON: Just -- if I can, Madam Chair, just a point of information. Mr. Schmitt's Community Development budget at tax- neutral primarily affects code enforcement. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. ISACKSON: And Ms. Flagg has indicated that in order to get her to the FY09 levels, she needs another $350,000 above what tax-neutral would provide his department in order to do that. To get her essentially at the same FTE level without losing bodies, she needs another 180-, $190,000 above that number. So -- just so we understand what we're dealing with here. Primarily it's code enforcement that's being impacted by the tax-neutral and millage-neutral scenario. MS. FLAGG: And just as a clarification, it's because the tax- neutral and millage-neutral was based upon the code fines as opposed to last year's budget. So the -- because we've taken a compliance approach, the revenue collected from code fines has decreased. Well, that hurt us, because then what was really supposed to be a 3 percent was more than 9 percent. What was supposed to be a 15 percent was approaching 20 percent cut. Page 112 June 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mark, if we do the furlough, once-a-month furlough, for code enforcement, do you have the number how much that would generate, or no? MR. ISACKSON: Well, I've been thinking about -- I've had some time to think about some of the discussion, and the mechanical issues that I think the budget office would have to look at is, how do we get the money? Like, for example, in Mr. DeLony's operation, if you furlough Mr. DeLony's operation, it probably has some impacts on his wastewater operations, his treatment plant operations, and things of that nature. He'd have to speak to that certainly. What I would have to look at is the mechanics of how we -- what -- if the -- if the intent of the motion is to get the money to the general fund or to 111, the ad-valorem related operations -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's what it was. MR. ISACKSON: -- then that's -- we'd have to look at -- because there's only a certain number of the enterprise funds, like EMS or like Mr. Feder's 101 fund that has a -- that receives money from the general fund to support their operations. We'd have to look at the mechanics of that. I'm not -- all we were doing is -- Commissioner Coy Ie had asked about, okay, if we did a one-day-per-month furlough for everybody, what would that number be, and that number was about $4.2 million. It doesn't mean that the general fund or 111 would receive the benefit of the $4.2 million. We'd have to look at the mechanics of that to see how the money could actually be received by those that are -- that need that money the most. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If code enforcement was to take a one-day-a-month furlough, do you know how much a month that would generate? MR. ISACKSON: Fifty folks? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-two people; is that right? Page 113 June 29, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: We have two frozen positions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two frozen. I mean, maybe that's the way to do the -- to do the motion. MR. SCHMITT: Just looking at 111 and 001 positions -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: For Community Development and -- MR. SCHMITT: Fifty folks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's still -- that will get you -- MR. SCHMITT: It would have to be across the board. You'd have to look at all the funds -- MR. MULLEE: Yeah, that's not enough money. MR. SCHMITT: -- all Ill-funded positions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to move on from the discussion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there are a lot of other people here for, I would imagine, public service issues. I guess we can address it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Since we have a communication windfall, obviously we could use some of that. My concern is, code enforcement, I would -- falls under the classification, as far as I'm concerned, health, safety and welfare. So I think there's other ways of doing this so that we've got a full staff of people. And I think that's part of the discussion that needs to go forward as we take everybody's input and then come up with, hopefully, a good decision either late today or tomorrow. And I think that's the direction we need to go. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And, you know, I have to just say, with Economic Development Council, I can't see laying off staff to give money to the Economic Development Council, to be honest with you, and I can't see euthanizing dogs or not -- or closing libraries so we can Page 114 June 29, 2009 give Economic Development Council money, and especially -- and I'm sorry, Tammie, but when -- you know, when you guys kind of attack us because of impact fees or you -- you know, you make fun of us with impact fees, or when you support something like SB360 when it's going to hurt all of us. So I feel that -- we were talking about being partners, but I don't know that it's really so much partnership. It seems like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, you've got to give her a chance to respond to that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because I think your information is wrong. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. NEMECEK: Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council. We did not support SB360. We don't take positions on anything but economic development. You can look online actually at our legislative priorities list, and it focuses on economic development Issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about impact fees? MS. NEMECEK: Impact fees was not on our legislative priority list either. COMMISSIONER HALAS: As far as your -- the study that you had recently, I think you had a number of speakers that talked in regards to where they thought that impact fees were a problem in this community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was CBIA. MS. NEMECEK: That was CBIA. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you had part of that. MS. NEMECEK: Nope. No, sir. I will tell you that the cost of doing business in any community is going to be a factor in any business locating in a community, but those are -- those are not positions that the EDC has ever taken. Page 115 June 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. MS. NEMECEK: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry if I was misled. I don't believe I was, but I'm sorry if I was. Okay. Is this all then for Community Development? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I believe we're going to pursue the fee issue with our consultants. I believe we've got consensus from the board on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already gave you that. MR.OCHS: Okay. I'm just reviewing to make sure I've got everything you want here. The staffing for code enforcement, you want us to see if we can maintain as close to current level staffing as we can with the dollars available, and we're going to get with the tax collector and query him about occupational fees or business tax fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with the idea that we might be able to raise them accordingly and come up with funding for economic development? MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And would we be able to do that soon enough that we could have a benefit this year? MR.OCHS: We'll talk to Mr. Ray either late tonight or tomorrow and see what he can do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we all have to agree on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I do. Do we have other nods of heads? MR. OCHS: That's why I bring these things up. I need to know if I've got consensus on the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. Maybe you better -- you better query us to make sure. I'm just seeing two nods myself. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Do you all want to try and support economic development with $400,000? Page 116 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to make sure that, first of all, we're taking care of the citizens and we're taking care of the necessary items as far as health, safety, and welfare in this county. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the way I feel as well. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: To answer Mr. Deputy County Manager, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's that -- yes, what? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The three things was, get with the tax collector about the occupational license fee, the next one is keep code enforcement whole, and the next one is get a -- MR.OCHS: Third was -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a deputy administrator for Community Development; wasn't it? MR.OCHS: Two out of three. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two out of three. MR. OCHS: The last one was the fee issue. We're going to pursue that and bring back recommendations in the fall. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, very much so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you were for EDC or funding that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I worry about that, but, okay. So we've got three people for it, and I would love to see -- I would love to see some proof of what they actually do rather than what they tell us they do, but anyway. Okay. We move on to the next. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MR. OCHS: That brings us to your transportation services Page 11 7 June 29, 2009 division. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I just say one thing? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All the landscaping capital improvements, if you would put -- that you budgeted this year, just put that to limerock roads, I'm okay. MR. FEDER: Got you covered. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. You have the directors here. And what I'm going to do is give you a very quick overview and then obviously open it up to the questions. I think some had some good discussions today. I think some of what we're going to hit on will relate to a number of these issues. The first thing I have to point out to you to give you an idea how we approached establishing this budget within the budget guidance is -- unfortunately, the last couple years, as we've sought to reduce our budgets as well countywide, we've become the king of turn-back. At least we were. There's no such thing this year. And so if you look at it, we started out not even going to a 3 percent but basically having to take 4.7 out of our program that were basically turn-backs which were a lower level than what had been removed from our program but in an effort to try and reinstate some of these prior cuts. So just to remind you that in many areas we had taken cuts, whether it be landscaping maintenance, 1.3 million, we got a turn- back for about 900, I believe you'll see there, and then we, in fact, have to start at that 1.3 negative as we went into this budget for a 3 percent, then a 15 percent cut. I think the most significant part of the discussion I've heard today, particularly from Commissioner Coyle, has been that we need to work a little bit smarter rather than just go across the board on issues, and that's what we've been trying to do in transportation from Page 118 June 29, 2009 the start and throughout. I know that we've had a number of shifts in the way we've structured our organization, but the key throughout has been that we established a core group, a core group that wasn't oriented to Easter Sunday, was oriented at what we thought was going to be, which we now find ourselves pretty close to, not necessarily by need, but by financial ability in capital program and in operations that brings us to a -- basically a core level. And so we've done a lot of shifting with our staff. First of all, as you see here in the overhead, we've lost now 47 of our staff members. That's been by attrition, that's been by VSIP, but it's also been by three different actions for a reduction in force. Our reduction in force though has been at the supervisory level, not at the working level or the blue plan level, because that's unfortunately where most of our vacancies have developed over time and even the VSIP issues. So we've gone in a reduction force to respond to our budget needs and to respond to the fact that as I lose some of my staffing, we've pulled out supervisory roles here in the division. You mentioned constant effort to try and align staff to specific needs. Our work program we recently had, not more than about six months ago, 11 active projects underway. Eleven major projects underway. We have many more than that, but 11 major road construction projects. Pleased to tell you that most of those have been completed. We've got two more underway right now, but what we've done is we've shifted our orientation. I used to have people in-house design, managing designers outside. I used to have particularly people in staff that were managing consultant engineering inspection of our construction projects. Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, which we let a while ago, we did not pay that approximately 10 percent of construction cost for that Page 119 June 29, 2009 CEI work. We brought it in-house. We have the same plans as we go to Oil Well, which is to be let in the next few weeks, and we will do the same, bringing this in-house. What I've done is I've shifted from my engineering construction management folks. Those that were managing the CEIs in the past are now doing it. Those that were in engineers and design and others are also out there doing it, as is traffic ops., and soon some of my road and bridges staff as well. So we have shifted. And when I say that we didn't staff up to the peak, I was down 40 -- I'm down 47 within my staffing directly. But as you can see here, not too long ago we had 66 consultants working with us, staffing from consultants, on CEI, which we've now brought in-house. Now, this graph, if it doesn't drive you crazy, tells us a lot of good information. It's a hard one to work with, so I apologize for that. But basically what I need to bring to your attention is once we've gone through building proj ects, we need to maintain them. As you've seen in our fiscal impacts, we've been bringing that to your attention. And we've had a very, very aggressive construction program which, now that my impact fees are down 75 percent from the peak, or about 72 million down to about 18 million -- and that's where my impact fees for transportation -- that our program has pulled back. But what has happened over the last nine years with your assistance and help after an emergency was declared is, we've built about 240 additional lane miles and reconstructed about 160 of the existing lane miles on those roadways. A lot of that was towards the end of that nine year period, because there was a ramp-up in getting projects out and going. But what this shows is essentially during that period of time, we did not have to maintain what are the highest volumes, highest maintenance needs, most signals, most signs and the like, sections of roadway that are either brand new or they essentially were still under the control of Page 120 June 29, 2009 the contractor. So our maintenance staffing has been reduced, as you saw there, down to about 33 positions, almost 34, actually, in maintenance, and yet at the same time, my maintenance demands have increased dramatically. I'm down six in traffic ops, and those have increased because a lot of the system we didn't have to maintain during that heavy construction period. Traffic right here just sort of depicts that. If you look at our current staffing versus -- again, that bar shows you what we had in lane miles, what we added and what's come onto maintenance. The graphic in the upper right shows you that generally, as well, and then you look at the staffing that we have both in maintenance and in traffic ops, and you can see very quickly that unfortunately I'm going in the opposite direction of that demand that's coming on for maintenance. Beyond the maintenance though, the feeling is, okay, everything's solved right now, and it is actually a pretty good situation. With all the new lane miles we've opened up, with a very high vacancy rate here in this county, and with the issues that -- the reason my impact fees are down by 75 percent, if you will, from 72 as a peak to 18, is that traffic is down some. And so our roadways are functioning pretty well at the moment. But having said that, we still have deficiencies out there. And if you look at our work program, we've had to move a number of projects. This is your last AUIR, which is 2008. We're getting ready for '09, and you'll see some further movement, which I've put on there in handwriting. But essentially we have projects that, over the last couple years unfortunately, that we've had to move, mostly to the right. What you see there is we had Golden Gate Boulevard originally in our program. That got moved out in -- to the new fifth year last AUIR. Right now it is out of the program altogether, even past 2014. The same, you see there we had to move out the Santa Barbara, Page 121 June 29, 2009 getting that further up to Green Boulevard. So the construction program is moved out. As you can see, I'm a little bit over 300 million over five years for that construction program. The reason I point that out to the 20-year planning that is done for transportation, I basically have less than half of what is in our financially feasible plan, because you take that 300 million, 1.2 billion if you bring it out over a 20-year period, that five-year program, which is, again, half of what the needs are here in the county. So we haven't addressed all of our needs. We have deficiencies, and we're well below our funding, not only for capital, but as well for maintenance, and in particular for maintenance as we've expanded our capital program. What I'm putting in front of you now basically gives you an overview -- yeah, gives you an overview of what is in our program both in the 3 percent, 15 percent, and what the Planning Commission identified. What I'd like to do is just give you a quick shot at that. If you look at it, for instance, in administration, you come across in our 3 percent budget, you see what the 15 percent would be, and what we've recommended is furlough. So let me get to that column right there in the recommendations of what would happen if you went from a millage-neutral -- I mean, excuse me -- from a revenue neutral to a millage-neutral, which is a 3 percent to a 15 percent. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you blow that up just a little bit for us? MR. FEDER: Yes. Blow it up some. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. MR. FEDER: Do you have copies of that? If you can give that to the commissioners directly so they have it, and the overview for everybody else. Page 122 June 29, 2009 Essentially what this is showing you is how we're proposing to try and respond. As I've mentioned to you already, we had significant impact to our program already, going into even a 3 percent. You'll see that as -- you'll see the numbers through. But this gives you a feel for where we go from a 3 percent to a 15. When we looked at furlough, what we're looking at is just under one day a month, which was mentioned here. And as you look down that column, which should be in your hand shortly, so let me hold. As you look down that column, what you'll see is, we've identified furlough as an option to get to the 15 percent or to the millage-neutral for everything but road and bridge and traffic ops, and we did that specifically because where we've lost most of the 47 has been in our field crews, and our demand for maintenance and operations is such that we recommended that although we've gone in a -- three different rifts for supervisory and administrative levels that, in fact, we could accept, if we had to, a furlough better in the administrative functions as opposed to those that are out in the field actually day-to-day, plus the ability to handle a one day a month and not end up with food stamps as a supplement to your income is probably greater at that level as well. Going down you'll see that in A TM we, again, went to the possibility of a furlough. We have in here in your transportation disadvantage personal trips, which is the lowest of the priority but still critical. You're talking about many people don't have a vehicle, your elderly, your handicapped, or your financially very constrained that don't have access to a vehicle. What this gives them is the ability to go out shopping, groceries, other things, and allows them to make those trips, but relative to medical trips and others, it's a lower-level trip. It's one that we don't want to see, but it's one that we had to identify if we go down to millage-neutral. Also we looked at the Marco Island route, which is Route 7, which is basically, the circulator goes from 951, connecting there at Page 123 June 29, 2009 Kmart to other routes, goes down and makes the trips to Marco Island. Again, not a time that we want to cut back in transit at all, but that's what we have to do for a millage-neutral. Again, now we came down to landscape maintenance. We recommended furlough, and we have the Jolley Bridge as one of the more expensive items in here and one of the newest relative to maintenance. The difficulty there is we have an interlocal with the state that we have to maintain that, so we'll have to find some avenue to work with that. Coming down you've got traffic ops. What we looked at here is roadway lighting and the maintenance for that roadway lighting. That's pretty much like you had in your mid-term correction where we basically turned off everything except for the lights at major intersections on a number of the recently constructed roads, mostly outside the urbanized area. That is one, I'll bring to your attention here, is one area where the Productivity Committee did recommend a portion of that 400,000 or .4 million, was 160 of it come out of this area to go millage-neutral. We said we have to go 340. The thought by the Productivity Committee was that we maybe only operate certain hours after dusk. Unfortunately, the way the operations are, you basically are taking out the fuses on all the lights you're not using so that when it gets dark they don't come on. We don't have that ability to run them for X number of hours and then stop them. So if you did take ours, those would stay unlit even at dusk hours and the like, and then throughout the night. If you went to the Planning Commission's recommendation, we would probably have to take different routes and decide which routes to fully light and which ones to then fully remove except for at intersections. Going down, on your road maintenance, you've got striping and RPMs. Again, this is a large number, and it's a real concern to us. Page 124 June 29, 2009 While we noted that most of those mileage came on, the maintenance issues are coming forward on those right now. If you go down Livingston, one of the first ones that was built, finished, I believe, about 2002, was the section of Livingston Road from Radio on up to Golden Gate Parkway. That section already you can find very few RPMs, which is that reflective piece in the road that tells you how to stay in your lanes during real dark times or inclement weather with rain, as well as the striping has lost its reflectivity, and the pavement at the intersections is starting to heave some. So we have significant maintenance work there in striping and RPMs. It's a safety issue, but it would be an area where we'd pull back. Mowing, sidewalks, drainage, another large sum of money we're recommending out of there. Again, we are on basically an eight- to ten-week cycle out in the rural area. This isn't your urban landscaped sections; this is the rest of the system. We had hoped to get in a little bit earlier. We are going out to contract maintenance, and that's another area where we constantly have worked. In the past it was cheaper for us to do it in-house. Right now the contracts that we're getting -- and we've shopped it every year -- are so low, basically because of manpower and the issues are low, that we're recommending that we go out to contract work whether you go revenue neutral or millage-neutral in the budget because we have to do that with all the staffing that were out in road and bridge as well. Then you've got secondary drainage. Again, issues of flooding, road base and concerns. Going down to the 111, you get your resurfacing, talking about pulling some of that back. Again, we are nowhere near the industry standard time frame for resurfacing. Roads, basically, about eight years for an arterial; about 15 years outside of an arterial. I'd like to even be close to that or double that. We're beyond that right now. We were trying to get closer to at least double the expected life in the 25-year time frame, and this will Page 125 June 29, 2009 pull us away from that. Mowing, sidewalks, bridges, sod installation, going down. What I'll point out to you is we had a lot of discussions, as you're well aware, with the Productivity Committee. I think Janet was right. I think it's a very good set of discussions. I'm not sure we totally agreed, but what I will tell you is, I think what they found was that pulling it out of our operations right now, especially with the expanded demands from maintenance and issues, was not advantageous. If you look at their area of focus, they became focused predominantly on our capital program. They recommended two areas. One of them was to pull 1.1 million out of our capital to bring the capital to what would be a millage-neutral. That would basically come out of our bridge program. We had expanded that because we just had the last set of inspections from the state. We had five bridges that needed work on them. We're working on those now. We also expect that since our bridges are more than 40 years old, over 100 of them, that more and more we're going to have needs in that area, but that would be the area we'd pull it out of if that decision was made. The other was to pull a million out of our revenue reserves. The revenue reserves were down from last year, but proportionally because the overall program was down significantly the percentage was a little bit higher, so they recommended pulling that percentage down and, therefore, taking a million out of the reserves. Our concern on that is, the items that you have in your work program here, the assumption of cost, is already 25 percent below engineer's estimate. We've gotten and we expect to get good bids. We hope that's the case and that stays. Our impact fees are down, our other revenues are down, and yet we've projected those out, so there's that uncertainty there. And Page 126 June 29, 2009 probably the most important thing is, we both have to defend and then we have to respond to four different suits that we have out there, one of them being, the board's well aware, on Logan where we had a DCA. The developer has been unable to build his project. We feel that that is not any doing of the county; that's because of environmental permitting concerns, yet they now are looking for over 10 million to come to them to be paid off. There are also claims out on three construction products, Vanderbilt and the two John Carlos, Immokalee and Rattlesnake that we're working with. And so we feel that a good reserve is necessary. But I will tell you that Productivity basically looked at the capital as the area to try and pull from as opposed to the operating in a large part, I think -- and they can speak for themselves -- because of the expanded requirements for maintenance that we're facing, the fact that we're down in staffing levels as much as we are right now. And I wanted to get this all in front of you, and we can answer any question you have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We were told that $10 million is for stormwater? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Half that is LASIP? MR. FEDER: Actually, a little more than half of that is LASIP. Where you see on here -- and you go to the bottom of that page. The reason I put that arrow there is, stormwater by itself is a 15 percent reduction no matter what you make as a decision. It is .15 mills of assessed value. So if assessed value is down 15 percent, stormwater is down that 15 percent, and that's what's reflected here already. So -- if I didn't answer your question, what's the question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why can't we further reduce that and take -- Page 127 June 29, 2009 MR. FEDER: Commissioner, you can do anything you want obviously. What I will tell you is, I've got a permit that took many, many years, more than I'd like to think -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand what's being said, that permit will expire. I don't -- I'm not looking at delaying LASIP, delaying new things, but I also believe that you can ask for an extension, too. That's not my goal. My goal is, $10 million for stormwater, it seems like we can spread that out. MR. FEDER: Yeah, the 10 million, basically about eight of that, almost 875, close to eight, is LASIP, if you're going to meet the time frame of the permits and to get the proj ect done to meet what has been historical flooding issues and concerns in that part of the county. You have other dollars in there, as you mentioned. Previously they were on the Freedom Park and that water quality issue there. The focus now is as well on the other major projects that's in your Growth Management Plan, which is the tri -- Golden Gate Triangle where we're working along with the Bayshore CRA to try and respond to some of the needs there. We've acquired some right-of-way, and we're trying to get some projects. That will give us at least some level of relief in that traditionally flooding area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Feder, the shift from the unincorporated General Fund 111 to the General Fund 001. Explain that one more time why that took place. MR. FEDER: Okay. I'm not sure I can explain it totally, but I'll point out to your attention just to give you an idea. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1.2 million. MR. FEDER: Well, that's what the Productivity Committee has recommended as a shift, because that balances 111 without an increase in millage. But in reality -- if I can call your attention to Page 2 of your budget in transportation. And probably, actually, if I go further, Page 128 June 29, 2009 you'll see '08. But just for this one, shows you '09 versus '10. And the point to be made is -- and I'll defer to OMB -- but you had essentially your 17 million. You're still showing the same. You've made a diversion. There's more that's coming out of 101, which is 001, in '09, and less out of 111. And then now you see that more is coming out of 111 and less out of 00 1. The balance is still there. And I -- I'll defer to OMB, but I think that was overall in the program looking at the fact that most of our work is outside of any of the incorporated areas besides Golden Gate Parkway, which is in the City of Naples, as well as sections of Goodlette-Frank Road. We have no roadways within Marco Island. And so basically the feeling was that the predominant role and function in transportation was well suited to 111 as they went to balance those two funds. Beyond that, I'll have to defer to them. We just worked with that dollar amount. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, maybe I can add some information to the discussion. In FY08, two years ago, the transportation operations component was funded completely out of the general fund, 00 1. You will recall that last year during our budget discussions, in order to achieve millage-neutral, we made some funding switches in order to -- in order to shift the cost of Norman's operations more to 111 in order to achieve the millage-neutral guidance that the board really would have liked to have achieved, and we did that. All we're doing is picking up on that component this year. And we're also looking at essentially ability to pay . Now, 111 -- we all know 111 is a little healthier than 001. Always has been. 111 is a -- it has less obligations connected to it essentially. So the thought, at least as we've proposed it right now, is to provide a little bit more burden in 111 at the expense of 00 1 so that we can achieve some of the tax-neutral and millage-neutral guidance that we've offered to you in terms of the budget. It's not intended to be Page 129 June 29, 2009 complicated. It's just a continuation of what we have done and started last year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, what is your projected maintenance costs per year for the next three years? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we've got those figures, and it's in the budget, but what I need to point out to you is they are significantly reduced relative to our level of service, whether it be the roadway, roadside drainage, or in landscaping. In each case we've pulled back on that. Michelle, I think it was 56-. What we're assuming now is a level MS. ARNOLD: We're at 57- right now. We were at one point at 85-. MR. FEDER: But even your budget that you've got now with the extra miles that you've added, you're below that as well. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. FEDER: Because you haven't increased the budget. You've incorporated it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Say again. What was that again? Just -- you came -- threw a figure out there. What was that referring to? MS. ARNOLD: The cost per mile to maintain the roadways. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that is how many? MS. ARNOLD: It's at 57-. MR. FEDER: Thousand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: $57,000? MS. ARNOLD: Thousand, sorry, yes. And at millage-neutral, I think we're at 46-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: And that's down from the original 87-. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the -- what is the state Page 130 June 29, 2009 average for maintenance level of these roads? MR. FEDER: As far as employees we're down, and what we've done in benchmarking and in cost per mile, and now I'm talking general maintenance, not many have the level of landscaping that we have on our system. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any way we can cut costs on landscaping? MR. FEDER: Well, yes. We recommended to you no new capital projects, as much as we'd like to. You've got Golden Gate -- excuse me, Collier Boulevard, the north section that is complete is not being landscaped; Santa Barbara, about to be completed, no recommendation to landscape at this time; 951 south, again, about to be completed, no recommendation. If you remember, last year we came to you with much the same. We recommended that we not, unfortunately, move with the landscaping program. And I say unfortunately because that's honestly what I'd like to see us do. But we didn't have the resources for the maintenance of that, and so that's what we told you at that time. What we're doing now is we took that 1.8 that you gave us in turn-back money. We are landscaping three segments, a little over 10 miles, and we've absorbed in our maintenance by reducing overall maintenance of that 110 now versus 100 miles, which was already reduced 1.3 million from the prior year. So we've gone down quite a bit in our maintenance of it, and I would shudder that we go much further or else we lose the investment. Just like the roads, that landscaping is an investment that this county has made. Weare working smarter from the first time we went into landscaping. We have less grass, we have different plantings, and that's shown up in each project after another. But what we have out there, we need to maintain and we need to keep with the others. Hopefully we'll find ourselves sometime in the financial position to Page 131 June 29, 2009 actually be able to landscape them as well. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You added lane miles that we put in. How soon will we have to start looking at the maintenance and upkeep and resurfacing of these roads? MR. FEDER: Some of it immediately. I'm already looking at that, as I mentioned, with some of the first mileage in the case of Livingston. As I mentioned, the arterials rule of thumb is six to eight, or basically I went the high end, eight years. We're pretty close to exactly that time frame right now, and unfortunately that's what we're facing with portions of Livingston where we do need to do some resurfacing already. I definitely need to do my pavement markers and my reflective striping. And so that maintenance is already starting to come on there. Things like traffic ops come on immediately once the contractor's off the job. Maintenance issues, you get a little bit of reprieve, but they're starting to come. It's those first mileages that we put on the system are now getting to be basically to the useful life in needing repairs. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we go three years without resurfacing? MR. FEDER: You can do anything you want, but you're going to end up with major potholes and other issues of the sort. I'll defer to Travis here as to what he's got in his program and what the prospects are. But we do a condition rating. We don't resurface unless the pavement condition is at a point that dictates it. And even with that, the budget we have isn't allowing us to get at basically the pavement and the life-cycle needs. Is that fair, Travis? MR. COSTA: Yes. Travis Costa, road superintendent, for the record. Right now we're on about a 35-year cycle, which is causing some problems out there. Not only is it for overlay, but you have damages that occur that are just not due to time. Page 132 June 29, 2009 There are other instances that happen out there that we have to repair also, emergencies, water line break, that type of stuff, that, you know, we're not budgeted for either. So you have other items just besides the standard overlay that come up and occur that sometimes we cannot recoup fees for . You have sidewalk damage that's happening all the time on a daily basis. You also have, you know, contractors damaging stuff that we don't catch, those type of things out there also. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I guess as a follow-up on that is that right now what I'm telling you, I'm more than twice the industry standard for life expectancy. That's with my current level of funding for resurfacing. So if I try to defer, you have an idea what the implications of that are. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying that we're almost in the same category as the U.S. interstate systems where -- MR. FEDER: I don't ever want to get in that category. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because they're -- and then we don't have the money to keep it up? That's what I'm getting at. MR. FEDER: Well, my point is, you've heard me come for the last two years at AUIR, actually three, but particularly in the last two years, noting that as much as I need to meet the concurrency needs, need to continue to respond to congestion, that we have made an investment in the system that is now coming due for maintenance. We started about six months ago writing in each one of your executive summaries what we thought the life-cycle maintenance was going to be to remind -- even if it was landscaped within the last year, I said, if you're going to give me this capital, you need to give me the budget for maintenance. We haven't even asked for that budget. We just went to a lower level of maintenance. We knew that money wasn't there for you to give it to us, at least we don't think it is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were talking about water lines. Obviously you're talking about the irrigation lines; is that correct? Page 133 June 29, 2009 MR. COSTA: Irrigation lines are your main water lines also, and a lot of that is covered, obviously, by the water department. But there are deficiencies that happen that are -- you know, come from that that gives long-term problems. MR. FEDER: Not so much when it's been constructed. Just old lines that have been in there before this whole group. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're talking about sidewalks, is that because people are running over sidewalks? MR. COSTA: Yeah, and stuff that we cannot catch out there. They run over them, accidents happen that we don't get, you know, reports on or we don't catch. You have vegetation that causes problems. There's a numerous amount of things that cause it, but sidewalks are definitely becoming a real problem for us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Guardrails, too, that we don't catch? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. COSTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that all falls under the maintenance category; is that correct? MR. FEDER: All maintenance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Interesting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Feder, going back to landscaping, there's nothing in the budget for new landscaping; is that correct? MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so what's in the budget is totally just to maintain the landscaping that already exists and it's been reduced. Once again, what's that number? MR. FEDER: Last year you reduced what was our standard at the 57 per mile. You reduced the budget by 1.3 million. You gave us some one-time money, as you saw in that first thing that I put up. But Page 134 June 29, 2009 you reduced it 1.3. We have taken that, not added significantly anything to it. I think we went up 1.2 percent from that reduced level and taken on another almost 12 miles plus the mowing of the segments, like I mentioned, that are finishing, would have been landscaped if we had the funds but didn't, so that they get mowed a little more frequently even though they don't get landscaped. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The total cost for landscaping this coming year's budget is? MS. ARNOLD: 4.9. MR. FEDER: 4.9 million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 4.9 million. MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's paid for with a countywide MSTU for the unincorporated area; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What does that work out to per thousand dollars? Anybody know? Get the old calculator out. MR. ISACKSON: Give me a second, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. While he's doing that, let's talk about mowing. Your plans in the -- both budgets is to a reduced schedule of mowing? MR. FEDER: Yes. First of all, on the landscaping, as I just noted, we took that shortfall from last year, added miles, and have effectively kept the same budget. So what we're doing is just less frequent care and overall work on the system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was last year or two years ago that we had a reduction in the mowing cycle, and I believe we picked it up under the UFR to add more money to it. When was that, last year or the year before? MR. FEDER: That was year before, and what we've done on that is we've, unfortunately, gotten ourselves to an eight- to ten-month -- Page 135 June 29, 2009 ten-week, excuse me -- eight- to ten-week cycle. Now, I will tell you, going out and contracting -- and every year we looked at it and it wasn't beneficial to contract out the mowing, and I'm not talking the landscaping now. I'm talking about the rest of the system. This year we looked at the same issue. That wasn't the case. Right now the manpower costs are so down in many areas, obviously the bids we got were favorable. So with basically about the same dollars, with reduced staffing that we've experienced, with what we had for a budget, we're looking at bringing a lot of that mowing to contract work, almost all of it, realign those 33 positions I'm down for my swales, my other maintenance functions, and leave that mowing on a little more frequently cycle. I think it's about six to eight weeks S. ? now. IX. MR. COSTA: Well, we'll actually be going to 24 cycle in the urban, and we'll stick with once a month out in the rural. And we are 100 percent contracted out rural mowing right now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's at 24 weeks in the rural area. I mean, everything east of 951; is that what you're using as a dividing line? MR. COSTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So Immokalee Road going to the west is getting mowed once a month and the other way it's getting mowed twice a month, excuse me? Is that what you're saying? MR. FEDER: Once a month. MS. ARNOLD: No, once a month. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once a month. I had that right. And when you get to the other side of 951 and you start towards the east, it gets mowed how often a month? MR. COSTA: That's once a month, Commissioner, but on Immokalee Road we're considering that an urban setting due to the fact that that's curb and gutter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And how about Golden Page 136 June 29, 2009 Gate Boulevard? MR. COSTA: Golden Gate Boulevard is also an urban setting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So then you're talking like -- roads like Oil Well or Randall? MR. COSTA: Oil Well, 846 East, you know, the side streets off Golden Gate Boulevard, DeSoto, that type of stuff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that sounds more than fair, I'll be honest with you. And I want to remind my fellow commissioners, last year when we got into the landscape discussion, I opted out Immokalee Road east of 951 in the discussion. I'm not saying that we go ahead and start tearing up landscaping, but when it comes to this part of the budget, we have to, once again, weigh out health, safety, and welfare when it comes down to it, and we have to be able to provide for everything that's there. I think we've got a good direction. I believe we do. What was that number? You got it? MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, it's about one-tenth of a mill. So the millage rate -- the taxable value in 111 is $44 billion. One mill is 44 million. It's about a tenth of a mill will give you about $4.4 million. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's absolutely wonderful for a general number. How much is that in dollars per thousand dollars? MR. ISACKSON: That's -- I'm giving you that number. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty-four? MR. ISACKSON : Well, 44 million is one mill. The 111 rate right now is less than one mill. It's .6912. $4.4 million is equivalent to one-tenth. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. I understand. MR. FEDER: Ten cents per thousand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you have a -- 10 cents per thousand dollars is what it breaks down to; is that correct? MR. ISACKSON: It's probably $10 per thousand dollars of Page 137 June 29, 2009 taxable value. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ten dollars, okay. So if you've got a $100,000 house, you'd be looking at $1,000? MR. ISACKSON: No, no, no. No, if you have -- if you have a-- if your taxable value is $100,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, $100,000, okay. MR. ISACKSON: Let's keep it at round figures. Right now at -- divide that by 1,000, okay. That gives you your -- that's $100. And if you take -- if you take .6912, which is your current rate in 111, that's about $69 or so per thousand dollars of taxable value. That would be how much you would pay. Now, if you add a tenth of a mill to that -- to that number, you're probably going to get -- that's another ten bucks to that -- to that figure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: Now, that's -- those are averages off the top of my head, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's close enough. So if you had a $250,000 -- MR. ISACKSON: You could run through the math the same. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, you'd be looking at $25. MR. ISACKSON: If you divide that by a thousand and then multiply that by .6912, you're at roughly $172, and then go take your math from there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. MR. ISACKSON: Seventeen bucks onto that number for a tenth of a mill. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Seventeen dollars. Okay. You're finished? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm, let's talk about your Page 138 June 29, 2009 contingency reserves. MR. FEDER: Yes, and capital. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, capital contingency reserves. Now, I understand that that is primarily because of some suits involving contractors. MR. FEDER: Primarily, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how did you arrive at that figure? MR. FEDER: The figure for the suits? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, the figure for the reserves. MR. FEDER: The figure for the reserves. Basically what we did is we pulled out, once we balanced from anticipated revenues our cost of projects, which we've moved out, looked at what we had available, which was, again, a decrease from prior year but an increase proportionally percentage-wise. And the feeling was, we need to keep that reserve about as healthy as we can. What we're looking at is, if we're a little over 30 million in potential liability out there, probably about 10 percent of that just to defend against it, so at least a little under half of that reserve level recommended is to help cover for at least the defense of those legal items if we're not successful to some degree on others to cover for that. The other thing is that right now our revenue stream is not, unfortunately, thanks to Tallahassee, the one that I feel most comfortable relying upon, and yet what we do is we let based on anticipated revenue stream, as you're well aware of. So we needed to have a contingency level there, especially when we had put basically 25 percent below engineer's estimate as our construction cost on the first couple-year projects that we have in the program. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you have reserves other places in your budget, not your capital budget, but in your -- MR. FEDER: No. In the capital, that's the only reserves I have. Page 139 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we have reserves for Collier County Government. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And we accumulate all the reserves from different divisions and we create a single reserve into Collier County Government's budget, right? MR. FEDER: I'm not sure, because a lot of this reserve is impact fees, so I'm not sure that that applies. I'll defer to OMB on that, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the reserve is impact fees. You've created it from impact fees? MR. FEDER: No. A good portion of our funding is still impact fees and gas taxes, so that's why I was lending on the general reserve. Both of those probably wouldn't fall over there. Obviously I can move those moneys around. But generally speaking, that's my major funding sources. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you lost -- if you're right in your assessment of the risk of losing the lawsuits and you lost those lawsuits on the first of October, you would have to pay the roughly, what -- how much money? Seven million or so that you've got budgeted for contingency reserves. Okay . You would be out that much money, I presume, right? MR. FEDER: Depends how much I lost. I don't plan on losing those, but yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Well, that's the point I'm getting at. If you don't have to defend against them and/or you don't lose the suit until the middle of the next fiscal year, you will have, in the meantime, collected additional funds, right? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what I'm getting at is, it appears to me that the contingency for the reserves is a bit high. It's higher than the previous year was. It's-- Page 140 June 29, 2009 MR. FEDER: It's actually lower than previous, but it's higher percentage-wise. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Higher percentage-wise by 3 percent. MR. FEDER: But I'll also call to your attention that our reserves are contingency in the later program because our program goes down so much. It is down quite a bit. The next year four, then two, then four. So we tried to keep that contingency in there as we discussed. In the past you asked us to keep a good level of contingency because we had a lot of issues that came up that surprised us. Our revenue sources are a little more unwieldy and our prices are a little bit more. Right now we're seeing lower prices. We're trying to capitalize on that, but we'll have to see what happens, and then we have the lawsuits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not seeing lower prices from lawyers, are you? MR. FEDER: No, I am not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't think so. MR. FEDER: Only construction. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nick, did you want to say something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just on the contingency factor. One of the other reasons we did it, Commissioner Coyle, when we did that updated impact fee collection where we spaced it out five years, what we've seen is our impact fee revenues really drop off. And so in preparing the budget this year, one of the reasons we added more contingency was, now the developers, instead of paying upfront that one half are taking advantage of that five-year payout. So your up- front collection, that's why we said, you know -- MR. FEDER: We don't have a stream. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's down in that first five-year -- or the first year of that five years. None of them are taking advantage of it like we thought they would, and the ones that are are now paying in Page 141 June 29, 2009 five-year increments instead of that 50 percent upfront, so that contingency was loaded to cover that in case that capital proj ect that we expected that revenue stream from impact fees not to materialize. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not all a contingency for pending lawsuits? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you break that out for me? Tell me how much is the contingency for lawsuits. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could. If you give us a little time, we can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: End of the day or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- tomorrow? Whatever. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how about the other recommendations of the Productivity Committee? I need you to address those specifically for me. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have suggested that mowing and roadway lighting be reduced by a total of $400,000. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not -- you're not quite there. MR. FEDER: What I've shown you is the roadway lighting, and if you look at the right-hand side there, 160,000. The issue that I raised to that is, they were hoping that that would allow the facilities to be lit first couple of hours after dusk. I just wanted to point out to you that we couldn't, so there would be some corridors we took their recommendation 160,000 of that 400,000 on that, and then they recommended 240- from mowing, sidewalk, and drainage. And so I've identified those here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you think you can reach that Page 142 June 29, 2009 reduction? MR. FEDER: Yeah, of course we can. It's just going to be a lower level of service, but we can, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And now, tell me what the bottom line is here. Are you saying that with those reductions, that you can reach millage-neutral? MR. FEDER: I am not. What I have told you, I'd have to take out almost $4 million to reach 3.8 to reach millage-neutral. What I've given you, from what you just asked me, those items there would bring you to what the Productivity Committee identified, which was basically out of capital, 1 million, 1.1 million, and then the 400,000 out of those operational activities. And I'll let Janet go to that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I guess my problem is that the FY10 15 percent proposal doesn't have a total at the bottom. I can't quite understand what you're telling me here. MR. FEDER: The FY15 proposal I've just identified in each area. What is identified can come from the 3 percent to the 15 percent if you went from either the millage to the -- I mean the tax to the millage-neutral. It's -- that identifies it. And the total there is $3.8 million in what's been identified, and all of those items are basically consistent with the budget as presented to you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's the 3.8 -- actually 3.798 million? MR. FEDER: Correct. Is the total of all those items that preceded it, which are the recommended actions that I would have to take to go from a revenue neutral to millage-neutral. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners Coyle, are you just about finished? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess I may as well be. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. What I'm going to do is I'm going to call for a break right now. When we come back, I'm going to have Page 143 June 29, 2009 Commissioner Halas and then Janet representing the Productivity Committee, but we need to give our stenographer a ten-minute break. So I'll see you back here at 3: 15. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we do that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next one is public services, and I would imagine a lot of people here want to talk about, you know, animal control and the beaches. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Libraries. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Libraries and things like that. Can we go to the speakers first? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. Sure, we can do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think they would enjoy that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for the suggestion. Okay. We're taking a ten-minute break. See you back here at 3: 15. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Welcome back. And first we're going to hear from Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, I'm very concerned about the direction that we're trying to go here. Why in the hell did we spend all this money to build a road system in this county, and now we want to take away all the maintenance money on this thing? Seems to me that we're going to put not only the county, but we're going to put our citizens in jeopardy since you're telling us that now we're almost out to a 35-year work program in regards to taking care of these roads and bridges, that a lot of these bridges are out in the rural area. I really have some concerns on this. And what is that going to do as far as putting us, the county, in jeopardy if somebody has a major accident because of poor road maintenance? Do we get sued on things Page 144 June 29, 2009 like that? MR. FEDER: You enhance your liability, yes. First of all, let me answer your question. We were asked to develop a 3 percent and 15 percent reduction budget. I am in no way encouraging you to consider that 15 percent reduction. The 3 percent by itself especially added on to the prior reductions, as I noted, and the expanded system that we have to operate and maintain is putting us in a position where we really can't maintain sufficiently, and definitely not at a level of service that the public expects or that would keep us out of some of the concerns of liability if we go to a 15 percent reduction. So that's why I am not encouraging you to consider that 15 percent reduction. As matter of fact, we'd be better off pulling it -- some out of the capital, which I also am behind on. And again, I don't want to replicate the mistakes of the past where we spend a period of time with the thought if we don't build it, they won't come. They're coming. There's a vacancy rate here and the like. But if I had my druthers right now, if I have to go to a reduction here, it would be in the capital end, as somewhat the Productivity Committee has recommended, as opposed to the operating end. I showed you, over 400 new lane miles taken on; 240 of it new, 160 that was rebuilt and reconstructed. Most of it we haven't had to maintain over the last few years. Down 47 positions, just 33 alone in road and bridge, another six in traffic ops. N one of them were staffed up for the high peak to begin with. So no, we're not in a position to maintain the system that we have today. We're not recommending it. We only are responding to budget guidance from this board, and we'll always do everything we can with what we have, but we are dangerously putting ourselves in a bad position by continuing to go backwards as opposed to forward. And our maintenance budget and our operations budget, the same is true in capital where I can defer that better than I can defer the other, which we've continued to defer for many years now. Page 145 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seems to me like having a house with a leaky roof. MR. FEDER: If you're going to have a roof later on at all, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Janet, would you like to speak on behalf of the Productivity Committee? MS. VASEY: Yes, I would, thank you. Could I draw your attention to Page 7. I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page 7 of what? MS. VASEY: Page 7 of transportation. I'd like to really make sure everybody understands the issue that we have on the money, whether certain costs should be charged to the general fund or the unincorporated general fund. And basically, if you look at Page 7, about halfway down the revenue source line is a line called transfer from 012 general fund. You see that line? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. VASEY: Okay. Now, two more -- maybe four more down is transfer from 111, MS TD. Those are the two funds -- the two lines that I want to talk to. If you look at the general fund line, that was $21 million in '08, and it went down to 12 million in '09 adopted, 13 in forecast, and now it's nine in FY10. Now, take a look at Fund 111. It was $2 million in FY08, went up to almost $8 million in the adopted and forecast of'09, and now it's up to about $10 million. And what's happening here -- and I want to talk about this, because the Productivity Committee was very, very strong on this issue. Funds are migrating out of one -- out of 001 for some of this -- it's general support. You can't look on anyone of these pages and say, oh, here's this money. This is money that just goes into Fund 101, the general road and bridge fund, and is used to do the operations and maintenance all over. Page 146 June 29, 2009 The 001 's going down. The 111 's going up. And sometimes Norm -- when we talked to him about it, he says, well, this -- this really isn't a function of 001. It's more a function of 111 because we're just thinking about Golden Gate and Goodlette- Frank. Well, the policy has always been, for as long as I can remember, that the general fund, the countywide general fund, was paying for the major arteries. Now, that's the major arteries east/west, north/south. Those are the entryways into the city and out of the city. So we've always looked at it as being a broad view of how -- of what gets paid for. And over the last couple of years, as was mentioned, there's been some considerations of ability to pay. And last year that was part of it. Some of the money -- some of the costs were charged to 111, more than in previous years, and dropped out of 00 1, and that did not result in a millage rate increase to 111. It was -- I think there was some objection. I asked some questions about it, but that's as far as it went. This year this change will result in an increase in millage rate to the unincorporated general fund. And when you are setting rates for the general fund and the unincorporated general fund, you wear two different hats. The general fund you're looking countywide, and the unincorporated general fund you're just wearing that hat that excludes the municipalities. And I don't think you should allow that to happen. I don't think you should allow those costs to migrate to the extent that the unincorporated general fund has to have an increase in taxes -- or an increase in millage rate. And that was a really strong recommendation of the Productivity Committee. We -- we're not saying go back to the two million of FY08 and the 21 million for 001, two million for 111. We're just saying, don't increase it this year to make a millage rate increase in 111. So that was our big argument, and that -- and you see that in our papers under the changes for the 001 and then the changes for the 111. I don't know if Norm would like to say anything about it, but I Page 147 June 29, 2009 don't think that ability to pay is a good reason for shifting those costs and, you know, that's really the way we felt, very strongly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Did you want to reply to that, Norm or-- , MR. FEDER: No. I'll defer to OMB again, whether it's 111 or 101, or 101 in our case. We look at that as general revenue proceeds to our program. So if you change the flavor of that, obviously, that doesn't have an impact on our program per se but it may on the broader countywide, so I'll defer to OMB. MR. ISACKSON: Madam Chair, the only -- the comment I would make in this, I don't think the Productivity Committee's trying to cut Norman's allocation for ad valorem. That's not -- that's not the point that Janet's making. And I would reserve judgment as to who picks up what until I actually know who's going to be paying, what the 001 ultimately will be. I can't sit here today and tell you I agree or disagree because I don't know the full level extent of what decisions this board's going to make and how that will impact 001 and 111. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nor do we, by the way. MR. ISACKSON: So I don't -- I don't -- I just want to make sure. It's not like -- I don't want to be -- sound like I'm being evasive. I'm not. I just think it would be prudent to understand where we're going, and then we can make some decisions. But I want to make sure that you guys are aware that transportation -- the Productivity Committee's not recommending that the funding be reduced, only within the confines of where it gets -- it's getting paid from, that's all. So the debate here is exactly that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me why we -- Mark, can you tell me why we transferred the funds from 001 to Ill? MR. ISACKSON : Well, we -- as you recall, two years ago, we -- Page 148 June 29, 2009 it was a -- it was a transportation -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Like $10 million or something. MR. ISACKSON: This is Norman -- this is Mr. Feder's 101 operational budget. It's a separate fund to fund his transportation operations. And it's required by statute that his operations be in a separate fund. And right now we have a split between 001 and 111 regarding how that is actually funded. Two years ago, that was all out of 001. When we made the switch last year, we did it because there was -- it's -- there's a -- Norm -- Mr. Feder's operations can be -- he's flexible in terms of how his operations are funded, probably the most flexible that we have in our county operations. That's why the decision was made to split the funding from all 001 to -- which is general fund, to 111, the unincorporated area, and 001. And we did that in order to accommodate the millage-neutral guidance last year. All we're doing right now is perpetuating that, and the added twist to that now is the fact that because of -- because of the perceived ability to pay right now as we know it based on guidance and based on what we have budgeted in 001 versus 111, we've now shifted a little bit more funding into 111 in order to get 001 to a point where it can get to the guidance that you -- that the board had established back in February with the budget guidance. That's the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's no -- MR. ISACKSON: There's no -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- increase in funding? MR. ISACKSON: Well, no. Mr. Feder is not getting any more money. It's just where it's coming from is the issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The direction, that's all we're -- that's -- all we did is, we as the board directed to put funding in 111 versus the 101 fund? MR. ISACKSON: Well, no. You gave us guidance in that the net cost to 001 or the net cost to 111 can't be anything more or less Page 149 June 29, 2009 than what Mr. Feder received and was based off of what he received last year, and that was split last year between 001 and 111, his funding to operations, which are in Fund 101. That's the issue here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either Norm or Nick, is that the understanding you have in this? MR. FEDER: Yes. If you look at it in FY08 -- this is noted on Page 7 -- you've got a total of some 23,1-. In '09 take, you take the two together, you're down to about 20,100. And now, of course, with '10, you're down further to about 19,3-, as shown here. That's just taking the two together. What Janet's going for is the issue of the shift and how it shifted over time. But you take the two dollars together and they've shown the progression that they haven't changed, so to speak, just the issue of whether or not I get more 101 or 001 or 111. The net result is the same and, unfortunately, each year you're going down some but staying in total balance, if you will, generally. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's okay. It was answered. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So Mr. Feder, what you're saying is that it does or doesn't make a difference if it comes from one funding or other for your department? MR. FEDER: In this case it does not matter to us. We are able to use the funds flexibly whether they're 101, which is 001 funding, or 111. Again, as was pointed out a couple years ago, I think there was some issues of concern with another entity where you needed money in 001 and, therefore, you took some of my 001 and gave me 111 to make me whole. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we get to oversee each one of these shifts when they take place? I don't have any problem with the way it is right now. I'm a little bit scared of unintended Page 150 June 29, 2009 consequences from this if we start to change it around. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Boy, this meeting is just dragging, isn't it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's interesting. MS. VASEY: What I would submit, this is change. Last year what was going on did not result in a tax increase to the unincorporated general fund. This year it does. The additional 1.2 million means a tax increase to 111 that is inappropriate, unnecessary for 111, and the people that you represent in the unincorporated general -- in the unincorporated general fund area are not being treated fairly. That was our bottom line in the Productivity Committee, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Okay. Let me go to the next issue that we had. We had recommended, well, a $400,000 reduction for the lighting and mowing. And basically these are -- these are Norm's two lowest priorities. We're not dipping into anything that's high priority. We were under the impression that you could turn the lights off, you know, for part of the evening and not all of the evening, and this is the first we heard that's not available. Maybe that should be looked at if, you know, that -- what needs to be done to be able to have that capability to have lights on in the area for up until nine o'clock at night when people might be walking or jogging or riding their bicycles and then not have the lights on for the rest of the night. You could save a tremendous amount of money. And the issue was, the lights were being left on for the joggers and bikers and walkers in the winter months when it's darker earlier. MR. TIPTON: Bob Tipton. Traffic Operations Director, for the record. The way the lights are installed and have been installed for the past 30 years is that they are on circuits. The circuit can be turned on or turned off, but you can't turn individual lights on. All you can do is Page 151 June 29, 2009 pull fuses out, and that's all we've done on the arterials where we've reduced the lighting last -- in May. We did some quick calculations. And to go back and retrofit the existing lighting such that we could control individual lights and such would be -- it would take years and years to ever recoup the money that it would cost. We're talking now maybe $5,000 per intersection if you're going to leave the intersections lighted all night long, which is what we recommend. The third option would be to turn all lights off, totally dark after a certain time. It's easy to install a timer on the circuit, but it's not easy to install individual timers on the individual lights. MS. VASEY: Okay. So can you get them all on and off at nine o'clock? MR. TIPTON: We can do that, yes, and then you're talking total darkness at all intersections where we leave them on now. The way we do it now is we turn the lights off in between the intersections, but we leave four of them on at each intersection, and that's why we still have -- we feel that we still have a safe operation such that pedestrians can cross the road at lighted intersection. People making turning movements on and off the road are more visible. MS. VASEY: Well, we didn't really want to change that. We wanted to keep that option. MR. FEDER: We realize that. We just realized we couldn't do it. MS. VASEY: Okay. Perhaps that will not be a good recommendation for us with further information. MR. TIPTON: One thing that would -- might be possible would be to, during the winter months when there are more people here is to burn them all night and then do -- when daylight savings time comes, people have more time in the evening that's lighted, we could remove the fuses again and -- such as it is now. That's something the board might want to look at. Page 152 June 29, 2009 MS. VASEY: Well, actually the requirement of the amount of money we had in there was 340,000. We only took 150,000 out, assuming that we were just talking the winter months, because you apparently had no problems during daylight savings time doing it because you're doing it right now. MR. TIPTON: And we've had very few complaints. MS. VASEY: Would that result in any changes to the $340,000 if you do it that way? MR. TIPTON: No. This was based on-- MS. VASEY: Oh, that was based on it? MR. TIPTON: Yeah. MS . VASEY: Well, let me talk to you quickly about the mowing. Here we took $250,000 out of the mowing line. It was the lowest priority. The whole program for transportation maintenance, road and bridge, is $10.7 million. We did not feel that $250,000 was substantial. We thought that was a cut that could be taken. In fact, we've taken very little cuts in transportation. We gave money back for the CAT program up to the millage neu- -- up to the tax-neutral level, and we gave the disadvantaged -- we recommended. We don't give anything. We recommended that it be funded up to the tax-neutral level for the disadvantaged transportation program, so we had pluses to Norm's area as well as minuses. The second to last issue we had was on millage-neutral in the capital account, and that's on, I think, my capital five or -- no, that's okay. MR. FEDER: Capital nine. MS . VASEY: Capital nine, yeah. Now, this one, the millage- neutral would give him -- would give transportation $1.1 million more than the millage-neutral. So those are -- this was play of $1.1 million. Norm said that if he had to take that cut, it would be in the bridge structure, repair and construction as being his lowest priority item primarily because it's an increase. Even taking out the $1.1 million Page 153 June 29, 2009 leaves him the same amount of money as he had in FY09. So it's not cutting anything that he's currently doing. It's just removing an increase to the program. And we felt like that was a reasonable thing to do given the funding constraints and relative priorities across the whole budget. So that was our rationale, and you can take it or not. Then there was one other item that Jim will address on the reserves. MR. GIBSON: Jim Gibson, also representing the Productivity Committee. We -- I think Norm earlier fairly characterized the conversations we had regarding reserve levels. As a percentage of the adopted '09 budget, the contingencies, again, on a much higher budget level, represented 4.2 percent, about just under $12 million. This year, the base is much lower, approximately 112 million, 111 million. Reserves are nine million. So on a percentage basis, the reserves are more than double what they were a year ago; even in our absolute dollars they're down several million. And in our discussions, it did boil down to the potential litigation that's out there. Those were their concerns. In our talks, we -- it sounded to us like the county's defenses were very good and very plausible cases, and it was -- seemed unlikely to us that the county would be in a position to lose all three litigation situations in one fiscal year, and for that reason, we felt it was not imprudent to reduce the reserves by approximately a million dollars or so, down to about 7 percent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Norm, would you respond to the issue of the $1.1 million reduction relating to bridge maintenance? MR. FEDER: We basically recently had our first set of reports a Page 154 June 29, 2009 little over a year ago now that came through and identified some significant deficiencies in five of our bridges. The state reviews the bridges every two years. Our bridges, about a little over 100 of them, are approaching, in most cases, a little over 40 years old. Your bridge life is somewhere in the 50-year range, but, you know, give or take, and so we had five. Our concern was that our costs for those repairs, reconstruction possibility on one, which we're able to do some major repairs as opposed to reconstruction, are going to place us as needing more funds in a bridge program and an established bridge program. The other thing we're trying to do with that is, if we weren't spending on repairs as it came up with the next cycle of reports, was to start moving on the bridges out in Golden Gate Estates where we've got a two-lane grid that is cut up by a lot of canals and unable to be used effectively for emergency response for EMS, for fire, and for police, and we went out and identified with the community and came to a report with you on where the priorities were for those response time issues. So that was the other option in trying to expand the bridge program. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you can get the same amount of money for FY201 0 as you had in '09 by reducing it by $1 point (sic) million, it seems to me it gives you enough money to do some work, but maybe you just need to phase it out over two fiscal years. MR. FEDER: Maybe we need to phase it out more. But, again, we're looking at a system that is aging, and so that was a concern. But as I said, we can work with the recommendations of the Productivity Committee if that's this board's direction. Our concern is the impacts of the millage-neutral on operations overall that we had to identify to meet board direction on a 15 percent reduced direction. That places us in an untenable position because we're already behind in our maintenance efforts, and this would put us further behind. Page 155 June 29, 2009 So, again, that bridge falls a little bit in there, but a little less so. Could we work with it? Of course we could. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would like to see you work with it. MR. FEDER: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, these bridges have been there -- MR. FEDER: Over 40 years. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and we've had that chopped-up grid for a long, long, long, long time. I'm not sure that a 12-month delay would -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. The predominant was for the repairs based on the last report. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Secondly, I'm not a big proponent of just -- of just taking a book guideline and saying we need to rebuild these things every 40 or 50 years. I think we need to inspect them, and if they are unsafe, then we need to get on them pretty quickly. MR. FEDER: Oh, please understand, I did not say a book guideline. The five that I mentioned to you were definitely based on inspections. As a matter of fact, we were able to come in and get some clarification and refinement on them when we did the inspection following the DOT's program. So we're only responding to repairs and actions on the bridges that truly need it. But we did have five that were identified in the last report, which is the first time. And if you look at the numbers, the condition ratings on our bridges, they're coming down. Again, I only gave you the life-span as it has a general indication. Bridge is about 50 years. Most of ours are past the 40-year time frame. So it's not terribly surprising we're going to start to see more of that demand in repair. Could we live another year without that 1.1 million? Of course we could, and we'll spread things out. And if we get in a report with needs, we'll find a way to respond. Page 156 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be wise, at least from my opinion, and to address an issue that we had talked about before about whether or not the money comes out of the general fund or goes back into the general fund if we use it. Quite frankly, all of the money we get comes from taxpayers, so anything we do to reduce our budget is a benefit to taxpayers. Whether it's a benefit to property tax or sales tax or gasoline tax or whatever, it behooves us to take a look at reducing overall costs to the extent we can. MR. FEDER: And I want to assure you that we take that same orientation. And I mentioned that we've gone through an awful lot of effort within transportation to look at our operations, look at what we do. We've got everything set out in process mapping, other issues to make sure that we're doing it as efficiently as we can. These are all taxpayer dollars, whether it's gas tax -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, they are. MR. FEDER: -- whether it's ad valorem and the like. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. FEDER: I will say there are impacts, obviously. It's just a matter of balancing those impacts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just to summarize. My preference is that you reverse that transfer to Fund 111 and that you take a look at just phasing those bridge repairs over maybe two fiscal years and see if we can save some money there. And I still would like for you to take another look at that contingency reserve issue. And that's all I have, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have you looked at what the possibilities of lying ahead for next year are? Our understanding, from what the County Manager has told us and from the budget office, that we're going to be going through another round of budget cuts again next year. And if we end up cutting everything out, what do we have Page 157 June 29, 2009 left as far as anything for bridge repair or mowing next year? MR. FEDER: We would anticipate that we'd look at the budget, whenever you end up. We'll probably be down on ad valorem about 11 percent. Our gas tax revenues have stayed generally level but gone down and there buying power's generally gone down, but it's been a little bit of a reduction -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for next year -- MR. FEDER: -- for more fuel efficiency, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what you're looking for, not-- I'm looking for -- MR. FEDER: I'm trying to answer your question for next year, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. FEDER: What I'm telling you is my expectation next year for the budget is that my ad valorem, whether it's 111 or 101 combined, will be about 11 percent down, that my gas tax will be down again somewhat because of fuel efficiency, gas prices. The more they go up, the -- it goes down as well, and we've seen that trend that my gas tax revenues, unfortunately, aren't indexed, are going down somewhat. And on impact fees, I think Nick pointed out, with the decision to spread it over five years and unless the economy starts moving up rapidly, I would expect we'd probably be about on a level plane to where we are now, which is down 75 percent from our peak of about 72 million to about 18 million. So in other words, I'll be trying to basically keep another budget with some further reduction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In regards to mowing in the urban area, what was that schedule again? MR. FEDER: Two times a month in the urbanized area, one time a month outside the urbanized area. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we're meeting that at Page 158 June 29, 2009 the present time, are we? MR. FEDER: No, you are not, but we did get some favorable bids in. As I said, it's one of the first times that outsourcing that has proven to be more cost effective. And, again, we look at those things on a constant basis. Now, what I will tell you, in answer to your question -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's good to hear. MR. FEDER: -- for next year and after. Once we go more and more to that outsource, if those prices go up, then we find ourselves without the staffing -- we've lost that already -- and without maybe some of the equipment and the capability as those prices go up. So I don't want to surprise you if all of a sudden I say, my costs to mow on that basis is going up because right now we're hitting some of the bottom of the troth, but we're trying to take advantage of it, just as the commissioner pointed out, in other areas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And lastly, Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Feder, I'm a little bit upset about the conversation that's been taking place about the bridges and the repairs of the bridges that are way past due and trying to put it off to future years, and I notice that when you were listening to Commissioner Coyle, you were taking detailed notes. I hope you don't see that as the direction of this commission. I can tell you my fellow commissioners would never put the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this county in jeopardy. You, yourself, stated that these bridges have been inspected, that they do need the repairs, that you're not following something from a book that says every so many years they have to be done. And if we're going to save money, let's save money from something like medium (sic) plant -- plantings the mediums and maintaining them, I mean, which I'm not going to be an advocate for Page 159 June 29, 2009 doing that, us taking that apart. But I mean, if we're going to do something, I mean, next we'd be talking about cutting services for EMS. It doesn't make any sense. And also, too, you mentioned the fact that in the outgoing years, especially next year, we know we're going to be in even more of a financial bind, and possibly this program, as far as bridge repairs go, may have to take a hit next year because of what's taking place. So if we try to balance this out over the upcoming uncertainty of future budgets, I don't see where that's ever going to go. MR. FEDER: I appreciate it. Let me just make sure I put it in proper perspective. The five bridges we identified, and we're working on those now, what we've identified is a bridge program, because we anticipate more to come. So we're not necessarily deferring an item without that 1.1 million that's taken out. That's specifically already been identified, but we're looking at what the prospects are coming. So we have that ability possibility to work there. I am not encouraging that we pull back, but I also recognize we have a very tight budget. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that. MR. FEDER: If I can be of any assistance, I can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MR. FEDER: But our maintenance is up, our cost level of service is down. You mentioned landscaping. I can't go any lower than zero. I have zero for landscaping capital proposed. I did that last year. We put some in as turn-back money. Zero proposed on landscaping. And we've already cut significantly our level of service in our maintenance of existing landscaping segments. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand all that, it's just that what we're doing here is we're setting priorities. And when it comes to the safety of anyone in this community, I put that above everything else. MR. FEDER: Yeah. And there's no question. And again, you Page 160 June 29, 2009 have deferrals of things. Like we're -- in the capital, if we end up hitting the capital in these areas, we already deferred proj ects. We're going to continue to. I've got concurrency issues that aren't being addressed now, Golden Gate Boulevard as well as Santa Barbara and others. But we'll work with what this board directs, the board in general. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And the board hasn't directed yet. MR. FEDER: I've taken notes of what you've said and what everybody's said to me, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we'll wind up with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Ifwe can try to give some directions. You know, I agree we need to take all that landscaping capital out and put it towards those five bridges, like Commissioner Coyle said, and the other thing that Commissioner Coyle says, I think, is very prudent, and we need to move it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There wasn't any landscaping in, right? MR. FEDER: No landscaping. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There wasn't anything to take out is what Norm was just saying. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Okay, very good. So now we're finished with this subject. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FEDER: Thank you. PUBLIC SERVICES CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we'll go on to public services. Page 161 June 29, 2009 MR. OCHS: Public services. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll tell you what we're going to do in just a second, but first -- first, do you know a little bird told me that it's somebody's birthday, and it's Marla. (Happy Birthday was sung in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, that feels good, doesn't it? (Applause.) MS. RAMSEY: Do I get a birthday wish? CHAIRMAN FIALA: First somebody has to light a fire, or bring out a cake or something, right? MS. RAMSEY: I think there's one in the back of your office. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There is. I was waiting for them to come out. I was trying to call somebody so they could walk out with this cake all lit up and nobody's here. So we might have to stop this meeting when they bring the cake out. Thank you. We needed a little levity, didn't we? Now what we're going do is, Marla, maybe can you take -- because there are a lot of speakers, and each one -- Commissioner Henning suggested that they speak first, but I think what we ought to do is introduce the subject, like libraries or DAS or beach parking, and then as you introduce the subject, then we'll get the speakers on that particular subject, wrap that up, and then go to the next one. Will that work for you? MS. RAMSEY: It's fine with me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think you've got more speakers for the library here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we'll start with library then. MS. RAMSEY: I was going to start off with just a little spiel, if you have just a couple of minutes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MS. RAMSEY: You know, public services division, of course, is the face of our county, and we do interact with a lot of our Page 162 June 29, 2009 community members on a daily basis and that -- we have done a very good job over the last three years of reducing our budget and squeezing it down to something that we feel is efficient. There are 430 vacant positions, people that are gone from the county, and of those 430, 148 of them come out of public services division, so we carry 35 percent of the position that have been lost. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was that figure again? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Say it all over. MS. RAMSEY: 430 positions, bodies, people are either gone or frozen, of those, 148 of them come from the public services division. So it's 35 percent of those vacancies are coming from our department. And so I know that the 3 percent budget that we have before you is very doable for us. It keeps our level of service pretty much what you see today with some of the closures that we've already had to make in our mid-year adjustments. The 15 percent cut is devastating to a number of our areas, as you are very well aware, as you have heard from a lot of people in our community. And if you'd like to start with libraries, I can do that, and Marilyn can talk a little bit about what that 15 percent cut means to her department. MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthew, library director. As Marla said, the 3 percent cut leaves us pretty much as we are. We reduced hours May 1 st, and we would maintain those reduced hours for the coming fiscal year. The 15 percent budget reduction provides a reduced level of service to the public, including closing of three of the smaller libraries. Services would be provided at the regional libraries, which are within 10 miles of the libraries that would be closed. Purchase of library materials, including electronic databases, books; audio/visual materials would also be reduced. In both budgets the library is deferring replacement computers IPage 163 June 29, 2009 and other equipment and, of course, as everybody, is limiting travel and training expenses. But no matter which budget you're looking at, the library's share of the overall general fund budget is about 2 percent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: How much? MS. MATTHES: About 2 percent, a little -- slightly over that, but not much. And you've been hearing, I know, about possible ways to reduce costs. And it's a tough decision, we know, for you this year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to tell them what would happen with furloughs in your department, or would you prefer not to? MS. MATTHES: I can think of some people that are living paycheck to paycheck in the library. It would be difficult for some people to manage a furlough of any significance. I don't know specifically what would happen. I know some people, and I know some of them, it would be difficult for them to handle that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. And now our speakers for libraries. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, Madam Chair. We have seven speakers for this matter. Barbara Klauber, who will be followed by William Klauber. MS. KLAUBER: I'd like to cede my time -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ma'am? MS. KLAUBER: -- to the rest of the committee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you want to cede your time to somebody? MS. KLAUBER: Yeah, to the rest of the committee in view of the late hour. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know who the rest of the committee is, but okay. And William Klauber? CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the person after that so they can get up and get to a mike? Page 164 June 29, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: Georgia Hiller. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is Wayne taking three minutes or six minutes? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm giving three minutes to everybody at this point unless somebody wants the other three. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Somebody said they were ceding their time. MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea who they want to cede their time to. MR. KLAUBER: Her husband, of course. I'm not sure I need it. Anyway, good afternoon, and I am Bill Klauber. And after listening to these proceedings since 10:30 this morning, I realize that you each need to really possess the wisdom of Solomon, and I wish you a lot of luck. I'm here though as chairman of the North Naples Community Alliance Save Our Library Campaign. As you know, the north -- maybe you don't -- the North Naples Community Alliance consists of seven associations and communities in that area. In addition, we've been joined by other community efforts within District 2, as you will hear shortly. And our library is the Vanderbilt Beach branch, which has become an integral part of our community since its opening more than a quarter of a century ago. So it is the threat to that library that I am most concerned about, but I'm also concerned about closing any library . And we're certainly aware of the financial problems facing the county, which so clearly presented by Commissioner Halas in his recent essay . We also realize that our branch is not unique, that two others are facing similar curtailments and that the whole library system is at risk. According to the numbers we've received, the Vanderbilt branch circulation continues to increase each year: 278,895 for fiscal year Page 165 June 29, 2009 2008, 9.3 percent of the total system-wide circulation for the county. Door counts reached 198,000, attendance at kids programs numbered almost 7,000, and volunteer hours totaled more than 2,000. Our library serves younger and older constituents who would find it a hardship to travel to another library, and we are committed to doing everything possible to maintain current levels of service and even to restoring previous cuts. We've been successful so far. The community has rallied, and the success of our early fundraisers has allowed us to restore service in Fridays -- on Fridays through this next September. As an aside, even though many people weren't even aware of it, more than 400 people visited the branch on that first Friday of restored service earlier this month. And we're indebted to director of libraries, Marilyn Matthes, and to the other library professionals that guided and had helped us, as well as volunteers and, of course, the Friends of the Library of Collier County. Our fundraising activities will continue on a monthly basis through next spring at least as we continued to determine -- determine to save our library. We respectfully ask that no libraries be closed but that we work together to find creative ways to keep them open. The importance of the neighborhood library cannot be minimized. They are as American as apple pie and far more nourishing. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. KLATZKOW: Next speaker is Georgia Hiller. She'll be followed by Olga Williams. MS. HILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Georgia Hiller, chair of the North Naples Community Alliance. The alliance represents over 18,000 citizens in the north district; however, we are not here today just to speak about the Vanderbilt Beach Library, which we care about deeply, but also about the other Page 166 June 29, 2009 two branch libraries which are being threatened with closure. The branch libraries provide 10 percent of the county's circulation. During these difficult economic times, citizens are faced with hardship, unable to go out and purchase books, unable to go to the movies, unable to rent DVDs, looking for resources to help them find jobs. The libraries provide these services. It has been suggested that a library fee be charged. This is unconscionable. This is just another tax. It is a tax negatively impacting those who need libraries the most and who can least afford to pay for such a card. In fact, if a library fee would be charge -- I'm sorry. If a fee would be charged for library cards, it would result in the county losing state funding. At this time that state funding amounts to 300,000. First the 300,000 would have to be recovered, and then on top of that, an additional 600,000 would have to be earned by way of these fees. Not every citizen in this county would buy a card, nor would every citizen in this county be able to afford to buy such a card. As a result, you would not end up with more than what you are losing. Another suggestion has been made to eliminate DVDs from circulation. This would be nonresponsive, nonresponsive to what the public wants and, again, to what the public needs. To put it in perspective, circulation of books in the county is just over a million. Circulation of DVDs in the county, 800,000. It becomes obvious that an investment of $90,000 a year for new DVDs is a well -- is well -- pardon me -- is worth -- tongue twister -- is worthwhile making when you consider the vast benefit which is derived as a result. Additionally, a suggestion was made that citizens should be charged for checking out books or checking out DVDs. I don't believe that could be legally done at a public library. During the break one commissioner said that he would vote to keep the millage rate the same if a library fee was charged and would Page 167 June 29,2009 be considered the only way to raise revenues. His conclusion is obvious, since to raise the millage and charge such a fee would be double taxation and unnecessary. But raising the millage rate isn't the solution, not at a time when citizens are finding it harder and harder to pay their taxes. In 2009, the number of parcels that were tax delinquent was one-and-a-halftimes the delinquencies in 2007. Those numbers speak for themselves. We have to look to other solutions. One solution would be, for example, the purchase of electronic scanning equipment, which would result in a short payback period and long-term cost savings. May I have a few minutes? Thank you. And long-term cost savings. This could be achieved by offsetting savings achieved by setting aside unnecessary capital projects. Cutting hours minimally pro rata across all libraries so no single community is unfairly burdened is another alternative to sharing the shortfall. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Georgia, will you be finished shortly? MS. HILLER: I'm finished right now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, good. MS. HILLER: Commissioners, in short, there are certain services which must be preserved, all things being considered. Maintaining our branch service -- our branch libraries is one of them. Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Your next speaker is Olga Williams. She'll be followed by Carla Grieve. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, in my notes I was going to say good morning to everyone, but I think I'm going to say good afternoon. Good after late noon. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just wait a few more minutes. MS. WILLIAMS: I'm here from Naples Park Area Association, and I'm the past president, and I'm also chairperson of the civic Page 168 June 29,2009 association. You know, I said chairperson. That's the way you do it now. I've lived here 14 years in Naples Park. I love it. I just love Naples Park. They've got all kinds of people there, families, children, retired people, which one of them -- one is me. And they've been there. The association has been there 50 years when all the streets were just dirt. So -- and it's one square mile, and it's a very friendly place to live, and I just think it's great. This library is very crucial to us there. The children need it. The retired people read, read, read, and they love that library. I visited a woman yesterday who was home ill, and she is a member of the library, the Women of the Library. And she was reading a -- when I walked in -- a magazine on economics, and she told me she could understand the economics of the country. And she was reading it and said, there must be a way of solving this problem. Here she was with her legs up in the air because she had them all swollen, and she was reading about the economics. And she is an avid reader. And she's distressed that something might happen to that Vanderbilt Beach Library. She lives on 92nd Street, which is one street -- just one street down from Vanderbilt. And she has a -- she wants to go there in her car, because of her legs, to get books. Now, this person is 92 years old, and she still wants to read, and I think we should make it available to her, and I think we also should make it available to the children in the -- in Naples Park that love to go there and go on their bikes, and their families. It's better for them to be able to read than do nothing, and a lot of them don't have any money to do anything else. And they would -- oops. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Oops, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Page 169 June 29, 2009 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much for having me today. MR. KLATZKOW: The next speaker is Carla Grieve, who will be followed by Laurel Paster. MS. GRIEVE: My name is Carla Grieve, and I'm a member of the board of the Friends of the Library, a relatively new member. I've only been there a little less than two years. I've been a full-time Collier County resident since '94, and before that a seasonal visitor. Many people seated in this room are members of the Friends of the Library and make tax deductible contributions so that funds are available to enhance the basic services of all the libraries of Collier County. Friends of the Library have been doing this for over 50 years, and they've been instrumental in the creation of the first library of Collier County which, by the way, free was part of its name at that time. Our libraries are a source of great value to Collier County citizens and visitors. There's printed material, electronic media, computers to use, reference sources, but these landmarks scattered over Collier County are also places of meetings, of community groups, and also just a nice spot to visit. The libraries are too valuable to so very many in our community, the children, the retirees, and everyone else in between. If dollars allocated to the libraries are reduced to such an extent that plans are being considered to close some, I implore you to reconsider these plans. None should be closed. Do not take away what so many of our citizens use to make their life better. If it's absolutely necessary to reduce hours, reduce them at all. Share the pain, don't close the libraries. Thank you. MR. KLA TZKOW : Your next speaker is Laurel Paster. She'll be followed by your last speaker on this item, Linda Fasulo. MS. PASTER: I'm Laurel Paster, and I'm representing the advocates for Vanderbilt Library. And we were slightly different than some of the other groups because we decided that we were going to Page 170 June 29, 2009 get petitions up in -- to support our library. And this is what our petition says. We, the undersigned, agree that it would be a huge loss to the community to close or further reduce the accessibility of the Vanderbilt Beach branch of the Collier County library system. This branch serves families in a wide area of Naples, from Pelican Bay all the way north to Bonita Beach Road and all the communities west of Goodlette- Frank Road. It is a treasure we don't want to lose. At this juncture we have 1,335 signatures, and they come from all over the northern regions. I live just four blocks south of Bonita Beach Road and west of Vanderbilt Drive, and so I'm about seven miles from the library, and people who live on Barefoot Beach are about 10 miles. So anyway, we have a way to go, but we love that library . And, you know, I have a question and a kind of challenge for you commissioners. How many times do you hear people saying I love that library? And I hear that all the time from people who are coming to the library day after day, week after week. They bring their kids, they come on bicycles, some of them are homeless, some of them are jobless, and they go to the library because they use the computers there to try to find jobs. Some people come there just to do research who don't own computers. And I was thinking of what Commissioner Halas said before about the DVDs. I've been going to the library since I was three, and that's a long time. When I started out, what we had were books and a story-telling hour. And then as I -- you know, time went by, they had books on tape, and then they had books on CDs, and they also have CDs of music, and they had all kinds of things, and now they have DVDs and they have computers. And it's just -- it's knowledge in different kind of forms. And if you happen to look at the DVDs in the library, most of them are really old ones. I mean, a lot of them are from '60s and '70s, Page 171 June 29, 2009 they're foreign books, foreign movies, and they're just enrichment of all kinds. And I really think that the Vanderbilt Library is just one precious jewel, and we just have to keep it open, and I hope you will consider that. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. KLATZKOW: Your last speaker-- MS. FASULO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. MR. KLATZKOW: Your last speaker is Linda Fasulo. MS. FASULO: I'm Linda Fasulo, executive director of the Friends of the Library of Collier County. And I just want to say, I'm very glad I'm not sitting in your seat up there. I know you have some tough decisions to make, and you really are between a rock and a hard place. That said, libraries are important to this community for so many reasons. They provide services to just the full spectrum of county residents. As Carla mentioned, we founded the library system in conjunction with the Board of County Commissioners. We raised the funding to build the first library in Collier County. It was the Collier County Free Public Library at that time. Our position is that it should continue to be the Collier County Free Public Library. Closing libraries hurts probably those who can least afford it. The services offered in libraries, the technology that they have access to, the information, the recreation; it's a package deal, and it's so important to everyone. Even those who don't utilize the library, it has an indirect impact on their property values. Communities with viable and functioning and top-notch library systems are ranked among the most desirable communities to live in. That is something to also consider. The library -- excuse me. The library also does generate income even though it's not necessarily on -- credited back to the library. The Page 1 72 June 29, 2009 library raises somewhere in excess of $200- to 250,000 in fines and fees, and that money goes back into the general fund as opposed to -- as opposed to being used to offset the library's bottom line. And so cutting hours, cutting usage, requiring payment for library cards, charging for DVDs, all of this is going to impact that income as well. I really don't think it's going to have the end result that you hope it will. And I've also been asked to speak on behalf of Mark Teeters from the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Mark waited as long as he could. He had an appointment this afternoon. But he asked me to express the importance of that specific library to the Golden Gate Estates community. And I can actually attest to that, too, because my grandchildren and children live in that area, and they would have to drive more than 30 miles to come downtown or go to the headquarters library so -- they couldn't do it, especially with gas prices going up, all the other factors. They couldn't do it. And the library's extremely important to my grandchildren. They're there every chance their mother gets to take them. So thank you for your time, and I appreciate your consideration. CHAIRMAN FIALA: One of the -- one of the things that wasn't mentioned, but I'm just going to throw in a pitch -- I have to admit to you now, I have to tell you I have a little bit of a bias because I'm a library fan. I want to hug every librarian, everybody that works in one, so I have a little bit of a bias. But one of the programs that wasn't mentioned today but also one I would hate to see missing is the -- are the books that they mail out to people who cannot get to the library on their own, and then they mail them back. That's a marvelous service. That's just another one of the many good things the library does. Okay. I've shown my bias, too much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marilyn, I was asked to pick up Page 173 June 29, 2009 a CD for my son at one of the libraries, uses that quite a bit, and I know a lot of other kids do, because you can't get them in a video store. They're just -- just something that I don't think that they would stock. But anyways, what I noticed was there were two people behind the counter scanning -- able to scan the book in or the CD or whatever item. And I thought, you know, I go to Wal-Mart or I go to Home Depot and I scan items in all the time. Why don't we offer that instead of having two employees do that? And that way you can spread your employees out more. MS. MATTHES: Sure. You're talking about self-checkout units? We have looked at them in the past, and I don't have a current update on costs. The costs I had from a couple years ago varied from 700,000 to 140- -- or a million-four. Our problem with the technology is, it doesn't easily handle the kind of security that we use for our materials, and to upgrade the security for the materials is very expensive. But it is something that we're looking at and trying to evaluate. I know that our own automation vendor has a current upgrade to the capabilities of their system, and it's certainly something that we would like to look at in the future. If you notice in W al- Mart, you have a -- an attendant who is helping people who have trouble and making sure that people actually pay for what they take. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have like six checkouts and one person. MS . MATTHES: For one -- right, right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they have to have security because they sell alcohol. I mean, just -- to me it's some- -- it's a -- it's something that I think is -- MS. MATTHES: And you're right, and we are continuing to look at it. And-- Page 174 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing is, in last year's capital budget, you had a program for Sugden water ski structure interpretated (sic) center, which we just approved, $1.3 million, and you just told us that it cost a half a million dollars to build. Where's the rest of that money go? MS. RAMSEY: It -- it goes back into the reserves of that particular fund, so that fund for us is a -- it's a Ill-funded -- well, it could be 111 fund, it could be 001 fund. But our capital could come from either one of those locations. And in that case it probably came from an 001, but it will go back into the reserves if we're not going to utilize that, which can be utilized in the carry-forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we know we're not going to utilize it. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, and I'm -- and it's probably -- you know, I don't know if the forecast -- I believe this forecast was done before that dollar amount actually came in. But the forecast would then recognize that as carry-forward into the next fiscal year, which means you would not ask for as much from those funding sources if your carry- forward was offsetting it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much of your capital improvements is 001 money, or -- yeah. They'd be -01 or 111 moneys, right? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, they would be either 001 or the 111. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have $7 million, I think, in capital improvements budget? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. That's all 111, unincorporated funding. We have no requests for 001 funds this year for capital. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They -- say that again. Which fund are they coming out of? MS. RAMSEY: Fund 111, the incorporated. All of the capital requests coming from the 111 fund. We have no requests for 001 funded capital. Page 175 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're using tax dollars, property tax dollars, out of the unincorporated, and we heard we had how much money from this windfall from the state? Was it $7.5 million? MR. ISACKSON: Well, no, Commissioner. The communications services tax, that's the -- one of the largest non-property tax sources of revenue in Fund 111. It's -- we're forecasting to receive 7.5 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: We normally would receive five million. So there's a two-and-a-half, call it a rebate, from the state for things of that nature that we're going to get in. But that's a one-time allocation. We expect to receive it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's just like that constituent that was constantly emailing me is, okay, you're asking more from me, but I see that you're putting landscape in a park. Why can't we do some of -- some of the reductions out of your capital program and keep your libraries whole, your parks whole, your DAS whole? MS. RAMSEY: You can, except for most of those funding sources that you just mentioned are 001 funds, and the capital funds that we've got available are a 111 fund. The request that we have is from a 111 fund, and the only one that falls underneath that one is parks. All the rest fall under your 001 funding stream. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there must be a way to take it from general fund. You know, Norm was playing with those two funds, too. It just doesn't make sense to be out there and making -- making improvements and either raising taxes or asking for fees, I mean, it's -- like I said this morning, we're going to improve the entryway to Building F, this building -- but yet for constituents to come in to pay proposed, or something, beach parking stickers. Now, I'm glad we're having security down there because you're Page 176 June 29, 2009 going to need it, because if -- you know, I could tell you what I'm hearing, and these capital funds need to be reduced and keep the constituents whole on their services, and that's the direction I want. I don't want to raise taxes on constituents and I don't want new fees that, you know, these people have enjoyed for years and years. So that's my direction. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, you had mentioned before something about other speakers. Who are -- who are the next batch of speakers? What subject? Maybe we should move on to that. MS. FILSON: I have one speaker for the museum. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. FILSON: I have three for DAS and three for ago services. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, let's just try them as we -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just ask one question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a statement made about library cards, and if you charge for library cards you lose funding; is that true? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MS . MATTHES: We lose access to state grants and, yeah, we lose state aid to libraries, E- Rate funding. The construction grants that we've gotten in the past years, we would not qualify for that type of thing. Federal grants also we would not qualify for anymore. COMMISSIONER HALAS: For charging for the library card. MS. MATTHES: By charging for any core library service, and that core would include checking out materials. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was a statement made by Commissioner Henning about DVDs, and obviously I think what he's referring to. This is a DVD for learning. I have no problem with any kind of DVDs in regards to learning and things of this nature. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was Snoopy. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I do have a problem with Page 1 77 June 29, 2009 where we have latest -- where we have the latest run movies, and I think that we're in direct competition with the private sector. Now, that I have a problem with. But if there's an educational material that -- in regards to DVDs, whether it's books or even old movies, that you can't (sic) no longer get in a video store, I think that's one of the responsibilities of the library. Where we've got latest run movies that come available, I have a concern about that. The other thing later on -- and I hope you maybe have the cost. What's the cost of -- and I only want this so that people understand what the cost is of running a branch library. So I want to know what the cost is for a full-time employee and the cost of running those buildings per year. So if I can have that for later on, I'd appreciate that. MS. MATTHES: It's -- actually it's in your budget book under the library services. It's divided out by each facility. MS. RAMSEY: It's on Page 40 underneath public services. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 40. MS. RAMSEY: In the middle of the page. And we have the three branch libraries there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And if you -- you'll have to add the two numbers together probably, Marilyn, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. MS. MATTHES: You're right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta and Coyle, would you mind if I heard the speakers, or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would, I would mind, because we're on libraries right now, and I think we ought to finish with libraries -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and get on with it, and then we Page 178 June 29, 2009 can talk about the others, but -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with respect to library services, it just astounds me that with as many people as there are in this community that are supportive of libraries and the many people who want to volunteer, that you would ever be short of staff or help anytime. Tell me why we can't get the people who are interested in libraries to help us out in this time of economic difficulty. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, let me talk to you in general about volunteers, and our volunteers that we have in the public services are a Godsend to us. But what we've been asked by a number of people is, why can't we use our volunteers to extend our services, and that becomes problematic for us because volunteers are not as reliable as paid staff are. And so, they can enhance our programming, but to say that -- if we're going to be open till five and we're going to now go to seven because we're going to rely on volunteers to help us make that happen becomes very problematic because we still have to have staff in the building in order to do that. And when the volunteer calls in and says that they've got a conflict or family's in town or they're going to be gone for the summer, it puts a real strain on our staff in order to continue to provide the service without the volunteers to do that. So enhancement, our volunteers are all about that. But to have them come and expect them to be there for ten hours a week for 52 weeks or whatever does become problematic. Those are so rare that we find that type of person that's willing to work with us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So a partnership with the public isn't really effective in solving your problem? MS. RAMSEY: It's not effective extending our services, but it does greatly enhance our programming. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, for those people Page 179 June 29, 2009 seeking enlightenment and entertainment, you don't really need the library. You just come here and spend the day, and think of what you learn. Doesn't cost us a penny. Okay. So what you're suggesting is that even with the tax-neutral proposal, you're still going to have to close certain libraries? MS. RAMSEY: No. We're only going to be exactly at the hours we are today. But I will make a but to that. Right now we're open on Fridays at the Vanderbilt branch, which we would not -- is not part of our 3 percent cut. We would be closed on Fridays. There was an additional funding that came into place. But in our 3 percent, we will be at the exact hours that we are today in those branches, which means the three branches are closed on Friday and Saturday. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Sunday. MS. RAMSEY: And Sunday. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Oh, and by the way, thank you for the entertainment, Commissioner Coyle. But I'll tell you what, when it comes to our libraries, I personally can't say I put much time in libraries. I don't have a reason to go there that often, but I did have an occasion last summer. I had some very important business that I had to conduct over the Internet. And my server went down and it was like 11 :30 at night. Now, your library's not open at 11 :30 at night, but I want you to know that the Golden Gate Library, if you get in -- if you get next to the far southwest corner of the library, next to the building and lean against it, you can get a signal strong enough at 11 :30 at night to be able to get the Internet. So I mean, if it wasn't for the libraries, I'd have been in a lot of trouble. I'd have missed the deadline. But in any case, I want to tell you I have taken the time to sit in Page 180 June 29, 2009 the Golden Gate Library, the city library, and also the Golden Gate Estates Library and the Immokalee Library, and I can tell you, the amount of use -- I don't know if they knew I was coming and they had people come because I was there or not, but it was unbelievable. And the amount of use of the computers was just absolutely phenomenal. These are people that, in times of need -- and there's a lot of people in the Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City area that are in great need, and it's also in East Naples, not to forget that, and they're relying more and more on libraries not only for their entertainment but for their day-to-day business and to be able to find new opportunities in this world. So I want to tell you that I'm behind what you want to do 100 percent. I don't think we should cut a nickel. We went way out of our way in the last couple years to establish two new libraries, main libraries, what do you call them, the -- MS. RAMSEY: Regionals. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- regional libraries, and that was for a very good reason, because we know there's a need out there. And under no circumstances do I want to see us close any libraries. And please, don't cut back the hours, and if more funding does come available, start to restore the hours. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your answer to Commissioner Coyle doesn't make sense. What do you do when an employee calls in sick? Do you close the library? MS. RAMSEY: No, sir, but there is backup on the system. You have to understand, our branch libraries right now, we have three people in those branch libraries providing that 36 hours of open time that we have, and that is a maj or strain on them already. Page 181 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have backup? MS. RAMSEY: There are -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: If an employee calls in sick, you have backup. MS. RAMSEY: There is backup. We try to have two staff persons on at a time, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I talked to Mr. Teeters on Saturday, and they created a whole list of volunteers. And you can't find a backup for a volunteer? MS. RAMSEY: It's very difficult. I'll let -- Marilyn deals with it on a daily basis. I'll ask her to just confirm or deny. MS. MATTHES: It's not just the reliability. And of that list of volunteers, nobody has yet to actually fill out the volunteer application and apply to be a volunteer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they were told, you're wasting your time because we're not going to use volunteers. MS. MATTHES: We did not tell them that. MS. RAMSEY: No, never. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the message that came across. MS. MATTHES: It's also a problem to have somebody -- to rely on somebody to provide the service that is only there four hours a week once a week, or five hours or whatever. There are some complex systems that we use. And just the fact of checking out books with our computer system, it's easy for staff who do it every day. We notice that when we hire part-time people who work 20 hours a week, it takes a bit longer for them to learn a system than it does the 40-hour-a-week person to learn that same system. And it would be even more difficult for a person coming in five hours a week to really be totally functional and to be able to help people use the library. So it's not only the reliability. But -- on Saturday we try to get as many volunteers as we can,r Page 182 June 29, 2009 and around holidays, more often than not, three out of three volunteers at the headquarters library call in and say they're not coming, which just backs us up in getting materials back on the shelf and making them available for the public again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the contract for the 951 boat extension? How much was that? MS. RAMSEY: The contract for that, 951, was about-- MR. McALPIN: It was 1.2 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That was -01 moneys; is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: It was 001 money, and some Florida boater improvement funds as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have an extra $400,000, and that -- what about the allocations last year for the Port of the Isles? MS. RAMSEY: The Port of the Isles actually was absorbed in our existing budget with no additional funds, and that included staffing as well as stocking the shelves. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, last year you had $4 million, or this working year you had $4 million. Was that -- MS. RAMSEY: For the purchase of it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to purchase it? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that's the purchase of it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can we find out if these moneys or the Sugden Park and other things, if they're already in this budget? MS. RAMSEY: Susan-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were contracted out -- they were contracted out, and the contracts came in less than what was budgeted for, so can we find out where those moneys are -- where they're at? Are they still budgeted for that capital improvement? MR.OCHS: We'll get back to you. We'll get you a report in the . mornIng. Page 183 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we do that for all these -- I know that would be very difficult to do -- but fairly soon so we actually know what we're working with? Because I would suspect those moneys are still tied to that proj ect -- MR.OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if that project is not completed. MR.OCHS: Correct. MR. McALPIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we loosen those moneys up and get Marilyn funded and parks and -- well, maybe. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all. MS. RAMSEY: If I could have a clarification on that then, because there are some proj ects that are on the list that we have not let yet. And Commissioner Fiala, I hate to bring this up, but Manatee's one of them, and there is about $2 million sitting in there against that particular fund. So -- and we -- as you know, we are trying to finish the master plan on that and to move that forward. The other thing that comes into play, and is just an aside, is that we're able to make our impact fees right now in the park side to cover the debt service, but in the next year or so, the debt service is probably not going to be able to get covered by the impact fees that we're bringing in, and so some of these fundings that I have up against some projects that were out in future years is where we're pulling the funds in order to be able to pay the debt service. And we did that with a project up in Commissioner Halas' district to meet the funds this fiscal year. So-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then why add more? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we have no more impact fee eligible funds in here. For new projects, we have only looked at some repair and replace and some enhancements, for example, security cameras in Page 184 June 29, 2009 parks in order to -- if we're going to make a cut in staffing, then the security cameras will help us to take care of the parks in a better position. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my point is, the Manatee Park, that's going to be debt loaded, correct? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we're paying cash for that project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Paying cash for that project. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're building a new park, but our existing residents -- yeah, I mean, that just doesn't make sense. MS. RAMSEY : Well, just in that -- on behalf of that one. I mean, at that particular location, there is a health, safety issue I feel there, because our children that are out there -- and we've got, you know, a number of children out there on a daily basis right now, and you know what the weather looks like today and how we have rain storms and lightning and whatnot, and we have tents out there for children and a very small place for those kids to get out of the rain. And if we're going to continue to do programs like that, I do believe we should have solid buildings for those kids to get into and to get out of the heat on a periodic basis, and that's why those two projects have been -- that project has been on a list for almost three years, and it takes us that long to permit and to fund it and to get it ready to build, and so there is a delay on that. But we have no new projects moving forward, just some follow-up projects that I mentioned, like Manatee. And if the board wishes to pull funds off of those forwards in order to make what are ongoing expenses with one-time dollars, then that's a decision that you give to me and I would move that forward for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a school -- school right there. You're talking about off school time. Is there any way you can talk to the school? MR. McALPIN: You're talking about Sugden. He's talking about Page 185 June 29, 2009 Manatee. MS. RAMSEY: I'm talking about Sugden, the Sugden project. That's where we've got the kids, Sugden, at the lake. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already let that project? MS. RAMSEY: Yes; yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to move forward with the next one? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it break-time? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Huh? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it break-time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I guess -- commissioner Coyle just mentioned that we need to have another break because our stenographer looks like her fingers are dropping off. Yes, it is break- time. MR. OCHS: Ten minutes? CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll be back in ten minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we'll bring this meeting back to order. Productivity Committee has a very short presentation. We're going to try and limit it to three minutes because we'll finish up the library, then we're going to go on to extension service. There's three people to speak from extension service. We'll get through that, and then we'll go to the next one, I think it's -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: DAS? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HALAS: DAS? CHAIRMAN FIALA: DAS after that. MS. FILSON: Four. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have four speakers on that. Then we have museum. We have one speaker on that, okay. There we go. MS. DOWNS: Gina Downs speaking for the Productivity Page 186 June 29, 2009 Committee. On the library, I'm just here to elaborate on some of your options. As always, you have an option to take no action. That leaves you millage-neutral. You can reduce costs or raise revenue, like you can with any other business. Option one, taking no action closes three library branches. Those three branches are currently operating at reduced hours. It brings them back onboard with your millage-neutral, but still at reduced hours. Now, it's stated in your budget that it's $50,000 in maintenance costs to keep those libraries closed, but that only addresses electricity and tax. Doesn't take into account maintenance of the building, insurance, and security. It doesn't address the necessity of moving items in and out of those buildings. At millage-neutral, is the level of service acceptable? You have six out of ten facilities that are closed all weekend. You have only one library open on Sunday for four hours. Your staff is down by about one-third. You're replacing your materials at an average of 50 percent less than normal. Maybe that's acceptable. I don't know. Option two is if you want to further reduce costs. A new library came online last month. That library is going to add $1 million to your future budget. This year it adds 800,000 to the -- this fiscal year. Your only other options are for further cuts, whether it's this year or next year, if you want to further reduce hours, cut additional staff or cut inventory replacement. New cost-cutting measures are to eliminate DVDs and CDs, eliminate Internet access, or eliminate programs. Here are some of the programs. This is just last week's offering of programs at the library. They offer about 250 children's programs monthly. How to operate in a declining budget environment. Again, continue to cut, eventually add more cuts; or you can raise revenue, charge a user fee, if that's what it takes, for what the community Page 187 June 29, 2009 considers an acceptable level of service. Is it legal to charge a user fee? In some states it is, in some states it's not. It appears to be legal in Florida. Marilyn Matthew can verify there are states that charge these fees, and there are areas in Florida that charge them. You do risk losing state and federal grant funding. How much? Right now in your budget you have 200,000 from state aid for libraries, a possible e-grant funding of 80,000. Obviously if you're going to charge for services, those lost -- potential lost amounts have to be added back in. Are the grants irretrievable if we don't qualify for them? No, they are not. You simply write in and qualify for them eventually. This year -- I mentioned this year it's 200,000. Now, I'm not sure if this applies only to city libraries or municipal, but it is in the statute. Eventually, if you keep cutting hours and cutting material expenditures, the state library system will decertify you anyway, and your funds will be cut. This is a partial list of the wide range of services that you can and do charge fees for, fees, tax, whatever you like to call them. These are never substantial charges, and they do not net much revenue. This year the increase in those funds is only a few thousand dollars in your budget, so it's not a revenue maker. Around the world it's very interesting. The highest priced library membership in the world is for the London Library. It's 651 per year. Contrast that with Alberta, Canada, the Banff Library has always -- all of Alberta, Canada, has charged $10 a year membership. Banff was the first in 2000 to go with an all-free library. So there are many different approaches. There are many different studies on this area, as you can imagine, in this economy. This one talks about the rationale for charging fees while acknowledging that this is a public policy change. A decade ago there was a very strong economy. A public opinion Page 188 June 29, 2009 poll said that the general public tends to be more tolerant of fees than librarians. They polled 1,100 people in Illinois; 47 percent would like to raise taxes, 44 percent would be satisfied with the user fee, and 9 percent, of course, want you to do nothing and cut services. You had a county survey in 2000, a citizen survey. In that survey 90 percent were satisfied with the facility and service in '05. That was up from 86 percent in '05 (sic). When services, programs, and circulation were at an all time high, the public was very pleased. Will they be pleased with weekend closures with reduced hours and with closed branches? Only you can answer that. If a 2007 level of service is the aim, option three revenue is a possibility. Several options. The most obvious that's been talked about is to charge for DVDs. Circulation through May was 835,000 DVDs. A lot of libraries do charge for DVDs. Usually in the $1 range. A lot of libraries charge for Internet services up to $5 an hour. We do not do that. That's another revenue option for you. Compare that to Netflix for movies. 8.99 for one DVD out at a time. So as fast as you can send it in or out, you'd be paying $9 a month. Maximum of three DVDs out at one time for $17 a month for movie access. This is the value our library places on their services. Books at $15 apiece, videos at 4.50. You can read the entire list. The calculator is available on the Collier County Library website. There are slightly over 200,000 current library cardholders. About 160,000 of those are adults; 40,000 are children. Cost to keep the three branches open, $626,000. Should you decide to impose annual fees, the implementation of that takes many forms. You see the card on the left side is a student card. That's given at that particular library at a reduced rate; the card in the middle is for a library card that gives free -- that gives unlimited Internet privileges, and the card on the right has a bar code on it that Page 189 June 29, 2009 defines what level of service they're entitled to. At $25 for a full annual membership, that type of membership could have full DVD privileges. At $10 for a basic annual membership with no DVD privileges, you could still, if you choose, charge $1 for each DVD checked out. Children could have, again, your option, free memberships. There is away, and several libraries offer income qualified people free memberships to libraries, annual memberships. Almost 160,000 of our current adult library cardholders are adults. If your goal is to raise $626,500 to keep three branches open, albeit at reduced hours, at -- if we had 160,000 users, assume some will be income qualified and will not pay. Others you will lose out of principal. They will not pay for a card. If you keep 100,000 patrons at $10 a card, you raise $1 million. As I say, there are many varieties you can choose. 65,000 users who pay 25 for unlimited DVDs, and you can see what you net. Let's assume the other 35,000 users have a general membership at $10, you get almost two million a year. You have to raise enough to cover your potential lost grants. And if your goal is to keep the libraries open, you need that amount, too. Like Janet said earlier, if you hate it, you hate it. I'm just showing you your options. And last, I have attached to the back of your sheet a very good article that lists pros and cons on many, many fronts and is full of source and referenced materials at the end of that article. If you want to read it for this year's budget or next year's, or the year's after. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Gina. Now we'll be moving on to extension services. MR. HALMAN: Over the years, Collier County Extension Office has been providing non-biased educational service to not only homeowners but professionals as well. Page 190 June 29, 2009 This year's budget at the millage-neutral status would really cause us to have to eliminate one position, one core program in our office. And these reductions essentially would take the area of pesticide training, our CEU s that we give out for that training and landscape -- landscape training also, and it also would be able to eliminate our Hispanic and other foreign language pesticide training seSSIons. So our budget is fairly modest. What we try to do is use our funding for our staff and faculty at the university. Our present programs try to embark on and give you timely information as well as we can. What we try to do is give you research -- university research based educational programs for the citizens of Collier County that affect their everyday lives. So this funding would drastically impact our programs at our office. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. HALMAN: Any questions? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Halas, would you like to hear the speakers first, or did you want to ask a question? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to ask one question. In regards to the farm ago community, this budget cut, how would it affect the ago community in regards to pests that we seem to be having more and more of a problem where they're being imported coming in on cargo ships? Would this have a big effect as far as responding to an epidemic of particular species of beetles or whatever else? MR. HALMAN: One of the things that we always do with our faculty members is send them to in-service training sessions. This budget cut would affect our travel to these professional in-service trainings that the university prepares for us, so it would impact some of our training sessions. So if there was an epidemic somewhere, we would have to find other routes to get that training. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm concerned about the ago community in regards to Collier County and the surrounding area of Page 191 June 29, 2009 the other counties due to any kind of an infestation, and what would that have on the impact of the goods that the farmers grow in this particular area? MR. HAL MAN : This cut would -- because one of our core -- like I mentioned before, one of our core programs will be eliminated with this cut, so that person is not only an entomologist, but he's also a horticulturist. So the effect that we would -- that that would have on us would be devastating because of the information that he provides for us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this is based on if we go with a millage-neutral budget? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. HALMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if we go with a tax-neutral budget, this person would still be retained? MR. HALMAN: Yes. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner, would you mind if I called on Ron Hamel and the other two? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please do, yes, because that leads right into questions that I have -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Ron is going to answer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Ron Hamel could be the first speaker? MS. FILSON: He is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right-yo MS. FILSON: Ron Hamel, followed by Eva Webb. MR. HAMEL: Madam Chair, members of the commission, for the record, my name is Ron Hamel, and I generally represent the citrus industry in Southwest Florida, but today I'm here to represent all of agriculture. Page 192 June 29, 2009 There's a line item that really isn't in your budget that should be, and that's a $31,000 item to fund what we consider the commercial multi-county ago agents that serve the five-county region, including Collier County. This $31,000 investment has been wholeheartedly supported by the county's agricultural community and basically has asked me to come before this commission here today. It represents Collier County's share or fair share of four county commercial ago agents that work with the citrus, vegetable, cattle, and horticultural industries. And to Commissioner Halas' point, these agents are critical to try to fend off extreme damage to any of our crops and industries here in the region. This 31,000 is part of five counties that are kicking in under a multi -county agreement, which I just circulated and I believe we went over with your staff earlier. Thus far Charlotte, Glades, and Hendry are onboard, and we're petitioning this commission to come, and I'm also going to Lee County to get all five counties. Commissioners, as you are aware, the commercial citrus, vegetable, cattle, and nursery operations contribute millions of dollars to the economy to Collier County and the region. These ago agents, what we're talking about here, serve the scientific and technological needs to keep our industries healthy as much as they possibly can and also to keep ago sustainable. The details have been provided to the staff. We truly recognize, and it's been mentioned here today, you've got some tough challenges to fund the county and the county services under these current financially challenging times. And all of our counties have -- are facing the same things. In fact, for years, Hendry County has been funding all of these many years even though it was approved a few years ago, and the county Page 193 June 29, 2009 kind of dropped the ball and didn't administrate this. But under the current challenging times, we have to go back out to each of the counties and try to fund this. We need your support, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions. There's a lot of details that have been provided, but essentially these agents are the ones that go out and work with your commercial sector, our citrus industries, vegetables, cattle, and horticultural. So thank you for your time. I appreciate you -- your patience and efforts here in dealing with these budgetary issues. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, maybe we should call on the other two speakers first. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Eva Webb. She'll be followed by Gene McAvoy. MS. WEBB: Hi. I'm Eva Webb, and I'm with Florida Farm Bureau, and thank you for giving me the time to speak to you today on behalf of the extension and, of course, the multi -county extension agent. The extension provides an invaluable service to our agriculture. They are the conduit of information from the research side, research and development, directly to the farmers. They provide a lot of the technology that we use on the farms that help keep our farmers productive and cutting-edge, within the cutting-edge technology -- cutting-edge technology, excuse me. And what this helps our farmers do, it gives them that competitive edge in the global market. We're growing more unless (sic) all the time. What this does is it allows our farmers to grow more unless we hear that. Ag. land is declining, and yes, it is declining, but the number of farms is on the increase. We're seeing a lot more small farmers, and we're seeing a lot of the niche farmers coming into the area. Page 194 June 29, 2009 It's a growing industry. It's about -- it's about a billion dollars to this county's economic impact. That's nothing to sneeze at. And the nursery agent that Robert was talking about, these agents, and the vegetable agents, they provide a lot of the environmental research that we're using on the farms. They help the farmers stay in compliance with regulations that they're required to do, on the environmental standpoints, water quality. They develop and help implement BMPs, best management practices. They work with a lot of the other agencies, the local agencies. They work with state agencies, and they work with federal agencies, USDA, the Florida Department of Agriculture, the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and many others including, you know, organizations such as Ron's and also mine and the FNGLA, of course, and the cattlemen. We all work together on these. It's a collaborative, cooperative effort. And to lose the extension agency, any extension agent, is just -- it's a great disservice to agriculture. And I thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mrs. Webb. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim (sic) McAvoy. MR. McAVOY: Thank you for letting me speak today. Just to follow up on Ron and Eva, citrus and vegetables are very important in Collier County. We have over 2- -- 20,000 acres of vegetables ranging from arugulas to zucchini, 52 different items, 32,000 acres of citrus, over a billion dollars impact into the local economy. Not only do we grow a number of vegetables in this county, but the produce grown in the five surrounding counties mainly move through Immokalee, so that adds additional revenue to the community. These farms -- we've seen a tremendous growth in the industry. Vegetable acreage in this county, or in the five-county area, excuse me, has increased from 45,000 acres ten years ago to over 65,000 acres in this current year, so it's a growing industry. Agriculture is competitive. We operate on a global marketplace. Page 195 June 29, 2009 And no longer can American farmers compete on the basis of cheap land or cheap labor. The only way we retain our competitive edge is through technology and innovation that is -- basically comes with the assistance of the University of Florida Extension. Our growers have become the most efficient in the world. Educational programs, technological developments and transfer have enabled this. Some of the areas that we work in include areas that may also benefit other citizens. If we look at water conservation and quality, working with farmers we've greatly reduced the amount of irrigation water used by farmers by moving from old-fashioned open furrow irrigation systems to modern drip or micro-jet irrigation. We've reduced water consumption by two-thirds, and over 60 percent of our farms are now using this water saving technology. In the terms of fertilizer usage, by using these systems, we can spoon feed our plants. We've greatly reduced the amount of fertilizers. And we estimate over two million pounds of nitrogen is removed from the environment every year through our efforts. Again, not only benefiting the farmers who are saving money, but benefiting the overall environment. So this regional approach is really something that's needed. We work in the area of new pests and diseases, food safety, farmworker safety and training. We've trained over 5,000 farmworkers in pesticide safety and safe practices on the farms, so it benefits the workers as well. If we look back in time, each county used to maintain a set of agents. Here in Collier, you had a citrus, a vegetable, and a livestock agent about 15 years ago. These are all gone. And you know, at the state level, things have been regionalized as well, and we're trying to struggle with, how do we maintain the service to agriculture with fewer people, and this is probably the approach that will allow the agents to serve the industry and continue to serve the agriculture of the area. Page 196 June 29, 2009 Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Jim, don't go away. Yeah, just a couple questions, if I could. MR. McAVOY: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this a duplication of services, or is this a unique service that the local growers can't get anyplace else? MR. McAVOY: This is basically a unique service that they cannot get anywhere else. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And our share of the whole cost -- I know Hendry County has, their cost for their share would be how much? MR. McAVOY: Total budget -- Hendry County's about $100,000 right now, because our extension also includes 4-H and other programs that are not going into this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But basically Collier County's being prorated on the -- by the acreage -- MR. McAVOY: By the acreage-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- devoted to it? MR. McAVOY: -- and the number of cattle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I would propose is that we pick up this cost. I can't tell you where, but I don't want it coming out of cooperative -- through the extension's office. I'd like to see this to be a separate item. It's something that's very important. If we don't pay into it, I understand that Hendry County will pick up the shortage and, of course, that agent won't be free to be able to travel to Collier County. MR. McAVOY: That's correct. That's what we're being told. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I kind of hope I'll get the support of the commissioners to be able to bring this forward. It's not Page 197 June 29, 2009 limerock roads, sir. It's agriculture. You keep getting these things mixed up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, you got my vote. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mine, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. We'll move on to the next one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Puppies. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Puppies, DAS. Puppies and kitties and -- MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Amanda Townsend with Domestic Animal Services. We're looking at the budget for DAS for fiscal '10. The '09 hit to the general fund was $2.6 million. For us to do a 15 percent reduction in services, that would be $390,090. I'm very, very happy to say that County Manager got word from Sheriff Rambosk this afternoon that he is willing to help us to the tune of $110,000 by providing us the inmate labor program at no expense to DAS. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that is so nice. MS. TOWNSEND: That being said, I have a considerable amount of work to do to revise the budget to so reflect. I believe that, taking into consideration the sheriffs generous offer, we could revise our proposed cuts for DAS. In the 15 percent reduction scenario, we still would not be able to be whole on staff. My estimate -- and, again, I've got a lot of work to do to rework the numbers. My estimate is that we would probably still need to reduce staff by at least two FTE. And we would, once again, be limiting our capital improvement campaign pretty significantly. That's operating capital for improvements to the shelter. And that would be the second year in a row for that. Page 198 June 29, 2009 So it would still -- the department would still be significantly impacted and, of course, we've got some work to do to figure out exactly how to -- how to rearrange. But I do believe that in consideration of the inmate labor expense being off the table for us, I think that we could -- we would be able to maintain general public adoptions, which I know has been the major concern. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know it's been a lot to ask, but do you think before the end of the meeting tomorrow, which might be eight o'clock tomorrow night for the way it's moving along, could you have somewhat of an idea of a report so that we'll know how it's adjusted? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, Commissioner, but I will say that of all the departments that we have, DAS is taking a fairly significant hit, and it really is working on a shoestring as it is. As you know, that $390,000 really did take everything that wasn't mandated off the table. And even with the 110-, she's still going to have a significant impact to an already tight budget. And some of the positions that we're talking about have to do with volunteers and some of those other things we already talked about today and how you coordinate them and keep them, which also has to do with the quality of that animal care. So, I -- even though she's a little optimistic over there, I'm not quite so optimistic that the number is still going to be good enough to be able to preserve the adoption program wholly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I know you run a tight ship, so I mean, I'm not worried about all kinds of flexibility. I was just wondering, you know, just -- if that part is eliminated, where we need to go. But let's call the speakers. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Stephen Wright. He'll be followed by Michele Antonia. MR. WRIGHT: Hello. I'm Stephen Wright. I'm here representing myself only. I am glad to hear the good news. No matter what though, I still believe that DAS can save money and keep its Page 199 June 29, 2009 adoption program, and that's what I'm here for today. First of all, I think DAS could re-evaluate its mission statement and its activities. I contacted the director earlier in the week to find out what those do-or-die state mandates were that were threatening the pets. I got a list. There are five mandates, and just two of those don't seem like mandates at all to me. One says that the vaccinating veterinarian shall provide animal control with proof of a rabies vaccination. That doesn't affect -- that doesn't tell DAS to do anything. Another one authorizes counties to enact animal control ordinances. That, to me, does not sound like a DAS mandate either. And I hope you all will look over those and re-evaluate that. Second of all, I would ask that DAS ramp up its adoption program. I know that sounds kind of contrary to what you've been led to believe, but pet adoptions bring in income. If you get $70 for a pet and you adopt out 1,000 pets a year, that's, what is it, $70,000; is that right? So, yeah, that's a lot of pets, you know. And the thing is, the cost of adoption, you know, it is expensive to adopt. But at DAS, if they already have pets impounded, if they all have -- already have pets surrendered, then the major cost of sheltering pets is covered for another reason. The shelter care, the cleaning of the kennels and the feeding, that's already being done, but for another reason. Also another cost for adoption is having a staff, an administrative staff, process applications. But once again, because of what DAS does, it already has an administrative staff. An administrative staff that are taking care of fines, licenses, handling complaints and redemptions of pets. You know, what's a little extra work? It is extra work, but it's not that much work. It's not that expensive. If somebody has to go at DAS, I might suggest the veterinarian. I mean, they didn't have one before, and that can be made up with relief veterinarians and good shelter techs. I think there's a free shelter Page 200 June 29, 2009 management software DAS can use instead of the first top-of-the-line one it's using now. And I think also ifDAS tasks its volunteer coordinator to stick -- to stay strictly working with volunteers and developing that program, that could provide DAS with a huge auxiliary supplementary workforce. I don't see any reason at all for DAS to ever consider eliminating its adoption program. There are many other ways to save money in other economies and things -- and other things that can and maybe should be cut back. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Michele Antonia. She'll be followed by Georgia Hiller. MS. ANTONIA: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Michele Antonia, and I am chairman of the Domestic Animal Services Citizen Advisory Committee. And I would like to say that we really should not cut adoption at Domestic Animal Services. The animals have no one to speak for them but us. Cutting adoptions would really put Domestic Animal Services in Collier County in a bad light. In a time when the entire nation is going towards no kill shelters, for us to put adoptions at risk and have to euthanize 90 percent of the animals would set us back a number of years. In light of what Mr. Wright has said, he's come up with some very good ideas. In addition to that, there are other ways that we could get funds. One of the ways that we could get funds would be to increase the licensing fees, and increase licensing fees significantly for animals that are not spayed and neutered, and this would also prevent the unwanted births of animals, assuming that people don't want to pay a high licensing fee and get their animals spayed and neutered. These are just some of the things that we could do. And Steve said a lot of what I wanted to say. In addition to that, one of the other ways that we could save Page 201 June 29, 2009 money, and this has to do with all advisory boards. I believe that there is a reimbursement for advisory board members who travel more than 15 miles round trip. I'm sure this is just a pittance for getting reimbursed, but nevertheless, if you volunteer to be on an advisory board committee, that's just it, you volunteered. I don't see why anybody should have to get gas reimbursement to be on an advisory board. So, that -- you might want to relook at that and, you know, take back that reimbursement. So I would suggest that we look at the adoption at Domestic Animal Services, because if that adoption system is taken away, you're going to have people who just release their animals in the Estates or at parking lots or in residential areas because they don't want to take them to DAS if they know the animals are going to be euthanized, but put them someplace where they're hoping somebody will pick them up. So I want you to reconsider and help Domestic Animal Services as much as you possibly could. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Georgia Hiller. She'll be followed by Kimball McIlvaine. MS. HILLER: Commissioners, Georgia Hiller for the record. What the last speaker said is absolutely true. In these hard economic times, many families are unable to financially afford their -- afford their pets any longer. They're turning to Domestic Animal Services to house these animals rather than turning them into the streets of Collier County. By cutting Domestic Animal Services' budget by now 280,000, it is estimated that over 3,000 animals could potentially be euthanized. That is absolutely unconscionable. I find it hard to believe that with a budget of 1.4 billion to service 300,000 residents of this county, we can't find 280,000 to save the animals. Thank you. MS. FILSON : Your final speaker will be Kimball McIlvaine. Page 202 June 29, 2009 MS. McILVAINE: Thank you. Thank you all for hearing me today. I'm here on -- as a volunteer for -- I've been volunteering for three different agencies in the last couple years, and I see on a day-to-day basis the incredible need for this service and what it provides. And I just have some numbers here that I just would like to share with you. I know tomorrow you will be seeing a lot of supporters come out -- and there was a petition started three days ago. It already has 700 signatures on it, almost 700 as of 11 o'clock this morning -- that are in -- very passionate about this, and I'm so pleased to hear that the Sheriffs Office has offered to supplement the services. But I just would like to share, this is public record. There are a hundred and -- DAS brought in 610 animals in the month of May; 183 healthy animals were euthanized and -- but the total number -- then there were sick and injured. But the total number of animals that were euthanized in the month of May was 247 animals. There were 344 that were dropped off. There were 260 that the animal officers picked up. So in -- and then there was 129 adopted just in the month of May. If we lose that, as you know, you just mentioned that, you know, there's a great chance that we will not go there, but I just want you to know that these numbers are lives. And to me, you know, my animals mean a lot. I have -- you know, I do what I can to volunteer, you know, and I spend my own money and I -- you know, to service a lot of different things. I put my, you know, money where my mouth is. And I just -- I'm here to just be the voice for the animals. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a few commissioners waiting to ask questions. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gary, you know where to find an animal, right? Page 203 June 29, 2009 MR. McALPIN: We know where to find animals. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or pets. I liked the suggestion of a member of their advisory board is, I think we ought to tax our advisory board and come back and make suggestions, and sounds like we're just about there with the sheriff. And I've heard some great ideas coming from the public, and it should be a -- considered in our advisory board, make recommendations to us. That's what I prefer. But, Marla, the budget cut for budget neutral, over 16 percent for III? MS. RAMSEY: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Page 2 boxed in, 16 -- 16-and-a-half percent decrease for 111. And I thought the guidance was to do 15 percent. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. It does show 16, and we got as close to that -- I mean, we have some vacancies that are already, you know, in the system that count toward those elements. But I think most of those probably fall over here on Barry, because Barry is the entire 111 budget, so maybe he can address how he got to 16 versus 15, 111. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we get that to beach, if that's what it is, is beach. MS. RAMSEY: Oh. You want to talk about that now, or did you want to continue? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we'll wait. But anyways, I think, that's -- might be something that commissioners consider, is have our advisory board make recommendations to us is ex -- fees for bad animal owners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Let me --let me see if I understand this right. The donation from the Sheriffs Department of $110,000, that's not actual dollars. That's labor. MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually what that is, is that -- we have in a contract with the Sheriffs Office to provide us an officer and then Page 204 June 29, 2009 three inmates to help us with the care on the shelter side. The officer, we pay for his fully burdened salary plus travel and the time, from the time they leave the j ail until the time they return back to the j ail, and then we pay a dollar per hour for the inmates. And so when you add that all up for 40 hours a week over a year, it comes to $110,000. The Sheriffs Office is saying that he's not going to bill us for those -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's wonderful. So it is real money? MS. RAMSEY: It's real money that we won't have to pay the sheriff. We won't have to do that inter-agency transfer. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the question is, is -- well, not the question. What I would like to see is that we're working with a tax-neutral budget and that this money be in addition to it, these funds, rather than coming out of it. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be my suggestion. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. I understand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Quite surprised when one person got up there and said in the month of May that there was 610 animals taken in by DAS. Where does the Humane Society playa part in this, and why is it all left up to the government to take care of these animals? MS. RAMSEY: The Humane Society does work with us on a monthly basis to take some animals that are adoptable into their system. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, many animals? MS. RAMSEY: I think they did about 250 animals last year. MS. TOWNSEND: Last year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just one -- for one year, 250? MS. TOWNSEND: They took 250 animals from DAS. Page 205 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: In one year's time? MS. TOWNSEND: In a year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And yet we have 610 animals that came in in just one month. MS. TOWNSEND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't they take on more? MS. TOWNSEND: The Humane Society Naples is somewhat of a complementary agency to DAS, the major difference between the two agencies being that, as a non-profit, Humane Society Naples has made what they call a no-kill commitment, and that is that any animal that they accept into their shelter, they promise that they will place it for adoption. DAS is what we call an open admission shelter, that being that we do not refuse any animal that comes into the shelter, thereby forcing us to euthanize some healthy adoptable animals. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me that if the community is this upset about dogs and cats, that I would think that the Humane Society would be here today and say, we're going to take on a lot more responsibility in this area so that we don't euthanize these animals. MS. TOWNSEND: They are a good partner with us and they do come every Thursday and they do take animals from us every Thursday. But, of course -- and they are soon going to undergo a big capital campaign to expand their animal holding capability, but because they have an adoption guarantee, their ability to hold animals is limited by only -- one can only go in when one goes out. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That really doesn't get to the problem here. The problem I see is that you're telling me that in one month we took in 610 animals, and all they did is basically took on the responsibility of 257, was it? MS. TOWNSEND: I believe they took 250 animals from us last year. Page 206 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two hundred fifty animals last year, for the whole year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which they can sell and make money from, right? MS. TOWNSEND: They do charge an adoption fee, just as we do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is it the same amount, or is it more? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry. I don't know. I believe it is more than ours. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just -- you know, I understand the passion that people have, but I also think that the public, if they're -- the outpouring that I have received by email, I'm very surprised that there's not somebody here from the Humane Society to say that we're here to take on more of this responsibility. MS. TOWNSEND: I do believe that -- and I'm not sure ifhe's still here, but there was a board member of the Humane Society Naples here earlier. MR. KEPP: I'm here. I haven't signed up to speak. I will answer those questions, if you would like. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can probably help, too. MR. KEPP: And I believe that Michael is speaking tomorrow. CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you -- I'm sorry. We really have to have you on a microphone if you're going to speak. MR. KEPP: Would you like me to come up? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, please. Actually, they just need it for the record. MR. KEPP: My name's Tom Kepp. I'm on the board of directors for the Humane Society. I believe Michael Simonik will be speaking tomorrow, I think, because I was under the impression that tomorrow at one o'clock is when this was going to be opened up to the public. I can answer a couple of -- I mean, I can give you my opinion on Page 207 June 29, 2009 that. This is -- you know, the Humane Society is a non-profit organization. We do the best -- we take in -- I think we had 1,500 adoptions last year. I don't -- not for the record, but I think it was something like that. I'm there every Monday morning walking dogs myself. We have a tremendous group of volunteers. But remember something, we're a non-profit organization. We have to go out and raise our money. It doesn't come through taxes or anything like that. And we take a lot of animals from here. Like she said, we do -- we're a no-kill shelter, unless, of course, it's a dire -- if the -- you know, if it's -- if an animal is suffering, obviously we have certain criteria for that. But I don't think that it's fair to say this is the Humane Society's complete responsibility to take a burden off the county. Remember something, those 650 animals, those came from irresponsible people out in the county. And you have -- part of your service is enforcement of licensing laws, and it's not being done. And that's what needs to be -- the enforcement of this -- the amount of animals out there that are coming from this county into these situations are because of irresponsible people, and that's -- and that needs to be addressed. You -- I agree -- the adoption program, spay and neuter, are the most important -- one of the most important things there is. But until you go to the enforcement and keep -- and come at this problem from a different avenue, and that's keeping the amount of animals from being born -- I don't think I'm saying that very eloquently. But the bottom line is, unless you attack this problem from the other end -- and that's your responsibility -- then you're not going to solve it. And I don't think that it's fair to attack the Humane Society as far as not doing their part, because let me tell you, there's a lot of very involved people over there, and we work real hard to raise funds to help out with this problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. Page 208 June 29, 2009 MS. McILVAINE: May I just say -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what, a lot of people would want to keep walking up to the microphone then, so we really can't do that. But thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you know, I don't know if you've been to the Humane Society. I have recently, and they're full. I mean, they did a better job probably this year than most of the hotels. There's no space in the Humane Society. They are expanding, and their goal is to fulfill their mission, would be for adoption and no kill. But, you know, you can only do so much with limited space. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can only do so much with the revenues that we have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think Mr. Kepp was right on target, is we need to enforce -- enforce our ordinances, make people responsible. That's where the problem is, and he said it very eloquently . You need to hold these people accountable for their animals, and a perfect way to do that is a suggestion from the advisory board, is make those people more accountable for it, charge them for it, enforce it. Hold them accountable. Adoption fees or whatever needs to come up. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Enforcement, I think, takes manpower, so we're talking about an additional expense. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amanda, how many -- you have ten officers, right? MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the average daily call? MS. TOWNSEND: Average number of daily calls varies. I can tell you annual numbers. We're running about 9,500 calls a year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What does that work out to a daily average? You don't know that. Is it when somebody calls or Page 209 June 29, 2009 they're out there -- MS. TOWNSEND: Well, in the current staffing environment we have, we are able to address the calls that come in. In an ideal situation, we would be able to be much more proactive in our enforcement presence. We're taking as many communities as we can to join with the task forces that code enforcement is working with, et cetera. We're doing some cross-training with the Sheriffs Office. Any way we can, but if -- with more staff and when we were in a larger staffing environment, we were able to do more proactive door-to-door. But I believe that, as Tom said, enforcement is a very important component of what we do, and it can help with the pet overpopulation problem. I also believe that education is as important, and that can be compliance through education that the officers do, or it can be a program we do in schools. It can take all sorts of forms. But Tom is correct, if we're looking at pet overpopulation as a community problem, there are three solutions: Enforcement, education, and spay/neuter. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That takes on funding. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just briefly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, the Humane Society, I'm very familiar with their operations, and you've got two different worlds we're dealing with. In that private sector, they have a tremendous amount of volunteers, they don't depend upon the county government for funds, and they serve a real purpose in another direction. I think it's a wonderful organization, and I'm glad to see that our Domestic Animal Services works with them on some of these ventures. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further comments on Page 210 June 29, 2009 this particular item? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's move on then to museum. We have a speaker for museum also. MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have one speaker for the museum. Georgia Hiller. Georgia Hiller? MS. HILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Georgia Hiller, for the record. Commissioners, I'm here today representing the Friends of the Museum. I sit on the board of the friends. We would like to ask that you please not turn your backs on the culture of Collier County. We want to thank the board for all the financial support you have provided to the museum over the past years and your ongoing commitment to do so. We would like you to know that the Friends of the Museum are your partners in this important initiative. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the only speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Georgia. Commissioners, any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's move on to the next one then, which would be Housing and Human Services. MS. RAMSEY: Okay, Marcy? MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services. We've talked about pets, we've talked about culture, we've talked about education, now we're going to talk about people, because that's what our department is all about. My department is broken down into; about 75 percent of our budget is grants, and only 25 percent from the general fund. And 25 percent of that program is basically our social service programs, which Page 211 June 29, 2009 help the most vulnerable and the most needy of our citizens of Collier County with prescriptions, medical assistance, shelter assistance, and one of your favorite topics, the unfunded mandates that we do have to pay for with indigent burial, Medicaid nursing home, and things like that. So all of our 3 percent and our 15 percent cuts are taken just in that section because the rest is all grant funded. The 3 percent cut, we basically shaved a little bit about -- from our programs, but for the 15 percent cut, we're looking at about 450 people that wouldn't receive those necessary services. And with the 3 percent cut, we will continue our services. We did have to, since April or May, go into a waiting list for our services, and as funding becomes available, when somebody's finished, we might be able to start somebody else on services, and we would continue in that vein under the 3 percent. But with the 15 percent, we would definitely be cutting down the number of people that we could help. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? We don't have any speakers, right? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any other speakers, by the way, on anything? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were talking about the indigent healthcare portion of this. And obviously, as people lose their jobs, they lose insurance ability, and they probably lose their home. So is this increasing? Do you see that indigent healthcare going to increase? MS. KRUMBINE: Absolutely. What we're really seeing all across the board, Commissioner, is a new face of the people that we Page 212 June 29, 2009 serve, because two years ago there might have been people who were doing contract work, who were realtors, mortgage brokers, all sorts of people that had great jobs and were bringing in a very decent income now do not have the work and do not have the insurance. And so, on a daily basis those are the type of calls we're getting, in addition to the -- you know, for lack of a better term, the population that we're more familiar with using either our services or, perhaps, the health department or some of the other safety net programs that we have in the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you also take care of people who are illegal aliens? MS. KRUMBINE: We do not in the county. In the Collier County programs, you have to be a legal resident or United States citizen in order for us to serve them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And where do they go for healthcare, emergency rooms, the hospital? MS. KRUMBINE: A lot of them are going to the emergency room, and that's why charity care is up in there, and then probably some of the other clinics in town. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's your forecast? Do you have any idea what the forecast is for the increase of the services that are going to be needed in the next year? MS. KRUMBINE: I expect that things are going to just be on the increase. You know, I think you've got two things happening right now . You have either the increase of services or people leaving the area. There's been a significant exodus of people. But we are just seeing an increase in need. And, unfortunately, all the stimulus money that's coming is not coming into this area to directly assist clients in the health area. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do you take care of the prescriptions for people that need prescriptions, prescription drugs? MS. KRUMBINE: We have a prescription voucher program. Page 213 June 29, 2009 They have to come once a month to our office to be income qualified and verify that they still have the need and bring the prescription, and they can get up to a $200 voucher to assist them. And we have a contract with Sunshine Pharmacy in Naples and with Collier Health Services in Immokalee, and then they go to those places to get prescriptions filled, and they're getting them at a discounted rate. We also have several prescription cards in the county that we've been distributed that you as a board have -- have approved. And for people that don't fit this income level, but anybody really here in the listening audience, can go to anyone of the number of pharmacies in town and get a prescription card to also get discounts in their prescriptions. And, of course, you know that Publix and Wal-Mart and a number of pharmacies are doing $4 prescriptions and free antibiotics. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have. There are some prescriptions that are not generic. Obviously some of them could be higher than $200. What do we do in a case of that nature? MS. KRUMBINE: Well, you know, we have a professional staff of case managers, and oftentimes what they'll do is get on the phone with the doctors and say, is there a generic? What else can you do? What are some of the other options because we're assisting somebody. If not, then there has to be a little bit of a cost share there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Moving on to the next one, which would be parks and rec. I wanted to wait until you weren't in your seat, Barry. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Just one quick question, if I may. Page 214 June 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When we don't discuss it amongst ourselves, what kind of conclusion does Leo draw? CHAIRMAN FIALA: That we're going to be talking about it tomorrow? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. So far we've got not much difference than we had at the, unfortunately, beginning of the day, from my perspective. We've got two commissioners that were leaning towards millage-neutral and two commissioners that were leaning towards tax- neutral and one commissioner that wasn't leaning in either direction just yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Standing straight and tall, right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the fence where he belongs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Like a giant redwood. MR. OCHS: And we're still there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Means we're going to do it all over agaIn. MR. OCHS: Well, you have the sheriff tomorrow to start the morning. You'll have to hear what he has to tell you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just to try to speed things forward, maybe we could reach some sort of agreement as far as these items that we've got coming forward. A couple of them we did. We had our -- the commissioners -- or didn't you catch that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to -- there were several times that we, amongst ourselves -- MR.OCHS: A bit ofa nod and -- yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Should we do it now to try to eliminate one item to keep the discussion from coming back again? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, shouldn't we finish this particular category? Page 215 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If you want to keep it as a whole category rather than by the items, that's fine. You're running the show. I'm just following your lead. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, did you want to say something -- oh, I don't even have my whip or anything. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know you don't, but yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, did you want to say something about this last -- did you want to make any motions or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that as far as Marcy's department goes, that we approve her budget at not millage-neutral, but as tax-neutral. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think that you can get there if we just work harder. Commissioner Coyle brought up a good idea about furloughs. There's money in this existing budget that can be used. We just heard about seven-and-a-half-million dollars from there. We can get there without raising taxes. You start raising taxes on the public, they're going to be coming out, and we're going to be faced into a scenario that we're going to change our mind anyways. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you know, our taxes have been higher all along. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. I'm not done yet. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, commissioners have Page 216 June 29, 2009 been saying next year we're going to have a tough year, but it might not be that our citizens have a tough year. This -- the unemployment in the State of Florida is as high as it's historically ever been; 14 percent, 12, 14 percent. Just not a wise thing to do this year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But how do you know we're going to raise taxes? This is one item we're talking about. There are suggestions from the Productivity Committee that are excellent. There are suggestions from commissioners that are excellent. As we work -- I don't think we're going to go -- in my opinion, I don't think we're going to go strictly a tax-neutral or millage-neutral. I think we're going to find ways to work all of them around so that definitely we don't cut off our nose to spite our face, and at the same time we fund the things that are most important and we find ways to fund the other things, possibly through furloughs, possibly -- you know, there's maybe some areas like we heard about the libraries. There are people who can't afford to be furloughed once a month because they make such extremely minimum wage. Where -- you know, there have got to be other ways we can work it. I don't -- this -- we're talking about one subject, and we're talking about human beings here who have no other recourse but these programs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, I haven't heard any -- anything except for Commissioner Coyle about tax-neutral on anything. I've just heard about, let's keep it tax-neutral instead of millage-neutral, except for what Commissioner Coyle has said. So I don't see the same thing that you do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have -- I don't know who was first, Commissioner Coyle or Halas; do you know which one? Okay, we'll start -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: They came in age sequence. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Age sequence. That's you, bud, Coyle. Page 217 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, it's all been interesting and it's been enjoyable, enlightening and all that sort of stuff, but I don't think there's anybody here who has kept track of all the things that we've talked about and what we can do and what we can't do. Nobody's talked about the $500,000 that's left over from the water ski capital improvement. We haven't talked about the $2.5 million windfall, how that might help us retain the staff and improve services. Nobody's talked about the stormwater millage and whether or not we really need the $10 million specifically for LASIP . We could use some of it for something else. There are all sorts of fillers here that will solve your budgeting problems, and none of us -- as Commissioner Henning has said, we haven't really addressed that because we keep bouncing from one to the other without really saying what we want anybody to do. So we'll wind up tomorrow, maybe Wednesday, and we'll say, wow, we've got to do something with this budget. And what I'm going to say is -- and I hope I get some support -- take the money that we've identified, whatever it was, and come back with another budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then we'll do this again. And we'll try to find out where you use that money and what the result was. And hopefully we'll have the budget finished sometime before June the 26th (sic) or so, but I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was a couple days ago. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, July. See, I lose track of time when I'm sitting here. But anyway, yes, Commissioner Henning is right. We haven't resolved any of these, and we cannot resolve them, apparently. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then we have Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to enlighten my fellow commissioners in regards to a discussion that I had in February Page 218 June 29, 2009 with the homeowners group, or representatives of different homeowner groups in District 2. It was -- there was about 50 people there. And we had an in-depth discussion in regards to the very item that we're talking about today, and that was taxes. What was interesting that came out of that discussion -- and as I said, these were gated communities, these were un-gated communities, et cetera, so it covered the whole spectrum of District 2 of the people that attend these meetings. And what was interesting is that -- that the majority of people said, I want my services left intact. I don't want the damn library closed, and I want to make sure that we have the landscaping. I want to make sure that we have streetlighting. If it costs me $30 more a month, I'll pay it because I want my services. I don't want degradation of the services. And it was amazing. And then the sheriff was there, representatives from the sheriff or representatives from EMS and representatives of fire, and I think they felt a little more at ease to where we had an open discussion. But I'm the one that kind of threw the grenade out of the room because I wanted to find out exactly what the citizens wanted. And I was -- it was surprising that the big thing they wanted is to make sure that their services were retained. They didn't want to give up anything in regards to services that are rendered by the county. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, Commissioner Halas, that's interesting that you say, because as I was on the speaking trail, I was asking the same question at each one of my homeowners -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Speak into the mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Each one of my homeowners associations meetings -- now, I'm talking East Naples here. We're not as wealthy as some of the communities you represent. But without exception, without exception, people said, I'd rather pay $10 a month more, $15 a month more. I moved here for the services. I moved here because I love this community. I love the Page 219 June 29, 2009 appearance of this community. Even more interestingly, when I spoke to the realtors, the realtors -- I had a whole group of realtors. They said, because of the ambiance of the community -- now we get into landscaping -- the ambience of the community, they were able to sell their product more. When I talked to the tourism group, they said they're able to attract people more because of our services, because of our ambiance. So it's interesting. I'm sure everybody else has listened to their constituents, but this is what I've heard from mine. And so I think that that's very interesting. You've gotten the same response as I have. Let's see, next? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, ma'am. And I have to tell you, I've talked to my constituents, too, and their biggest concern was the fact that they may be charged for a beach pass, they may lose part of Domestic Animal Services. They just couldn't understand this. They were also very concerned about the libraries, especially the Golden Gate Estates Library where -- was on the chopping block for a while, and I hope it's been removed. This was very important to them. Less important to them was the median plantings. That's why I kind of picked up on -- last year when I was talking to them, and I haven't been a real strong supporter, although I do recognize that the rest of the county feels very, very strongly about it. But the big thing that they have empowered me to do is to make sure that the basic services that they get, they still get, and they're not going to be taxed to be able to get what they've been getting in the past. That was the big thing. And I come forward today to you to say that that's where I draw the line. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And, you know, again, going back to Page 220 June 29, 2009 what you started out with saying when we first started this meeting, and I've repeated a little bit later in the meeting, there's got to be a way where we could still reduce taxes a little bit and not forfeit any of these services. We don't want to lose another employee, and we don't want to lose our services. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may comment. Commissioner Fiala, at no point in time have I said that what we're doing here is final. I expect at some point in time we're going to come back and we're going to talk about Commissioner Coyle's suggestions. I've got some ideas of my own, too. We're going to incorporate some money-saving ideas, and we're going to end up with a budget that's going to be somewhere between the two opposite extremes, and it's going to meet the needs of most people out there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which is what we're here to do. We're here to meet their needs. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we approve these different items that are going forward, if we find out there's something that's terrible wrong at the end, we can always retract that approval. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, only one observation. The tax increase is not going to be $30 a month. It's going to be a lot more than that. What you have to -- have to keep in mind is exactly what Commissioner Henning has been saying. Most of our taxpayers don't segment Collier County Government and the school board and all the other taxing agencies. They look at the bottom line on the taxes. The chances are that they're going to see a substantial increase in millage rate, and their values are going down and they're going to get a lot more than $30 increase in taxes, and it's probably going to happen no matter what we do. Ifwe went with millage-neutral, they're probably going to get a tax increase. And the -- I think our obligation is to make sure we trim Page 221 June 29, 2009 out as much cost as we can and reduce the total budget of Collier County Government to the extent we can and maintain the services. Nobody wants to destroy the quality of life in Collier County. But the point is, if we don't look for new and innovative ways to deal with our budget challenges, you're right. Next year we're going to have a more serious problem, and the year after that probably equally serious. So we can't just say, okay, this is the way we've done it before, and I'm going to cut out adoption services, I'm going to cut out EMS, I'm going to stop picking up your garbage and all that sort of stuff, because people get the impression that you're just trying to scare them and that you've really got a lot of money that you haven't cut out of the budget. That's the normal reaction. And nobody would object to a $30 increase in taxes if they could maintain their same quality of services, but that's not what they're going to get hit with. It's going to be a lot more than that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I don't know what they're going to get hit with, but I'd like to see the figures before I jump to any conclusions. Anyway, we have to move on with parks and recreation. Let's get back to that subj ect, okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Barry's cut out as much as he can. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know -- I don't know if we really need to hear it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me interrupt you. There was a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. Page 222 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to remind you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And here we are. We're talking. Okay. There was a motion on the floor and a second to approve Marcy Krumbine's budget, right? Okay. Any further discussion? Uh-huh. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: 3-2. Okay. We've taken care of that one. Now, what were you saying about parks and rec? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know why we're doing the process, but I don't want to belabor -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But didn't we want to hear from each one? We've listened to everybody else. It wouldn't be fair to now skip Barry . COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let's hear from Barry. MS. RAMSEY: Unless you just want to give us 3 percent, and then we'll just move on. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Well, that would be fine. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'll certainly be brief. Just -- we followed the budget guidance that we had. We have a 3 percent and a 15 percent budget for you. Just to mention, and not to sound too much like whining, but as we've done that, we've also taken on Port of the Isles Marina. Goodland Boating Park is coming on January, 2010, and we're getting ready to take over the management of Freedom Park. Page 223 June 29, 2009 And so we're like a lot of departments, doing more with less and reallocating our resources in order to support the need. So that's been our particular theme. I did want to mention, we did work with Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board very closely this year and got their approval for the budget. We've listed the different budget issues that equal the 15 percent. And certainly if you have any questions about that, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I was second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Put your button back on, would you? Commissioner Halas, excuse me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Never mind. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my turn anyway. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Barry, I think you've done a wonderful job. I want to thank you very much for opening the new marina down there at Port of the Isles. It's beautiful. One question I do have, and I haven't seen anything on it in sometime, is when are county residents going to have access to the bass fishing lake up there by Orangetree? MR. WILLIAMS: We are working currently on design for the roadway. Weare working with the school board as well. The property -- to access the property requires us to work very closely with them, and we've been in contact with them and had several meetings -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. MR. WILLIAMS: -- in trying to finalize an agreement with them that would allow us access along the bus route at Palmetto Ridge High School. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And with that, I'd like to Page 224 June 29, 2009 second Commissioner Henning's motion to approve your budget under the, what, millage -- not millage-neutral, but tax-neutral. That was your motion, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but I'm removing it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. Go ahead. I'll make the motion in a little bit. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do -- I want to share something with you. But before I do, you're proposing a minimal boat launch fee? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know why we're cheaper than the private sector and -- on fees goes (sic), I don't -- on parks and rec, whether they need to justify them or not for running that operation. But if you're not -- definitely if the -- if the boat ramps are not paying for themselves, you know, with the $8 -- what is it, $8 or $5? MR. WILLIAMS: It's $5 currently. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five dollars. MR. WILLIAMS: Proposing to eight. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It's the same as beach parking is currently. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to get to beach parking in a minute, all right. MS. RAMSEY: I was trying not to go there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Calusa Isle, I think, was $10 last time I went, and that was a year ago. You know, let's do the right thing there. But I also want to share something. A frustrated constituent -- I shared it with Leo Ochs, and it was just so good I'm not going to not share it with everybody else. Page 225 June 29, 2009 Very frustrated about the beach parking fee proposal. Told him that it wasn't the Board of County Commissioners or anyone commissioner's idea. It's by law the state says the County Manager shall propose a balanced budget, and that was just part of it. And his suggestion was, on how to deal with it, whoever keeps on suggesting the beach parking fee, zero out their salary in the budget. That way we don't have to have it come back next year. And I just -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just had to explain to them. I says, you know, we can't -- I don't know if we can really do that because we have an ordinance against that that somebody might take it the wrong way, but -- anyways. I'm not in favor of the beach parking fee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a comment? Yeah. You brought up something very interesting about boat parking, what it costs for -- and I'll be honest with you, I use Bayshore -- Bayview -- Bayview Park quite often. I go with my son. He's got the boat, so I have to pay for it, so I know what it is. And I also know when I go to Everglades City and the Oyster House and use their facility, what is it, 20? MS. RAMSEY: Twenty. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: $20. But it is a big discrepancy there. And I've talked to my fishing club about it before. And, of course, nobody likes to pay more, but I told him it's inevitable that eventually that point will come. What would the difference make of $2 this year, another $1 or so next year? Would it make much difference in the final outcome what we're working with? MS. RAMSEY: It's $120,000 to do the $3. And, you know, the boaters always look at us as being -- you know, discriminating against Page 226 June 29, 2009 them because they have to pay to launch and pay for their annual pass. And the -- if you're a resident and you get to go to the beach, you get to go there for free. So, you know -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true. That's not true. Take your boat and go to the beach. That's what I -- that's what I do with my wife, you know. I drop her off and my son and I go fishing. So that's not true. If they want to go to the beach, they can, by boat. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if we were to put a $2 charge additional, in other words, went from five to seven, which is still $13 below what private markets get in a lot of places, and they don't have as many amenities to offer as what the county does, what would happen? What would-- MS. RAMSEY: We can pick any number you want, Commissioner. We can pick eight -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I just want to know if it's going to make a difference. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It's like -- you know, it's $120,000 a year for a $3 increase, so divided by three and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Do you think you could use some of that money to restore some of the fish-cleaning stations? MS. RAMSEY: Well, that's over there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're the man that took them away? MR. McALPIN: We would need to work with DEP on their permitting for the fish-cleaning situations, but we are. And the new facilities going in, we're having -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, if you're going to raise the darn boat fee, you better give them something for their money. Well -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: You tell them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, are we going to get a motion on this? Page 227 June 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. About parks and rec, you mean? MS. RAMSEY: The whole division as a unit? Pushing it, I know but-- , COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. One more time. MS. RAMSEY: I was looking for a motion on the whole division as a unit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think we've probably got to go through it, because we're not in a hurry to get out of here. It's only quarter after six, 19 after six. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, we haven't heard from -- did the Productivity Committee have anything on parks and rec? MS. VASEY: Oh, I covered it this morning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Very good. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, then motion to approve parks and rec budget and to allow them to increase the boat parking to $7. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You didn't think I could do that, Commissioner Coyle, did you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: What, make a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what it means. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did promise the free entertainment. You're doing very good with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to tax-neutral or -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, he didn't say that. Is -- the question is, is the motion tax-neutral, millage-neutral or what? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tax-neutral. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, does that mean we charge for a -- MS. RAMSEY: No. The 3 percent does not have the beach fees Page 228 June 29, 2009 in it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No beach fees. MR. WILLIAMS: Doesn't have boat launch. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Beach fees are still free, right? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. The 3 percent does not have the beach fees in it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: Or the boat launch fee either, for that matter. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we -- but this -- now this is -- this increase would be the boat launch fee, right? MS. RAMSEY: You want the 3 percent budget plus the boat launch fee; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Plus the boat. MS. RAMSEY: At $7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At $7. MS. RAMSEY: Okay, sir. I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was Commissioner Henning's idea, but I'm just carrying it forward. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, the 3 percent did not have a boat launch fee before? MS. RAMSEY: It doesn't have an increase to the boat launch fee. The increase to the boat launch fee was in the 15 percent reduction, millage-neutral. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So what you're saying is increase it to $7? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So motion on the floor is to approve the parks and recreation budget in the tax-neutral category and raise the boat launch fee from $5 to $7. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that was my second. Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner Coyle. Page 229 June 29, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that isn't tax-neutral, because you just generated some more revenue on top of the tax-neutral. So once agaIn -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Geez, can't do anything right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. It's -- you know, we've got -- we've got to be accurate here. MS. RAMSEY: I would take that motion -- this is just me -- that we would go to the tax-neutral, increase the fee and then reduce something else to counter the taxes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if you implemented the higher fee -- MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you're going to take that amount of money and reduce your overall expenses so that you are tax- neutral? MS. RAMSEY: Right, minus 3 percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: That's the way I understood that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's not really what was said -- MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but if that's the intent, I would agree with that. I won't vote in favor of it, but I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that wasn't my intent. I'm looking for the fish-cleaning stations, to be honest with you. And I thought out of this we might be able to come up with enough dollars. You wouldn't believe how inconvenient it is to have to take whole fish home with you and clean them in your kitchen sink with your wife watching you wondering when you're going to clean up the mess. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a cost-savings suggestion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Catch and release. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just have the staff Page 230 June 29, 2009 catch the blasted fish and sell them there right at the launching ramp and people won't even have to put their boat in the water. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's getting late, folks. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Commissioner Coletta, are you finished, or is that another button? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Finished. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why -- I mean, I would like to justify a fee. I think that's one thing that we need to do, Mr. Klatzkow; is that correct? And just tell us what the operational costs are of the boat ramps, the users, and come back with a recommendation. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I think you're going to find that $7 more than covers it, I mean, from what I'm hearing, just the cost of putting these things together. But yes, to justify a fee, I think, is a good idea always. MR. WILLIAMS: Just if I could add, the justification, you know, if you do look at what the private sector charges versus our rates, I mean, that's one level of justification. Your beach and water fund is subsidized at 45 percent. So if you were to increase your fee from five to seven, you're going to -- your subsidy wouldn't be quite as much, but there -- it'd still be there. MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Government needs to justify fees. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can't justify it because, you know, the guy down the street is charging more. So I would like to see something in writing of what the operational costs are, because it might be $10. I don't know. And we Page 231 June 29, 2009 can make that decision then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got all evening, but I only did it at your suggestion, when you were originally starting the discussion, to try to gain your faith again so we could keep going forward; however, with that, since the motion hasn't been voted on, I take out the suggestion of a $2 increase of fee and I leave that just for approval of the budget under the revenue-neutral scenario. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tax-neutral? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tax-neutral. I wished I could-- well, we can't do that, that's right. So that's going to be my motion. The other part's off. You bring it back at some future time and we'll discuss it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Bring it back at a future time. Okay. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 3-2. All right. Now, next we have our public health unit. You got your hair cut. DR. COLFER: Good evening. I did, summer. Good evening. I'm Joan Colfer, director of the Collier County Health Department. Our budget request is -- for our total budget is $14.6 million. The county's contribution is only 1.7. And I'm really missing Mr. Mudd, Leo, because this is usually when he tells you all that I am the best bargain that you're ever going to see, that you only pay 11.6 percent of Page 232 June 29, 2009 this budget, which means, I think for every dollar you give me, I bring about $8 worth of state federal grants, people, resources, that serve the people here in Collier County. In a tax-neutral budget or a 3 percent cut, I can maintain the current level of service with the exception of the sentinel chicken program. That's a program that you all helped me put in place probably about eight or nine years ago. It was meant to be an early warning system for West Nile, St. Louis encephalitis, the Arbor (phonetic) viral kind of illnesses. Personally I haven't seen it do that for us, that -- we don't -- we have very little of that disease this far south in Florida. It seems to be mostly an issue in the northern counties, and the one or two seasons that we had illness, the blessed chickens turned positive the same time the human does. So, you know, we can eliminate that program and that would be okay. However, in a millage-neutral budget, I'd have to eliminate that program, some -- and other environmental health efforts. There's some money there that I would -- that I would lose in a millage-neutral budget that allows me to retest the beach. You're aware that we test all the beaches up and down the coastline. We never stop anybody from going in the water, but when the lab tests are poorer for certain beaches, we do post them and advise people not to go in the water until we can retest them -- Your money allows me to retest them the next day, the very next day, so I can take those signs down just as quickly as possible. So I would lose that ability. -- 51 would lose a position for a tobacco program coordinator, and I would lose the ability to provide adult dental services for low income people, with the exception of people that have AIDS. Under Ryan White, there's some funding there. I could at least still take care of adults that have AIDS, but I wouldn't be able to provide any adult dental services at millage-neutral. Page 233 June 29, 2009 I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do you figure that the budget would impact you of a 15 percent cut in regards to addressing possibly this fall the swine flu problem? DR. COLFER: I'm not stupid. I didn't cut there. I protected all those programs as best I could. No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So even at 15 percent, it's not going to have an effect? DR. COLFER: I -- no. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, you do have to take care ofillegals, don't you? DR. COLFER: Yes; yes, ma'am, I do. And the other -- the other safety net programs that Marcy was talking about, the neighborhood health center, senior friendship center does, and, of course, PLAN does, the Physician Led Access Network, also is willing to take care of those people as well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. DR. COLFER: And you want me to. From a communicable disease perspective, you don't want those people sick, making everybody else sick. But it was a good question. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has that chicken been out there for the whole nine years? DR. COLFER: I don't think any of them lived quite nine years, but we do still have four flocks left that we put strategically around the county . CHAIRMAN FIALA: So actually you could probably fall within the millage-neutral and live with it without -- DR. COLFER: No, tax-neutral. I can live within millage- neutral. I lose the chicken program, I lose my tobacco health educator, I lose the ability to retest the beach waters, and I lose the adult dental Page 234 June 29, 2009 program with millage-neutral, but I didn't touch communicable diseases. That would be the last thing that I would touch. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have other tobacco coordinators around Collier County? DR. COLFER: I have two -- I have two lower level staff, and we're trying to cover that program with those folks right now. And they run the SWAT, the students working against tobacco. They operate those programs in the high school and the middle school. And you may remember the coordinator. That's the position I would lose. She's testified before you in years past. And she's excellent. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Under tax-neutral it says, eliminate septic system supplementary funding. What does that mean, the inspections? DR. COLFER: That was -- that was to balance the budget a little bit. When you all gave me the money -- and we're going back about seven or eight years ago. When you gave me the money for the sentinel chicken program, it was only a half of a position, and you gave me the other half of the position to work in other environmental health programs. And so we put part of the money in the septic system program. Quite frankly, nobody's building houses; I can easily absorb that loss. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So I mean, if you get an odd call or two, you can still take care of it. DR. COLFER: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Dr. Colfer-- DR. COLFER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you said the chicken swine flu Page 235 June 29, 2009 (sic), whatever it was, is really not an issue? DR. COLFER: No, no, no. The swine -- different issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chicken sentinel. DR. COLFER: Sentinel chicken program, we put chicken flocks out there and let mosquitoes bite them, and that helped us detect West Nile Virus and St. Louis encephalitis. It doesn't help us identify the swine flu which, right now in this country, is being carried by humans. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you say that we really don't have a problem with that type of testing in Collier County, or did I misunderstand? DR. COLFER: With West Nile and with St. Louis encephalitis, we haven't had any human cases for several years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, right. DR. COLFER: Swine flu we do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that cruelty to animals? DR. COLFER: Oh, it bothers me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It bothers Amanda, too. Do you know in the stimuli plan there was moneys for smoking sensation? DR. COLFER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the first part of your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The stimulus plan was, there's moneys in there for the smoking cessation? DR. COLFER: Not that I'm aware of. The only stimulus money that's drifted down to me is to provide immunizations for school children in the upcoming fall semesters, and we'll be doing that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, again, I would like to see what we can cut before we start approving, but anyway. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we'll move on to our veterans servIces. MR. KREHLING: Good evening. Peter Krehling. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good evening. Page 236 June 29, 2009 MR. KREHLING: Peter Krehling, Veterans Services Director. This is going to be very quick. Millage-neutral, we lose our Independence Day Celebration fund. Tax-neutral we keep it. It's a very popular program, especially down in Everglades City. Those folks really enjoy it and they really go out of their way to express themselves to these folks. Obviously I'd like to keep the program. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does it have any effect on benefits for veterans? MR. KREHLING: No yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Everything is intact? MR. KREHLING: It's not a core program. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Let's see. We have -- oh, look it. There's somebody smiling at me over there. Coastal zone management. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioner. Most of my budget is carried -- paid for with TDC funds. I do have two areas, general revenue, which is the beach environment -- which is the environmental estuary area and the proj ect management for beach parking facilities. On a millage-neutral basis, I would handle that with furloughs, and on a tax-neutral basis; we would deal with it with operating expenses, reduction in operating expenses. My portion is very small from the general revenue fund. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I couldn't find the beach re- nourishment reserves. MR. McALPIN: Beach re-nourishment reserves, I could tell you that right now, Commissioner Henning. Beach re-nourishment Page 237 June 29, 2009 reserves were currently funded with the mandates from the commission. We have $6 million for major beach re-nourishment set aside. We're where we should be. We're at three-and-a-half million dollars. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you could just email me what page I could find it on. MR. McALPIN: Okay. I could do that. MS. RAMSEY: It's going to be under Jack Wert's budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's why I couldn't find it under -- MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, Capital 19. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. ISACKSON: Under public services. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nineteen under public services? MR. ISACKSON: Capital 19. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's everything for your department then, right, Marla? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that would be my part of that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I know that our Productivity Committee's been sitting here all day. Did you have anything -- any other reports that you wanted to make today, or are you just staying with us and coming back tomorrow? MS. VASEY: I still have something on administrative services, not parks and recs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to come up now then about -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's administrative services. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, administrative services. MS. VASEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Okay, very good. And you also had reserves, right?u Page 238 June 29, 2009 MS. VASEY: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That will be tomorrow also? MS. VASEY: With administrative services. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then maybe we'll adjourn -- well, no. What do they call that, recess for today and start again tomorrow morning. We start off with the Constitutional Officers in the morning, right? MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we'll see you here at nine o'clock in the morning. We'll probably be here all day and all night tomorrow. MS. RAMSEY: We're done with public services, correct? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me? MR.OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I was just waiting to hear from Skip Camp, but that's all right. We'll do it tomorrow. Page 239 June 29, 2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:36 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL DONNA ffltrCHi~N ATTEST.: c DWIGfrrE, BROCK, CLERK ~~ tteNt.....~ t.~ These minutes approved by the Board on ({~lcA , as presented ",--- or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 240