Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/12/2001 B (Pelican Bay MSTBU Budget) September 12, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NAPLES, FLORIDA, SEPTEMBER 12,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6 p.m. PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION, BUDGET HEARING, The Foundation Center, 8962 Hammock Oak Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. PAMELA S. MAC'KIE JIM COLETTA DONNA FIALA Tom Olliff, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Michael Smykowski, Division of Office of Management and Budget Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET HEARING TO BE HELD AT THE FOUNDATION CENTER 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA AGENDA Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:00 p.rn. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WIm THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTA nON OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON mIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMIITED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO mE DATE OF mE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF mE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING _ BCC A. PRESENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PELICAN BA Y SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET. B. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING mE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION. 3. ADJOURN 1 September 12,2001 September 12, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us for this Board of County Commissioners meeting to review the Pelican Bay Services Division budget, commonly referred to as MSTBU. Municipal Services Taxing Benefit Unit is the translation. And we begin all our meetings with the pledge of allegiance, so will you please rise and join with me. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Ward, if you will be good enough to take us through the process this evening, I think for all of you who were here since last year, we have two new commissioners, Commissioner Coletta to my far right and Commissioner Fiala to my immediate right. You all know Commissioner Mac'Kie who is a veteran -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he just called me old. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I said you were a veteran. Unfortunately, Commissioner Henning sends his regrets. He was unable to attend tonight because of a prior speaking engagement in his district. So with that, Mr. Ward, would you take us forward please. MR. WARD: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, on behalf of the Pelican Bay community, I would like to welcome the commission to Pelican Bay for your annual trek to review our budget and to consider the adoption of the necessary resolutions for our non- ad valorem assessments. My name is Jim Ward. I'm the department director for Pelican Bay Services Division. Your consideration tonight is for our budget for fiscal year 2002. I will briefly go through it with you and then briefly go through with you the proposed assessment rates for the next fiscal year. We have essentially two general funds for Pelican Bay Services. Our first general fund includes both water management and Page 2 " ""----- - ---"'----~,. September 12, 2001 community beautification services in it. That consists of the maintenance of the water management bodies here in the Pelican Bay community. Our community beautification program includes all of the maintenance of the public road rights-of-way, parks, and other common areas within the community, all of its landscaping activities. We do maintain the beach facilities in Pelican Bay, essentially the beach-raking operation, and we do some street operations within the community beautification general fund. We have two other general funds that are ad valorem based. The first is our streetlighting system, which is a system that is not a standard Florida Power and Light system. And this past year the Pelican Bay Services Division has completely replaced the whole streetlighting system within the community, and if you've driven around, you've seen all of that. We have also a security fund which is the additional officer that we have that's provided by the Collier County Sheriffs Office that provides the community with one additional deputy 7 days a week, 365 days a year in the community. In addition to those general funds, we have three separate capital projects funds, two of which are active funds. The first is for the restoration of the Clam Bay system, and that includes two parts of it. One is the ongoing operations of maintenance of Clam Bay system, and second is the completion of the restoration efforts. Through the efforts of the commission, you are funding the operations and maintenance portion of the Clam Bay system this coming fiscal year. And that is coming from Natural Resources Fund -- I believe it's called Fund 111 and some additional funding from tourist development funds, and the balance of the monies are coming from the Pelican Bay Communities in public/private partnership with WCI Communities. We have another fund that is used for asset restoration here in Page 3 September 12, 2001 Pelican Bay, and we do ask that restoration -- such as the landscaping restoration -- and if you came in Pelican Bay Boulevard at the south entrance to the community, you'll notice we have a half-a-million- dollar project ongoing right now for the restoration for the landscaping and irrigation system within the community that will continue through this fiscal -- next fiscal year putting such additional items such as restoration of the U.S. 41 berm that we're talking about and additional restoration of the balance of the public road rights-of- way. We also maintain what we call an "uninsured assets fund." And as I'm sure most you all know, in this business a landscaping program is not an insurable asset in the event of a natural disaster, and so we maintain monies in an uninsurable assets fund, and it now has a total value of just slightly over a million dollars on an asset that's probably worth well over four or five million dollars at this point in its life cycle. As I indicated before, we raise our funds in two separate ways. First is through a non-ad valorem assessment that's placed on the community for the general operations and some of our capital operations. This coming fiscal year, the proposed assessment rate for maintenance and our capital reserves is $291.97 per year. That is up from the prior fiscal year, which was $382.14 per year. It's a 4.81 percent increase or $11 per home per year. (Sic.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the flat. MR. WARD: That's the flat amount. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. WARD: In addition to that, the millage rate for streetlights and security is .1994 for this coming fiscal year on the taxable value of $3.109 billion for the community. And that is up 1.76 percent from the current fiscal year of 1.9597. If we just go back, I did make one mistake. If you just look at a Page 4 September 12,2001 home valued at a half-million dollars in Pelican Bay combining both the ad valorem tax and the non-ad valorem assessment in the prior year, you paid $382.14, and this coming fiscal year you would pay $391.68 for all of the services provided by the Pelican Bay Services Division. One other point that I need to put on record for you, your resolution has the proposed non-ad valorem assessment rates and the number of equivalent residential units contained in it that are correct. There's 7,811 equivalent residential units in Pelican Bay factoring in both the commercial and the hotels that are in the community. That is slightly up from what was noticed to the residents, which means the non-ad valorem assessment rate goes down slightly . We indicated in the mailings that are required pursuant to law that the community's non-ad valorem assessment rate would be 293.54, and pursuant to this resolution it is 291.97 per equivalent residential unit. With that, Mr. Chairman, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. That completes my presentation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Ward. First I will go to the public and ask them if there are any questions or comments that they want to bring in front of the commission or directly to Mr. Ward. Yes, sir. Mr. Spanier. MR. SPANIER: Thank you. I'm Donald Spanier. I'm the property owner of 812 Pitch Apple Lane in the Oakmont section of Pelican Bay. I would like to read into the record or at least state for the record some observations without getting into detailed questions in this forum for Mr. Ward. I want to address the economics of what's been proposed, the politics of it, and certain community aspects. As far as the economics are concerned, an examination of the budget that's proposed for 2002 shows proposed expenditures of Page 5 September 12, 2001 $4,093,299, which equates to $524 based on the 7,811 units that were mentioned. The comparable figure for this year, 2000, is three million seventy one thousand and change, a million dollars less. And that equates to $436.55 per assessable unit. That is a 20 percent increase in the expenditures projected by MSTBU on your behalf for the forthcoming year in comparison to last year. The implication that it's somehow less, which we have heard, is really a result of some very ingenious accounting, fund and reserve shifting. In effect, it's done by smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is that the proposal before you proposes to spend a million dollars more in the forthcoming fiscal year. That's Item No.1. I'd like to point out that this budget proposal presented by Mr. Ward is the product of the MSTBU Advisory Board, as you know, which is the old board substituted with a few new faces, all named and nominated by the old board. I'd like to also point out that one of the few points of consensus that Judge Brock (sic) has illuminated in his evaluation of the dispute in this past year in Pelican Bay was that, other things aside, the board -- the advisory board should be elected by the property owners, and it should be done at the time that most of them are in residence here in Naples. My conclusion is that the present board for which Mr. Ward is the spokesman can only be viewed as a caretaker board pending the implementation of whatever changes you see fit to accept from Mr. Brock. It does not speak for the community. The members of the board were designated in the fashion you know about, although many others, including myself, put themselves forward for your consideration. The consideration, however, was done by the old board. A proper budget proposal in the light of these indisputable facts Page 6 September 12, 2001 would be status quo until a new board is designated, organized, and empowered. The budget that has been in effect for the last year should be extended status quo. No increase of another million dollars. Let it stay at the expenditure level dollars of three million, not four million, until we can deal with this deplorable process. The final word I'd like to say has nothing to do with process or economics. It has to do with the fact that all of us are in a difficult economic time. Those of us who live in this" glitzy enclave," to use the words of the Naples News, are not pressed the same way as the people in East Naples are. Nonetheless, we are retired by and large. We live on the income of what used to be impressive portfolios that have collapsed. This is not the time to increase the public expenditures which we support. I thank you for your patience. That's my presentation. (Applause from the audience.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Spanier. I appreciate your comments. Mr. Ward, you may like to address the financial part of it. I will come back and address issues raised about how the new members that were appointed to the MSTBU out of 17, how that took place, and I also will address Mr. Brock's report, which he has sent to the community, and it's there for the community to digest, to go through, and determine a course of action. So, first, let me go to Mr. Ward and let him deal with the financial questions. MR. WARD: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me -- for the purposes of the public just for the benefit of the Commission -- give you just a little bit of background as to how this budget is developed. As you do know, you have an 11- member advisory committee. In the beginning of generally March or April of this year, I began the process with the advisory committee of developing the fiscal year 2002 budget. That starts with essentially a Page 7 September 12,2001 goals and objectives presentation for the advisory board trying to ascertain from the board and the community what it would like from the Pelican Bay Services Division for the ensuing fiscal year. From the development of the goals and objections and the board's review and approval of that, I then go and develop a preliminary budget across all of the funds of the division for that year, and I present that to the advisory board, usually at two or three different meetings -- I think this year it was about two meetings if I recall correctly. The advisory board goes through it line by line ad nauseam and says "I like that" or "I dislike that" or "Increase that" or "Change " , , , , that," or whatever it works out to be. And at the culmination of that process pursuant to your ordinance the advisory board votes to recommend this particular budget to the Board of County Commission. That was a unanimous vote by the advisory board this year for purposes of a recommendation to you. F or purposes of financial information, our budget in the prior fiscal year in terms of total appropriations was about 5 -- slightly under $5.2 million. For fiscal year 2002, it's roughly $4.2 million, so it's slightly less than what it is. The primary reason the assessment rates have gone up slightly is because of not -- and as we talked about it at the advisory board level -- a reduction in actual cash reserves we have available moving forward into the next few years. And I advised the board and the residents at that time that we probably will start to see some increases in our assessment rates as the reductions in our cash reserves happen through the ensuing fiscal years. So that's sort of the basic process that we used for years and the process that the advisory board used this year to determine the budget and the assessment rates that are recommended to you tonight. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioners, any questions that you would like to ask? Page 8 September 12, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the process I am familiar with and comfortable. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let me address the other two issues, if I might. Seventeen people came forward when we had four vacancies on the MSTBU. Because of the decisions and desires of community, at that time I had turned over the process to Dwight Brock to determine what the community wanted to do in the future. But in the interim we did two things: One, we went back to the original ordinance that has governed this community since, I think, 1992 . We also, as a board then, looked at the 1 7 candidates. I spent an awful lot of agonizing hours going through that. I did not accept the recommendations of the current MSTBU on the top four that they desired. I did a mix. I selected a gentleman from Bay Colony because that is the highest taxed group within Pelican Bay, and I felt that since they're such major contributors to this taxing authority, that they should have representation. I recommended the reappointment of another gentleman who had been on the MSTBU for some period of time who is desirous of seeing through the final decision of the community. I honored that request. The other two gentlemen -- one was from -- in fact, I had three from the Oakmont area including Mr. Spanier. So I supposed -- and that's where I live -- you could say that was a no-win situation for me. I set that aside. I looked at all the credentials. They are all excellent people, Mr. Spanier included, a former professor at MIT, all top-notch individuals, no question about it. The gentleman I did select was the president-elect of the property owners' association who had been very active through the entire process, who's well respected within Pelican Bay, certainly had taken what I considered a moderate position in terms of trying to heal and bring the community together. Page 9 September 12,2001 So I recommended to the board his appointment. The fourth gentleman was an individual who had run -- if we would have had an election -- had signed up to run as an elected official of the community. He had never served before on MSTBU. He was a completely fresh face. He had great credentials, and I admire an individual who's willing to step up and serve his community through an elected process. So those were the recommendations I made to the Board of County Commissioners. The board reviewed those and at our meeting went through and discussed it, and those were accepted. So you do have some different faces on your new board. Dwight Brock -- who is, of course, our clerk of courts is an individual who is well respected in the total Collier County community -- volunteered his time and his staff to come and sit with this community, take all the inputs to determine what do you want in terms of appointments to your M STBU. In other words, how do you want to do it? All appointed or do you want to go through an electoral process? He completed that report. It is now up on the Internet. It has also been delivered to the leadership of all factions -- and I say factions -- all interest groups within the community. That does not mean they are divided. It just says that there are different areas of concerns and desires. All those people now have that copy, and it is a draft. It is what the clerk did was go to our county attorney; county attorney looked at it and signed off; went to our county manager, Mr. Olliff; he signed off. Clerk of courts is the outside monitor and monitor of funds that would take place under our jurisdiction as the Board of County Commissioners. He reviewed it, of course, and says it passes litmus test. Whatever the residents of Pelican Bay want to do with this within this framework, it is acceptable to county government and the constitutional officers it services. Page 10 September 12, 2001 My checklist that I sent to the community some time ago said, ""A," we had to do that, "B," now that it is in the community it will be up to the Foundation, the property owners, the MSTBU, and all other parties to have town hall meetings here and determine what do you want to do. I will take the desires of this community back to this Board of County Commissioners, and we'll act accordingly, and until that's decided by this community, nothing further as far as the Board of County Commissioners will take. Ultimately, regardless of whether you keep the existing ordinance or whether you make some changes in adding up -- electing your representatives, that ultimate authority comes to the Board of County Commissioners for anything like we're doing tonight, your budget -- and even the people that you would elect, ultimately, still has to pass the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners, regardless of who sits in these chairs, has the ultimate responsibility for all taxing authorities in Collier County. So I hope that will clarify and give you some understanding that we want to do what the community wants to do. We, the Board of County Commissioners, will look for you to tell us what you want to do in terms of how you finally look at this MSTBU. Do you keep the appointment process in place, or do you select an alternative method, which would allow you through a staggered schedule to elect representatives by the property owners as it's currently constructed. That means if you own property here you could do it. The other point is, there would be two members on that board from the business community. So you need to read the proposed ordinance. You need to spend some time with it, go through it, underline what you don't like, ask the questions. What the clerk has done, what I asked him to do, if you would be as an unbiased outside person, take us through the process. I have Page 11 September 12,2001 completely divorced myself from the situation. I am here to serve this community and the rest of the communities in District 2. Whatever you want, fine. I will take it forward, but it had to meet the checklist. This met step 1. But until you process in the community I cannot in all due respect in carrying out the duties of my office take it to the Board of County Commissioners until you put it through your own community -- of which I live and I am a part of it -- but I'm only one citizen here. And I am stepping aside as I have done for months. I want the decision to come from this community. So I hope that clarifies it. Questions from the board or anyone else? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have other speakers? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other speakers or who would like to address the board tonight? MR. OLLIFF: That was your only registered speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Olliff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In that case, I move the resolution confirming the preliminary assessment roll as the final assessment roll in adopting the same as the non-ad valorem assessment roll for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion by the members of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Hearing none, seeing none, I call the question. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Page 12 September 12,2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you all for being here. Meeting stands adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAMES D. ARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN irt~~?tr,,' /I)wlsnJ~4BROCK, CLERK :.'. ". . ;}~). ;,' .~ ~: ~~$ ~-.t1. e AttlS''H(tQ:CIW 1J'1ta11' s 1191'.....1, _ . Trte"se mInutes approved by the Board on ~ ~/ , as presented ~ or as corrected Page 13 September 12, 2001 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY PAMELA HOLDEN, COURT REPORTER Page 14