Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BCC Minutes 09/18/2002 B (Budget)
September 18, 2002 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUDGET MEETING Naples, Florida, September 18, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in the County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JAMES COLETTA DONNA FIALA FREDERICK COYLE, (BY TELEPHONIC) THOMAS HENNING JAMES D. CARTER, PhD. ALSO PRESENT: JAMES MUDD, COUNTY MANAGER MICHAEL SMYKOWSKI, BUDGET DIRECTOR SUE FILSON, EXECUTIVE MANAGER DAVID WEIGEL, COUNTY ATTORNEY KEN P1NEAU, EMERGENCY SERVICES INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR Page 1 NOTICE: COIJ/ER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER~ AGENDA Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:05 p.m_ ALL PERSONS WISHING T© SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO m,~suP, a rI-IAT ^ V~Arn~ P~COP, D OF rim PROC~.~D~6S LS MADn, WHICH P~COm~ nWCLUDnS r~srm~ONV Am) EVIDeNCe. UPON WI-riCH rim A~PnAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKE1LS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOP, ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1. .PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ao ADVERTISED PUBLIC F[EARINC - BCC FY 2002-03 Budget. Discussion of Millage Rates Fundingthe FY 2003 Budget Discussion of Further Amendments.to the Tentative Budget Budget DiscUSsion Items , · Livingston Road Beautification MSTU Budget/Millage · Budget Reductions to Fund Trauma Center Reserve D. Public Comments and Questions Resolution to Amend the Tentative Budgets Public Reading of the Taxing Authority Levying Millage, the Name of the Taxing Authority, the Rolled-Back Rate, the Percentage Increase, and the Millage Rate to be Levied G. Adoption of Resolution Setting Millage Rates H. Resolution to Adopt the Final Budget by Fund 3. ADJOURN. September 18, 2002 Item #2A DISCUSSION OF MILLAGE RATES FUND1NG THE FY 2003 BUDGET CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, would you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the~Pledge of Allegiance was recited and the meeting continued as follows:) Welcome one and all to our final budget hearing. Okay. Who is going to start off, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Sir, we are going to go straight to Mike and let him start the process because he has to do the readings, and then later on, we will go to the discussion of the $700,000 for the trauma center that we were to put off into a reserve fund. We will have our preSentation on that and discuss during this how we went about it and how we are going to pay that out. Also we have the Livingston Road Beautification Phase II MSTU presentation also, but for now, I'll go to Mr. Smykowski to discuss the millage rates and then we will discuss with the Board the rest of our presentation. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Michael Smykowski, Budget Director. The first item, as required by Florida Statute is the discussion of the tentative millage rates for the proposed FY 03 budget and the increases and decreases of the rolled- back property tax rates, which is attached in Item 2A. That would generate the same amount as last year, so this will be a repeat performance from two weeks ago. We are statutorily required to do that. Page 2 September 18, 2002 The General Fund is millage neutral. The proposed millage rate, 3.8772 is the same as in FY 02. The only change is 12.4 percent above the rolled-back rate. And that includes -- supports the future road and bridge construction at 4.2 million dollars. Also, the Water Pollution Control Fund, the percent change over the rolled-back rate is a decrease of 7.2 percent, the proposed millage is .0347. Unincorporated Area General Fund 111, the proposed millage tax of .8069, rolled-back is .7316, 10.3 percent above the rolled-back rate. The Unincorporated General Fund is paid for through the county for people who live outside the corporate boundaries of the City of Naples, City of Marco Island and Everglades City as the county becomes a principal service provider within that area. There's enhanced code enforcement, funding for comprehensive planning studies, both in East Naples and Naples Park and an additional two million dollars in roadway resurfacing and for the purchase of additional traffic counter stations. That was the number one Board priority in this year's budget, was roads, and staff felt that road resurfacing is as important as construction of the new roads. Obviously, we have to maintain what we already have in addition to trying to keep pace with the construction of new facilities. Golden Gate Community Center, due to a decrease in budget capital outlay expenses and an increase in taxable value, the proposed millage is .2886. It's a decrease of 26.9 percent below the rolled-back rate. There is no proposed tax levy in Naples Park Drainage. Pine Ridge Industrial Park, there's a maintenance contract that's being re-bid this year. We're anticipating a slight increase. The millage is .0516, which is 12.4 percent above the rolled-back rate. Victoria Park Drainage, there's a $400 dollar increase in the tax levy. Page 3 September 18, 2002 That results in a proposed millage of. 1761, which is ten and a half percent above the rolled-back rate. Within the Golden Gate Parkway Beautification, the MSTU Advisory Committee has recommended levying a constant one half mil levy. Due to increased value within the district, that is an increase of 10.1 percent above the rolled-back rate. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we need to review each one of these, or could we go right to commissioner questions? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. The -- prior to taking public comment on the budget, you are required statutorily to discuss the increases in the rolled-back rate funding the budget. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I love your presentation and I wouldn't want to interrupt, so go ahead. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. I'll move it along as fast as I can. The volume of MSTU's makes this a little more of a challenging exercise than in most counties where they may only have a few tax levies. There is a decrease of $1800 in Naples Production Park, .0238 mils, a decrease of 19.6 percent below the rolled-back rate. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU is a -- is a new tax levy proposed at one half mil. Isle of Capri Fire, there was an increase in the -- in the tax levy to one and a half mils. Previously, it was one mil. That's an increase of 71.7 percent above the rolled-back rate. Ochopee fire is levying four mils, consistent with what was levied in the past year and based on increased value, that's an increase of 8.3 percent above the rolled- back rate. Page 4 September 18, 2002 Goodland/Horr's Island Fire MSTU, we have renegotiated a contract with the City of Marco Island to provide fire service in that area. That's approximately -- that's essentially the same cost for that contract renewal, and due to increased value within the district, the -- the millage of .6173 is 3.1 percent below the rolled-back rate. Radio Road Beautification levies a constant one half mil. That's an increase of 4.7 percent. Sable Palm Road MSTU, there is no tax levy. Lely Golf Estates Beautification, there's a two mil tax levy. That's 6.7 percent above the rolled-back rate. Within the Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU, it's a $1200 decrease in the tax-- in the tax levy. That's .0297 mils, a decrease of 54.4 percent. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU, there was an increase in the millage approved this year by the Board as recommended by their Advisory Committee for drainage improvements within that area. It's three mils. That's 226.1 percent above the rolled-back rate. Immokalee Beautification has recommended -- the Advisory Committee has recommended a -- maintain the one mil tax levy. That's 8.3 percent increase above the rolled-back rate. Bayshore Avalon is a two mil tax levy, 12.6 percent above the rolled-back rate. Livingston Road Phase II Beautification MSTU, that will be -- obviously be the subject of discussion tonight. The TRIM notice went out at a two mil maximum levy. Obviously, we'll be looking to make changes to that this evening. Parks GOB Debt Service, the Ad Valorem is approximately level. Due to increased value, the -- there's a decrease of six percent below the rolled-back rate, the proposed millage, .0268. There's no levy in the Isle of Capri Fire. Collier County Lighting, due to available carry-forward revenue, there is a decrease in the tax levy there. The millage is .1653, a decrease of 9.3 percent. Page 5 September 18, 2002 Collier County Lighting -- excuse me, Naples Production Park Street Lighting, there is an increase in the tax levy of $600 to fund operations, .0420 mils, a 4.2 percent increase. Pelican Bay MSTBU, there was a slight increase in the security contract. The millage is · 1802, which is seven tenths of a percent above the rolled-back rate. The Aggregate Rate is 13.74 percent above the rolled-back rate taking into the account the averaging of all of the MSTU's. And with that, the first component of our hearing this evening is completed. Item #2B DISCUSSION OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET I'll move to Item 2B. It's fairly brief. Discussion of further amendments for the tentative budget. Within the General Fund, there were a few changes. There was a $10,000 donation for a beach kiosk. There was an adjustment to the tax collector and property appraiser fees. Based on the actual tax levies of the cities and the school board, the county is required to pay the property appraiser fees and the actual tax collector fees for the municipalities and the school board. I did some calculations based on what they were actually levying as opposed to the estimate that was used in April, May time period, and those savings were moved to reserves as a result of that change. There is a change due to funding for lease space at Court Plaza, which is lease space occupied -- to be occupied by the IT staff for a training room on the new financial system. That was approved by the Board during an executive summary. And the executive office Page 6 September 18, 2002 budget was also changed to reflect contract provisions that were approved by the Board. Within Fund 111, the Unincorporated Area General Fund, there was a reorganization that Mr. Schmitt had talked about back in our budget workshops in June. Essentially, he's just carving out from existing budget appropriations a separate section for community redevelopment. That's carved out of the housing appropriations. No additional funding required. I just -- setting out the separate section. The same thing happened in -- in Fund 113, which is the Community Development Fund, supported by building permit fees. We established an environmental section from the existing planning section, just simply carving out some of the existing budget to create that separate section. We also established the budget for the hearing examiner as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. In Fund 408, the County Water Sewer District, there was a -- a public information position that was approved by the Board on September 10th. That was added to the budget. Solid Waste, we revised slightly downward. The estimated revenues based on actual receipts received, as we're pretty close to the end of the fiscal year, we've made some adjustments there. And within the Group Health Insurance Fund, based on an executive summary approved by the Board for some additional billings that -- costs that will be incurred this year, we have made a change to the budget as proposed. That brings us to Item 2C, Budget Discussion Items. Obviously, the Livingston Road Beautification MSTU budget and millage. MR. MUDD: Before we start, Commissioners, I -- I -- Jim Mudd for the record, I asked David Weigel if he would talk about the legal aspects about the MSTU, because we -- we heard some -- some Page 7 September 18, 2002 comments from the -- the landscaping workshop and at the last budget hearing meeting, about was the MSTU a legal entity in the fact that we had developers that said they were representing homeowners, and I've asked David to comment on that particular case. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go any farther, Mr. Mudd, Commissioner Henning's got a comment or question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jumping back to Item B, we don't have to do it now, as long as I have an opportunity, Commissioner, to discuss an item on -- on B. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may continue. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a little bit of a problem with the Commissioners Office Budget, and I think that we need to discuss it and I also believe that we all can work it out. Actually, in the commissioner's office, I -- I think that we should have a -- a decrease instead of budget neutral, and -- since we did have some of those expenditures go to the County Manager's Office. And, Commissioner Coletta, I know that you have a huge expense being a representative from District 5, being the rural area of the county, and I'm offering up to you that I think that with our travel expenses, that we can help offset those costs and delete the vehicle and the vehicle expenses for the -- the Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I hear you, Commissioner Henning, very clearly, although I got a feeling that what you just said is con -- contrary from one statement to the other. The -- you're right, we do have a -- a very heavy budget and I realize that because District 5 is 85 percent of the county, that I probably carry a-- a large share of that expense for traveling in that district. What we are looking at is a used vehicle that's already in- fleet, that if we use it here, the expense would be very minimal. Page 8 September 18, 2002 If anything, it may help to drawn down the costs of what we are doing. In some cases, I can see that as the vehicle to go to Tallahassee rather than taking a plane. In fact, I see that possibly as a way to be able to help reduce costs rather than increase it. District 5 is 85 percent of the county. I -- I drive a tremendous amount of miles with my own vehicle. And this -- this vehicle, the minor expense that it would entail, I think, is very well warranted. Possibly we can get a little bit of a description of it from Mr. Mudd, or what we're actually talking about. MR. MUDD: We're pulling on it right now, Commissioner. MS. FILSON: I can tell you what I budgeted for. I budgeted $3000. I did that at 25 cents a mile and I averaged a thousand miles a month, which came out to $3000 annually. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh. MS. FILSON: And that covers the insurance and maintenance and gas. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And if anything, the population of Collier County, growing as it is, I find that my time in the field is considerably more than when I first started, trying to meet the needs that are out there of the citizens by being present as much as possible at whatever events there are. But, no, I do appreciate your concerns and I hope that the commission will realize that this $3000 expense will enable all of us to be able to do a better job as far as reaching out to the people who we represent. Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is -- is the $3000, the increase, total increase for transportation that is the subject of discussion here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Not on my part, if that answers your question. Page 9 September 18, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: It probably doesn't. You've got to tell me what you're objecting to for the Board of County Commissioners to carry out local, state-wide and perhaps national travel commitments to bring dollars to Collier County. Sometimes you have to go out and find money and I call it a good investment in trying to do your job, but I'm willing to listen to your considerations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we have, Commissioner Carter, is an increase in our travel expenses by about-- a hundred percent? MS. FILSON: It was $2500 and it increased to $4000, which is a $1500 increase. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So that is -- that is budgeted, and as far as increased population, Commissioner Coletta, we do get paid for that increase in population. And my thought was either reduce the travel expenses of the Board of Commissioners, or recognize that Commissioner Coletta has a-- an extra burden for those traveling expenses, if they do stay the $4000, is to make sure that you're covered for your expenses. Because I know that a vehicle, besides that you have maintenance, you are going to have insurance, and, I think, this vehicle could be put to a better use. So what I'm looking for is either cut our travel expenses across the board for this vehicle or cut the vehicle and accommodate Commissioner Coletta in his travels. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Commissioner? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Who's addressing me? MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle. MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle, go ahead. Page 10 September 18, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question? Sue, what is the travel allowance that is budgeted for each commissioner? MS. FILSON: Four thousand dollars, currently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For each commissioner? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will you please take $2000 out of mine and -- and give it to somebody else in order to reduce this budget. I -- I will pay my own traveling expenses, unless I am required to go to Tallahassee or someplace, and I don't really need $4000. So if you would like, and if it will help solve the problem, I'll be happy to -- to have that transferred. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have done that in past years. Pam Mac'Kie transferred money out of her budget when she was here to cover the shortfall because of the travel that I was necessitated from my district and also for the number of trips that people were sending me to Tallahassee. That may be the answer, although I -- I hope that we're not going to be cutting Commissioner Coyle short in the end. That's, of course, I know that his district is very close to the Government Center here, but still I hope -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I don't think I had -- I -- I claimed any travel expenses for the past ten months or so. Sue, can -- I don't know. Is that true, Sue? MS. FILSON: I can tell you that the total amount of travel that you have spent this year is fifty dollars. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then-- then I -- I think that if you reduce my travel budget, then -- then we might be able to offset some of this so that we can get closer to a neutral budget. I think Commissioner Henning's goal is -- is a very good one. Page 11 September 18, 2002 I think if we want to -- the -- the staff and others to -- to adhere to sort of a revenue neutral budget, I -- I think it's a good idea if we set the example. So if-- if doing that, cutting out my travel budget or cutting a portion of it off will solve the problem, that -- that will be fine with me, and I'll fund whatever local travel is -- is necessary without billing the county for it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have -- I have no problem if Commissioner Coyle feels that that would work for him. I know in the past two years, I have driven over 40,000 miles in my district. And that would be a little bit too much for me to be able to say I could absorb. MS. FILSON: And, Commissioner Henning, the $3000 is all inclusive. That includes maintenance, insurance, gas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's -- you're doing very well. I don't see how you could do that, so I commend you for that. If you could tell me what my total was for travel? MS. FILSON: This is as of August 31st. Your total was $829.90. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I know that I'm going to be going up to Tallahassee this coming fiscal year many a times, and possibly Washington D.C., and I don't know why I can't do it for $3000. So I think if we all give a little bit here, we can-- we can give back to the taxpayers, so I'm willing to cut back, except for you, Commissioner Coyle, because I-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I want to recognize the fact that, so it doesn't sound like I'm trying to sell the taxpayers short, I've been -- I've been very, very conservative in what I've been spending. In fact, I'm the only commissioner other than Commissioner Coyle that has no office outside of District 5 and I have to travel great Page 12 September 18, 2002 distances and meet people on the dock in Immokalee sometimes for the lack of office space. I'm willing to do anything to make it work, but if we cut back to the point where the commission isn't going to be effective as far as making it to Tallahassee, or in some cases, Washington D.C. where they can protect the integrity of our future budgets and the incomes that are going to come in, we've got to weigh that with great caution. I think as we are going through the year, if we have monies we haven't spent, it gets turned back in. I have no -- no problem. I -- if- - if you feel like you could -- can work with considerable less money. But when that day comes that we get into push or shove and we need you in Tallahassee, and it's the end of the year, the budget-- you run out of budget money, I hope it's not a determining factor whether you can go or not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can take it out of the County Manager's budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the best idea I've heard yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I don't have the district that you have and -- and I recognize that. And I feel that I could do it -- my travel expenses less than you can. That's the only reason. What I want to do is, like, Commissioner Coyle, is -- is set an example and offset that $3000 expense for the vehicle. So I think that we're there and I think that if other commissioners are willing to be flexible in their travel expenses, that we shouldn't have a problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta's vehicle. Once again, too, the vehicle is not It belongs to the whole commission office. You have to sign it out like you do any vehicle, and I would assume that Commissioner Fiala might be using it sometimes when she's going to go to Marco. Page 13 September 18, 2002 Commissioner Carter, if he -- while his term is still in office for November, and possibly his successor may wish to use it for travel to Fort Myers for the Southwest Regional Planning Commission. And I can see it as a tremendous savings to be able to use this vehicle to go to Tallahassee rather than a -- a flight, which can eat about $350 dollars to $400 into our budget. So I'm looking at it also a cost-saving measure. But whatever the will is, but meanwhile, we have Commissioner Coyle wishing to take how much out of your budget, Commissioner Coyle? Three hundred or $3000? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever you think you need. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, whatever realistically is going to let you still be able to operate and make it to Tallahassee if you have to go there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I think that I -- I will depend pretty heavily upon our -- our legislative delegation to represent me in Tallahassee, but if-- if the commission, the Board feels that I should go there from time to time, then -- then maybe $1500 would pretty much cover -- cover that travel, and we can take the other $2500 and use it to help offset the -- the cost of the -- the automobile. But I -- I would -- I think we must be sensitive to the issue that - - that -- that the Chairman is going to be faced with more travel outside the city -- the county than -- than most anyone else. And I would -- would expect that the -- the new Chairman, whoever that might be, would need some additional money for trips to Tallahassee and Washington. And I -- I don't think it's going to be me, and it shouldn't be me, so I -- I don't foresee a heavy out of-- out-of-county expenditure for travel for me over the next 12 months. Page 14 September 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, Commissioner Coyle, and I appreciate your comments. I think we are heading in a direction that will work just fine. I have no problems with it. So we are going to remove $2500 from your travel budget. Commissioner Henning, from yours? COMMISSIONER HENNING: A thousand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One thousand? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Let's have an auction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I -- I raise your travel budget rate by $200. No. I'm just kidding. Okay. Let's -- let's -- we have some other commissioners that would like to speak on this subject. I'll start with Commissioner Fiala and then go to Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let me say that I had a -- a great deal of difference between this past year's budget and the year before. I didn't know we could turn in any -- any mileage, and the year before I just paid for all of my own. But I wasn't able to get up to Tallahassee very easy, although -- although I made it. But it -- I had a lot of financial constraints because of it until I found that, yes, I could pay for my own gasoline. I have been -- I've gone up to Tallahassee a-- a number of times, and I'm working on my certification as a commissioner as well, and -- but if there's -- I don't know how much I spent this year. This year, I turned it all in, because I have office hours every week on Marco. I have go to Marco about three times a week. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-huh. MS. FILSON: For out-of-county travel, you spent $1767.58 as of August 31 st. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Page 15 September 18, 2002 MS. FILSON: That mileage reimbursement, do you want that as well? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Uh-huh. MS. FILSON: And for mileage reimbursement, it was $713.98. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not giving up anything for the incoming Commissioner District 2 Seat, and I will tell you why. You have spent more money on this discussion than you have saved in a year. And I-- you budget it, you don't have to spend it. I will tell you there will be increased costs for county commissioners to do business for the taxpayers of county -- of this county, and if you want them to get out there and do what they need to do, I don't care who sits in these chairs, whether they're independently wealthy or poor as a church mouse. They should have a budget to operate to get the citizens work done. And I'm not going to give up anything for the commission -- commissioner coming in here. You-all can fight it out later, but I would like to move on with this budget session and you can divide it up any way you want. I find it incredible we're arguing over $1500 in a 120 million dollar budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think -- I think it was more the -- the idea than it was the amount. And I'm glad we got a chance to bring it up. I mean, past years I have been asked to be a representative of this commission to Tallahassee, made numerous trips there, and this year, not only representing this commission, but Southwest Regional Planning Commission. I've been named as the Chair of their -- to represent them in Tallahassee. Page 16 September 18, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: The expenses for you going to the planning council is paid by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. All you have to do is turn in your slip, they pay for it. It doesn't cost this county a dime. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's true. That's true. Good point, Commissioner Carter. Well, shall we -- where are we on this? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's the consensus of the Board we will remove $2500 from Commissioner Coyle's travel budget and $1000 from Commissioner Henning's budget, and move those funds to reserves. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very good. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Item #3C BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS - LIVINGSTON ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU BUDGET/MILLAGE AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS TO FUND TRAUMA CENTER RESERVE MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item-- I believe we're finished, is the Livingston Road Beautification. Mr. Weigel was going to touch on the -- the legal issues surrounding the establishment of that MSTU. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mike. David Weigel, County Attorney. The Livingston Road Beautification MSTU, it's called the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, was created by the Board of County Commissioners as Ordinance number 2001-76 in December of 2001. Page 17 September 18, 2002 And in regard to it's taxing authority, the ordinance itself provides for a millage that can be assessed, provides for the creation of an MSTU Advisory Committee, which has been done. And there are questions I have received independently through my office asking about the legality of the initiation creation of this MSTU. It was created at a regular Board of County Commissioners public meeting in December of 2001. It was an advertised hearing. A copy of the minutes indicates that Mr. Ed Kant was the principal speaker on behalf of the staff, talking with the Board of County Commissioners and the interested public at the time. And he had indicated that he and his staff, and I quote, have been meeting with representatives from the three -- three major adjoining communities. That would be the Wyndemere Community, the Kensington Community and the Grey Oaks Community. And he states, and I quote again, there is, in my opinion, a great deal of support for the creation of this district. And he mentioned that there were representatives here if you want to speak with them or get their support, and there were some speakers at that time. And again, this was the December 1 lth, 2001 board meeting. The ordinance was adopted at that time, was filed with the clerk and was filed with the Secretary of State, and it is in place. Questions may arise or come up in regard to, well, does it take an absolute petition of fifty percent plus one for the Board to adopt an MSTU, whether it's this one or in any other? And the answer to that question is, legally, no. The Board of County Commissioners has the inherent and express power under Section 125.01 of the Florida Statutes to create Municipal Service Taxing Units. Page 18 September 18, 2002 The Board does have a policy in place by resolution which talks in terms of MSTU's, Municipal Service Benefit Units, and other questions that may come to referendum, may, in fact, come forward through a petition policy. But it is not required of this Board to do so, and we've had discussions of that in recent regular board meetings, concerning the petition policy and matters that may come before the Board in the future. There's no requirement, therefore, for there to have been a petition of fifty percent plus one, although the Board has indicated in the past, a desire to have that if a petition process is to be utilized. The only other thing I can think to say right here is that it's my legal opinion that the MSTU is valid; it's in effect. The Board in it's budget process always has the opportunity to either approve a millage or, in fact, provide for an MSTU to be unfunded. And really, that's the -- the extent of my legal comments on this MSTU. Mike, I didn't know if you or -- or Mr. Mudd had any further discussion in regard to Livingston Road and the MSTU. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to Mr. Mudd, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: With that -- Mr. Weigel, thank you for that input, and with that input, talking to some of the residents and because of misunderstandings, I think it would be appropriate for this Board to -- not to collect anything in the MSTU, give the residents a year and -- and still keep the MSTU in -- in place, give the residents a year to figure out what kind, or if they want do beautify Livingston Road in that area. And in the meantime, the following year, we know that we have a deficit of capital improvements of-- of lighting, is -- the following year is that to be paid off by the MSTU. Page 19 September 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle and we'll go to Commissioner Carter next. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think that's a reasonable solution. I -- I would like to, perhaps, deal with that by-- by, however granting a loan for that amount for the year and -- and charging interest on it to make sure that -- that we are -- are not giving away taxpayer dollars. But I think that's an excellent way to proceed and it gives the -- the residents additional time to -- to work out the details of the MSTU. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: My understanding in the community and what Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle have said, they want to defer the payment of what's owed the county, which, I believe, is $280,000 or something, something. I -- I don't have the number in front of me. MR. MUDD: Sir, the -- the total a -- well, there's two different ways to look at this, okay? If you -- and if you -- if you cancel the -- the street lights right now, we have -- $154,800 would be the amount that's owed for the street lights if we cancel it because they have already got some made, and we get no street lights. We don't get the decorative street lights, so we just flushed 154k. And if we receive the street lights, it's $228,600. So if you can't -- and then there's some expenses that they have for administrative, so -- so total amount owed if you canceled the street lights would be $196,800, and if you receive the street lights, the amount owed is $276,400. Page 20 September 18, 2002 And I -- we passed that particular sheet out to everybody in the audience out there, too, so that they've got that. So there's -- it's about an $80,000 difference between the two -- the two options. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's -- what's it come out on the tax bill for either option? MR. MUDD: Mike, you want to put that up on the visualizer? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. Switch to the visualizer in the control room, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could you focus a little better? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Put your glasses on. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm not sure our zoom is going to do quite enough for you to see, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not sure, Commissioner Coyle, anybody can read it even after we focus, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanks. I feel better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle, before you go, Commissioner Fiala wishes to speak next and we'll come right back to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I was just wondering. I -- I spoke a little bit with Tom Saxisbury today, and -- from Grey Oaks, and I said, we have a lot of money sitting on the table right now that needs to be paid out, as long as they wanted decorative lighting. I -- I spoke with him and asked if-- if the developers of Grey Oaks would be willing to come up with the money to at least finish off the part that the county has -- has offered to this point in time, and maybe he can respond to that. And then put the rest of it on hold as Mr. Henning -- as Commissioner Henning was saying and -- and let the people -- I don't think we should be telling them what they want to do. It's their MSTU. Page 21 September 18, 2002 And so I think that, you know, they should discuss if after that. If they -- if they want landscaping, fine. If they don't want landscaping, fine, whatever they want to do, but I think if Grey Oaks would pay for this initial part, at least we could get the decorative lighting in as we had-- been planned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You might want to call the developer up? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you -- Mr. Saxisbury, would you like to come up and address that? MR. SAXISBURY: For the record, Tom Saxisbury here of 840 Riverpoint Drive, Naples. About -- speaking today again as -- as a member of the Beautification Advisory Board and as the developer's president of the developers of the Grey Oaks homeowner's association, our request had been that we extend this so that there would be no taxation until the '03 tax year, to give us time to get all the information to our people, to have a legal meeting of the Grey Oaks Property Owners Association and have the Property Owners Association determine whether or not they see the benefits and are prepared to pay for those benefits. Our commitment, as I told you, Commissioner, is that if those residents said, no, we do not, the developers then is prepared to stand behind Grey Oaks portion of those costs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we addressed the lights that are there now and the costs. MR. SAXISBURY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say you would cover those costs this year that have already been incurred? MR. SAXISBURY: Okay. What I-- what I said is that should they, and hopefully we'll have this meeting in November, determine that they do not want to be part of-- of the Page 22 September 18, 2002 MSTU, of that portion of it, they do not believe that there is a value to them, and they vote by majority they will not -- they don't agree with having it funded in the -- the next year, then we will have to meet with the administrator, determine how much Grey Oaks' share of that is and we'll fund that amount. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How -- how are you going to determine the will of the people? MR. SAXISBURY: We're going to have a meeting with the Property Owners Association. Majority rules. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Saxisbury, just for clarification on my part, I understand there is two parts to this, that each community wanted to expand the MSTBU to have equal representation. MR. SAXISBURY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Where there would be three members from each community; three from Wyndemere, three from Grey Oaks, three from Kensington, and they would want that opportunity to review whether or not they want to continue, as you've said, the MSTU. And then come back and then make that determination collectively and in the community, however you would work that out. I think a lot of good business people in all three of those communities -- the question I would have, would you, as a business people, flush $196,800 down the tubes, or would you add 80 to it to get decorative street lighting along Livingston Road where it will affect your community, because eventually, I believe, all three communities will exit out on Livingston Road. And that, of course, can be that decision. Page 23 September 18, 2002 But the county, regardless of what you do, will collect 196.8, $196,800 from the MSTU. If you defer it for a year, I understand that and would be agreeable to it with what we have passed by this Board, but I think it would be agreeable, plus interest, to -- to defer it until the next -- until the next fiscal year. At least the county manager says he was no problems administratively with that, so I think that's the question. And I don't know what the associations want to do, but I was always operating on the basis that you were going to go 276.4 and then figure out what you were going to do from there so you didn't lose where you already were, regardless of how the failure in communications process. MR. SAXISBURY: Again, sir, I can't speak for all the homeowners, but from a business standpoint, I believe the 276.4 is the number that we are talking about, and we are talking about paying our share of the 276.4. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. Do you have other- - is there other people to speak on this Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, Mr. Saxisbury is one of them, and the next one is Bill Confoy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And be -- while the speakers are on their way up, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since there is only that many speakers, I'll defer my comments. MR. CONFOY: I'll try to be brief because it looks like there's not a lot of speakers on the subject, but I'm Bill Confoy. I'm the member of the MSTU that you've been talking about. My comments were basically, what once was quiet two-lane roads lined with Mahogany trees is now a six-lane highway abut over Page 24 September 18, 2002 the wall. Livingston Road -- I can't read with these, Livingston Road will have 3400 residents that will enter onto that same road. Residencies on the east side of Grey Oaks and Kensington will, no doubt, use it's convenience ingress and outgress as well as all roads on the east side of Livingston Road. This section from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road is a residential area and should reflect that aspect in the medians and surrounding areas. The corridor of lighting was chosen by the MSTU to do just that. It's the same basic enhanced fixture selected by the county for such an application and carries down from light units used in the north section of Livingston Road outside Mediterra. We would ask the Board to prove -- to approve the lighting improvement. To do so otherwise would be a disservice to all the future and present Livingston Road residents and the county at large. With the expanded MSTU the Board proposed, we can certainly come to an equitable agreement on future landscaping ideas that would be supported by all the communities involved and be used to supplement funds that we expect would be committed by previous boards in the year 2002. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Which community do you represent, sir.9 MR. CONFOY: Well, I can't represent any of them, but I am on the MSTU, and I live -- and I'm in Wyndemere. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Wyndemere. I just wanted to know the name and the community. Okay. Thank you. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And so this item we have before the Board, do we need to put it in the form of a motion or Page 25 September 18, 2002 MR. MUDD: I think you -- you did get a motion from Commissioner Henning, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if I got a second, and then there was some discussion about interests, if you were going to defer -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that was -- was it a motion? Did I say a motion? MR. MUDD: Well, we can start all over again. We didn't get a second on it. I remember that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make a motion that we defer any taxation on this MSTU install the lighting, and let the residents decide what they want to do between now and the next fiscal year. The next fiscal year, the lighting and all ancillary items along with it, to be paid, with interest, by the MSTU. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're talking about decorative lighting, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than the basic? Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We -- got a -- we got a motion from Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle. I-- I do have a question. I -- in your motion, would you like to include that if the residents reject it, that the developer stay by with his promise to pay for it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I think that's going to come out anyway, Commissioner. If the residents don't want it, Mr. Saxisbury did state on the record that Grey Oaks would pay its fair share. Page 26 September 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would feel a lot more comfortable if you would include that in your motion, if you wouldn't mind. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, under those circumstances, I'm not going to put the taxpayers dollars up for grab, and I wouldn't be able to vote for the motion as it stands now, MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only thing I -- the only thing I would say -- Jim Mudd, County Manager for the record. The only thing I'd say for you right now, is you have an obligation from a legal entity, an MSTU on Livingston Phase II. And -- and that's where it stands. And that's about all you have, and you have some executive summaries that have gone to the Board, one of which said this decorative lighting would be paid back over a two-year period of time. And if you are saying that the first year we are going to collect nothing and then the second year, we are going to collect the -- the difference, the whole thing, then that's over a two-year period of time. David, do you see anything different on that two-year period? It didn't necessarily say anything in the executive summary that it would be equal payments. It just said it had to be paid back over a two-year period of time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My -- my concern is for the taxpayers. I -- I'm hearing a gentleman offering to pay for it if the residents don't want to, and I'm at a loss to see why we can't protect the taxpayers' interest and have it included in the motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's already stated on public record, Commissioner, that they are willing to pay Grey Oaks share, including the lighting in -- by the end of-- in fiscal year 2003-4. I don't know how much clearer that can be. Page 27 September 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's absolutely correct. That's what I heard him say. I heard him say that if the residents reject it in a community meeting, that he'll pay for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's wonderful. It's on the record. Why not restate it in the motion so that it backs up what the statement was here, so it just gives it a little more clarity. That's -- that's the way I feel, and I -- I don't mean to -- to draw this out forever, but if I vote against the motion, that would be the reason why. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may come forward. MR. SAXISBURY: Mr. Chairman, we've made that commitment to the people and if this needs to be in the motion, put it in the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's Commissioner Henning's motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: He's saying if you want to put it in -- in the motion, Commissioner Henning, he's giving you approval on record to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate that, and I think all bases are covered and we don't need to force the Board or anybody else. In case the residents don't -- don't want it, we have it on the record, the representative from Grey Oaks is -- is going to pay for it, so I think the residents are protected. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a motion from Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle. The motion stands as it is, and so if there is nothing else to comment on that, I will call for the vote on the motion. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye. Page 28 September 18, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Opposed? You may list me as being the opposition on that particular vote. Thank you. Next item. Oh, actually I went through the speakers. Go ahead. Next item. MR. MUDD: Is the budget reduction for the -- for the future trauma center reserve. And if you look in your packets, Commissioners -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's on Item 2C, page one, and I'll put it up on the visualizer as well for the benefit of anyone who might be seeing it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, it's understood with this particular item that absolutely no dollars are being released on this until all sorts of certain -- all conditions are met, which we-- we mentioned before. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- I would suggest, and I think we mentioned it last time, but -- but for the record, I -- I would think that some kind of memorandum of agreement would be established between the Lee County Trauma Center and Collier County in order to work out the -- how the dollars are going to be billed and dispersed, so that's perfectly clear and we have that opportunity to work out all the procedures for that to happen. As far as this -- our dollars are concerned, and that would be coming to the Board at a future date, what we were directed to do in this budget was to find $700,000, and take those cuts and to put those dollars in a -- a fund -- in a reserve and set it aside until we had those procedures established. Page 29 September 18, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also too, I-- we're leaving our options open where we're requiting the Lee County Commission to make a commitment that is equal to what we are doing percentage- wise. I just wanted to state that for the record that when the time does come, that if we do reach that point where we're going to come to an agreement with the Lee Memorial Trauma Center, that that condition is going to be one of the things that we're not going to look the other way on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if it's time for me to ask a question or-- or at least make a statement, I would like to do so. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I-- I-- I would like to make it clear, as least this is my understanding, that -- that this approval is not an approval to transfer $700,000 to Lee County Memorial for trauma center operations. It is $700,000 we are putting in reserve of-- for the potential use to pay our fair share of trauma treatment for Collier County residents. And-- and furthermore, I -- what I would like the -- the Board to do, is issue a statement or at least we could get consensus of the Board that what we would do is make reimbursement to the trauma center based upon the per-case charges of our residents only. Using the $700,000 figure and just transferring it lump sump, I don't think is a good way to manage our funds in this respect, and I think it would be far better if we function sort of like an insurance company. When one of our residents goes to the trauma center, and -- and there are charges that remain unpaid, then we will get an opportunity Page 30 September 18, 2002 to review why the charges were not paid, and to pay the difference, which would be our fair share. So that's -- that's what I would -- would envision this program as -- as looking like, as far the functional component is concerned. So I -- I just wanted to -- to make that statement and -- and see if the -- the Board was -- was in agreement with that direction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I think your -- your statement was right on lines of what we were talking about before, you know, putting it on like a voucher system where each one has to be documented. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make that in the form of a motion, what you just said? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes -- yes, I would. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I would like to second that. We'll go to Commissioner Henning next and then Commissioner Caner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we could interject into that motion, legally obligated, I think that we would be much better off in the end. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would accept that change, and please remember that -- that when we make this change, that we will have to develop a memorandum of understanding with the trauma center to make sure and -- and -- this is something that -- that County Manager Mudd has -- has pointed out to me. We -- we have to make sure that there is no potential for us to get double-billed. You'll remember that there is a -- a Florida statute that-- that commits participating counties in a-- a trauma center, a regional trauma center to pay up to what, maybe four per capita. Page 31 September 18, 2002 What -- what we want to make sure of is that if we enter into this kind of memorandum of understanding to pay our fair share on a voucher basis, that we are also not subject to having to pay that additional amount of money. So in the memorandum of understanding, I think it's essential that we -- we have that kind of protection. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, one concern about, legally, the legal parts of what we are legally responsible for, that four dollars could enter in, and if we did that, being 250,000 plus people in Collier County, that might leave us open for a million dollars. Could we possibly set the limit so that we can not exceed the amount that we have budgeted here? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's exactly what I meant. But what I'm -- I'm saying is, in the memorandum of understanding, we should clearly spell out that we will pay up to $700,000 under this voucher system, but we'll do that only if we are not subjected to higher payments under the state statute. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. I agree to put that -- and my second to your motion, if you-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And-- and we have incorporated Commissioner Henning's recommendation in that motion; is that correct? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with all of it. I would encourage calling the question. County Manager Mudd has already sent information to the Naples Daily News clarifying Sunday's editorial. Page 32 September 18, 2002 We didn't spend anything. We didn't release anything. This motion will clarify tonight, once and forever more, what the intent was and the follow-through by the Board of County Commissioners. And Ms. Freeman is here tonight from the Naples Daily News and she writes accurately on these subjects and I know that she's taking copious notes, Commissioner Coyle, so that that will be reported in the moming edition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. And with that, call for the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those opposed? The ayes have it five to zero. Next item. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just a couple of points on -- on this budget reduction list. A total of $755,000 in the General Fund. That provided for the Lee County Regional Trauma Center reserve of $700,000. The Board also identified -- approved on September 10th, the Citizen Core Advisory Counsel staffing position for $47,000. And the Board had previously determined that they wanted to proceed with the article five special assessment fact dues, so that total is $755,000. We've identified General Fund reductions of a like amount. Commissioner Fiala, the -- there's one item on there on the Country Jam and Viva Naples. I have -- I have two comments relative to that. One, at the Board meeting on September 10th, the question arose as to funding for the East Naples Study and finding available funds, because money was approved for the Naples Park Study. Page 33 September 18, 2002 And Mr. Mudd, at that point, had indicated that the MSTB funding as a result of the changes to the Country Jam and Viva Naples budgets would be then redirected to that study, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the 41 Corridor Study that you -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. So I want that to be clear that that would be part of the change we would be making. In addition, there was a letter addressed to the Board of County Commissioners and I received a copy from David Correa requesting the Board to continue support of the Viva Naples Festival itself. And I -- I think there is some confusion because of-- of the -- the newspaper article of the Country Jam and Viva Naples is a -- was a component of the budget reduction list. But that's a result of changes, adding an additional day, getting some sponsorship funds that reduced the Unincorporated Area General Fund tax support of that event. I just wanted to be clear to Mr. Correa and anyone who might be watching that there will still be a Viva Naples Festival. We have just reduced the Ad Valorem tax support of that event and replaced it with private sponsorship money that Mr. Dunnuck has worked hard to -- to allow us to make that change while reducing the Ad Valorem support of that event. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Our compliments to Mr. Dunnuck for doing so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely. I second that. MR. MUDD: Without any further questions on the cuts, we -- we've got your $700,000, plus the other issues and we tried to cover all the bases. I think we have pretty well tightened this one down. Mike? MR. SMYKOWSKI: The Sheriff also contributed. We asked them, given their size and percentage of the General Fund Budget, we Page 34 September 18, 2002 -- we looked to them to contribute and they were -- contributed $221,200, so we appreciate their efforts as well in helping us establish this reserve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to give Commissioner Coyle a chance. I -- I'm not too sure if he wanted to speak or not. I thought I heard him in the background. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No. I was just seconding your accommodation to Mr. Dunnuck for finding some private funding. I think that's exactly the way these things should go, and -- and I compliment him for being able to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you like to encourage other staff members to do likewise? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'll leave that up to them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item. Item #2D PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MR. MUDD: questions. MS. FILSON: That will bring us to public comment and Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers. Item #2E RESOLUTION 2002-386 AMENDING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET - ADOPTED MR. MUDD: That will bring us to the resolution to amend the tentative budgets. Mike? Page 35 September 18, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Move for approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That would exclude the dependent district, the Pollution Control. We -- for each of the resolutions we're adopting tonight, we will need two separate motions. I beg your indulgence on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we -- we're on the first motion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're on the first motion for -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A first? Second? COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- for resolution amending the tentative budgets per 2002-3, Resolution Number 2002-something, yet to be filled in. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. Yes, sir. That will be assigned. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it five to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And we need a resolution to amend the tentative budget for the dependent district, the Pollution Control Fund. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: second by Commissioner Fiala. indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: zero. Motion by Commissioner Carter, Any discussion? All those in favor, The ayes have it five to Page 36 September 18, 2002 Item #2F PUBLIC READING OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY LEVYING MILLAGE, THE NAME OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY, THE ROLLED-BACK RATE, THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE, AND THE MILLAGE RATE TO BE LEVIED MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item is a public reading of the taxing authority levying the millage. The name of the taxing authority, the rolled-back rate, the percentage increase and the millage rate to be levied. I will endeavor through that. The General Fund 001, the rolled-back rate is 3.4485. The proposed millage rate is 3.8772, an increase of 12.4 percent. Water Pollution Control Fund 114, the rolled-back millage rate, .0374. The proposed millage rate .0347, a decrease of 7.2 percent. That equates to a total county-wide millage rate rolled-back of 3.4859, proposed 3.9119, an increase of 12.2 percent above the rolled-back rate. Unincorporated Area General Fund 111, the rolled-back rate is .7316, proposed .8069, a 10.3 percent increase. Golden Gate Community Center Fund 130, the rolled-back rate is .3948. The proposed millage rate is .2886, a decrease of 26.9 percent. Naples Park Drainage Fund 139, there is no rolled-back rate or proposed millage. Pine Ridge Industrial Park Fund 140, the rolled- back rate is .0459. The proposed millage .0516, a 12.4 percent increase. Victoria Park Drainage Fund 134, the rolled-back rate · 1593 mils, proposed millage rate. 1761, an increase of 10.5 percent. Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Fund 136, the rolled-back rate, .4543, proposed millage rate, .5, an increase of 10.1 percent. Naples Production Park Fund 141, the rolled-back rate, ,0296, Page 37 September 18, 2002 proposed, .0238, a decrease of 19.6 percent. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Fund 143, the rolled-back rate is zero. It's a new millage levy proposed at .5 mils. Isle of Capri Fire Fund 144, the rolled-back rate is .8737 mils, the proposed millage rate is 1.5, an increase of 71.7 percent. Ochopee Fire Control Fund 146, rolled-back is 3.6924, proposed, four mils, increase of 8.3 percent. Collier County Fire Fund 148, rolled-back is 1.87 mils, proposed two mils, seven percent increase. Goodland/Horr's Island Fire MSTU Fund 149, rolled-back .6372, proposed, .6173, a decrease of 3.1 percent. Radio Road Beautification Fund 150, rolled-back, .4775, proposed, .5, an increase of 4.7 percent. Sable Palm Road, there is no proposed levy and there is no rolled-back rate as there was no levy last year. Lely Golf Estates Beautification Fund 152, rolled-back rate 1.8736, proposed, two mils, increase of 6.7 percent. Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU Fund 154, rolled-back rate, .0652, proposed .0297, a decrease of 54.4 percent. Forest Lake Roadway and Drainage MSTU Fund 155, rolled-back, .92 mils, proposed, three mils, an increase of 226.1 percent. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Fund 156, rolled-back, .9237 mils, proposed levy, one mil, 8.3 percent increase. Bayshore Avalon Beautification Fund 160, rolled-back, 1.7764, proposed, two mils, an increase of 12.6 percent. Livingston Road Phase II MSTU Fund 161, the rolled-back rate is zero pursuant to the Board direction this evening. There is no tax levy in the upcoming fiscal year. That was reduced from two mils. Parks GOB Debt Service Fund 206, rolled-back, .0285, proposed, .0268 a decrease of six percent. Isle of Capri Municipal Rescue Fire Debt Fund 244. The rolled-back rate is zero. There is no Page 38 September 18, 2002 proposed levy. Collier County Lighting Fund 760, rolled-back, .1823, proposed .1653, a decrease of 9.3 percent. Naples Production Park Street Lighting Fund 770, the proposed, or the rolled-back is .0403, proposed, .0420, an increase of 4.2 percent. Pelican Bay MSTBU Fund 778, rolled-back .1790, proposed, .1802, an increase of seven tenths of a percent. The Aggregate Millage Rate rolled-back is 4.0418, proposed, 4.5539, an increase of 12.67 percent. Item #2G RESOLUTION 2002-387 SETTING MILLAGE RATES- ADOPTED With that, Mr. Chairman, we would need a motion -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion approved. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- adopting the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- adopting the resolution setting the millage rates. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner Henning, second from Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry. Sorry. Go ahead there, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make a statement. I think it would probably be good if the other commissioners make similar statements over the next five or ten minutes. This -- this comparison to the rolled-back rate can be very, very confusing to the public. Page 39 September 18, 2002 I think that it must be made very clear that this Commission is not proposing any -- not proposing any millage rate increase over last year. We are starting the same millage rate that we were last year and we're not proposing any increases within Ad Valorem property taxes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well put. Anyone else, any comments on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Naples Daily News had'an article in the paper, I think it was today, stating the same thing that you stated, Commissioner, so I don't believe there should be any misunderstanding. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to ,zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And then we'll need a motion for the Pollution Control District-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: So moved. MR. SMYKOWSKI: as a dependent -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They ayes have it five to zero. Item #2H RESOLUTION 2002-388 ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET BY FUND- ADOPTED Page 40 September 18, 2002 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, now we would need a resolution to adopt the final budget by fund. The first motion, excluding the Pollution Control Fund. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Carter, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the final motion, sir, would be -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe we better let him state it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Adopting the final budget for the Pollution Control Fund-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm still moving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. THE BOARD: Aye. MR. SMYKOWSKI: With that, sir, we are ready to adjourn. We have conducted the business tonight. I just want to say thank you to my staff and the sacrifices they make during the course of the budget process and the demands their jobs place on themselves and their families, because I -- I know it takes a toll at times. Page 41 September 18, 2002 And I appreciate their efforts and the efforts of all the internal staff as well and the constitutional officers in -- in working together with us to bring us this budget. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sure that the Commission here feels likewise and inclined to thank everyone mentioned. I very much appreciate the efforts and hope that no one has suffered too greatly through the process. Before we go to final comments, and we'll go to you, Commissioner Carter, in just one second and the other commissioners. I would like to have an update on the current situation from Ken Pineau as far as the -- tropical storm is it, or is it a hurricane? MR. PINEAU: It's a tropical storm. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. We might also mention the fact that today is September 18th and what is it? About a quarter after six in the evening, so that if you are seeing this replayed sometime in the future, you don't panic and think it's a -- but go ahead, sir. MR. PINEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Ken Pineau, the Emergency Management Director for Collier County. We've been following this Tropical Storm Isidore. Actually, it is a tropical storm now with winds about 55 miles an hour. Ever since last weekend, it -- it died and then reformed just to the southeast of Jamaica during the day yesterday. Right now, it's located about 35 miles of the north of the -- the western tip of Jamaica and this looks like it's moving toward the northwest at about seven miles per hour, and it's expected to maintain that track at least for the next 48 to 60 hours. When it gets up off shore of Cuba, we are looking for it to slow down considerably and just osculate out there in the Central Gulf, Page 42 September 18, 2002 possibly for the next several days. We anticipated earlier that there would be a low pressure trough coming down from the -- from the -- it's currently out in the -- in the Rocky Mountain area now. But I don't think that the trough is going to be able to pick this up and shut it off to the northeast, which would be much -- a much greater threat to the Southwest Florida area. In fact, the National Hurricane Center now has -- has gone along with the general consensus. The threat has lessened now over Southwestern Central Florida based on this last projectory, but we are still going to continue to watch this. The closest point of approach for this at the present time, at the 72-hour point, it's still about 240 miles away. By Saturday, though, I think that we will have a full-scale hurricane out there in the -- in the Gulf of Mexico. So although we don't anticipate much in the way of weather associated with it, we don't look for any evacuations or any shelter openings at this time. Things change, and we're just going to have to watch it very closely tonight and especially during the day Thursday and Friday to see if we can get a better handle on it. Things are looking a lot better today than they were yesterday. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ken. MR. PINEAU: In fact, we're not activating the EOC. We'll just be monitoring it at home and during normal working hours. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ken. Let's go to Commissioner Carter first and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is the fourth year I've been through the budget process. I want to compliment County Manager Jim Mudd and Mike Smykowski and all the staff. This is the best budget session I have ever been through. Page 43 September 18, 2002 It's been done in a way that's -- that's a step towards where you want to go with it, will be even better next year. And I'm very pleased as I exit the commission to see us get into a budget process that doesn't become so laborious and time-consuming, where the Board of County Commissioners set the policy, gives a direction from broad-based goals of what's to be accomplished, and staff comes back and says, this is what it costs you to do it. And we don't worry about what you spent for pencils or rubber bands. That's not our job. And I think you have done a terrific job and need to be commended on that. And I just wish you God speed and go forward and keep doing these things, because Collier County Management has turned the comer and we are now, I would say -- I would stack this management team against any management team in the State of Florida. And they are to be applauded. They are to be recognized. They can walk tall in this community and say, we're doing an excellent job, so thank you, gentlemen. It has been my pleasure to serve. MR. MUDD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question, Mr. Smykowski. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you hear Mr. Pineau saying don't bother to put gas in the boat for this weekend? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I did not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, do you have anything to add? MR. SMYKOWSKI: My wife might have heard that, though. Page 44 September 18, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with Commissioner Carter's remarks. I think the county staffhas done a really good job with -- with the direction that we have given them in reducing the budget and making sure that the funds are directed in the right place according to the policies we've established. I am hopeful that we -- we will make similar improvements over the next year as we go into next year's budget, and -- and I also would like to commend County Manager Jim Mudd and his staff. I think they've done a great job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to echo those sentiments. The County Manager, Mike Smykowski have been -- have -- have worked with us every step of the way. My fellow commissioners have worked together as a team to accomplish, I think, the best budget process I've ever been in. Our Productivity Committee has been out there giving us comments and direction as well. It's really been an entire team effort and I appreciate everybody's help, and thank you. And I want to -- I want to tell you, we're sure going to miss the daylights out of you, Commissioner Carter. That's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner. I'll be around to haunt you for a few more weeks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe we can get him on the Productivity Committee. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we'll go to Jim Mudd. Do you have anything? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have nothing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we're adjourned. Page 45 September 18, 2002 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M..) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL,, ,, JAMES N COLETTA, CHAIRMAN D ~5I~rm~.~K, .CLERK These h~'m.~g~;approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, Kimberly J. Lowe, Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing meeting was taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on page one hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, is a true record of my stenographic notes taken at said meeting. Page 46 September 18, 2002 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 1st day of October, 2002. Kimberly J. Lowe, Professional Reporter Page 47