Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/05/1980 S .' , ,oJ . . '. Naples, Florida, November 5, 1980 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Corrmissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Governing Board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and Ilaving conducted business hejOein, met in Special Session on this date at 7:00 P.M. in Bldg. "F" of the Courthouse Complex for the public hearing re FY Be-8l Budget with the following,members in attendance: CHAl RMAN: Cl ifford Wenzel VlCE-CltAIRt-lAN: Thomas P. Archer John A. Pistor C.R. "Russ" "imer David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clerk; Harold L. Ha", Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Edna Brenneman, Deputy Clerk; C. William Norman, County Manager; H. Gene Willett, Administrative Assistant to County Manager; Robert Best, Budget Analyst; and various members of the Administrative and Departmental staffs under the Board of County Commis- sioners. "'~/ n~R Wt"~7 f t.. l. J November. S, 1980 AGENDA - APPROVED There being no changes, Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissionp.r Archer and unanimously carried, that the agenda be approved as ~repared. PROP()!';F.n USP. OF ~ ':',JBRM. REVENUE SHl\RING FUNDS F),scal Officer Harold L. Hall explained that it is anticipated that $650,000 will be received in Federal Revp.nue Sharing Funds for the FY 80-81; however, he said that Congress has not as yet "firmed up" these funds. 'lthough the new guidelines, in this re- gard, have not been received, said Mr. Hall, it has been a require- ment in the past that a Proposed Use Hearing be held. Federal Revenue Sharing Funds have been used for the previous three years in the Operating Budget in order to hold taxes down rather than to use them for Capital Expenditures which are in additional to normal operations, he con~in~ed. Again this year., said Mr. Hall, as the , Commissioners directed, it is anticipat~d ;hat the fur.1s be used, and are included, inthe proposed Operating and Debt Service Budget. In prior years the public expressed a strong recommendation to use these funds in the Operating Budget and thereby hold taxes down. No one had registered to ~peak and no one in the audience indicated a desire to speak on the proposed use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE BUDGET nlD MILLAGES FOR FY 1980-81 Explaining that the meeting being held this date is one of two such meetings to be held with regard to the Budget and Millages for FY 1980-81, Chairman Wenzel opened the hearing, calling on Fiscal Officer Hall to introduce the subject. Mr. Hall called to the attention of the Board and to those present in the audience Exhibit 5 of the materials furnished which he said is a listing of all the proposed taxes in Collier County. The listing, said Mr. Hall, is organized as it appears on the Notice of Proposed Property Taxes which all property owners received explaining that the first section represents'the Board of County Commissioners' Operating Budget - County~Wide, and reflects a 25\ decre~se - not just in millage but a 25\ decrease in taxes, in actual dollars. He explained that this decrease is a result of the settlement of the dc~ble taxation suit between the City and the .", ri~H Ol"r'?R.f November 5, 1980 The second group, continued Mr. Hall, includes the munici- palities and, for those persons living in the cities, would be the taxes levied by the City of Naples and the City of Everglades. The third group on the subject Notice is the School Board taxes which is listed in two parts, said Mr. Hall, expl~ining that one part represents the taxes mandated by State Law, and the other part representing what is levied on a local basis. M=. Hall emphasized that the Board cannot discuss either the Municipal taxes or the School Board taxes because these are under other taxing authorities. What will be discussed during the Public Hearing in Session are those taxes levied by the Board of County Commissioners, reported Mr. Hall. In addition to those taxes already referred to, i.e. County-Wide Funds, said Mr. Hall, are the BCC MSTD~ (Board of County Commissioners - Municipal Service Taxing Districts). He said that there a~e many new districts listed, the m~jor of which affects everyone in the unincorporated area. The new taxes levied bj the two MSTDs established as part of the Double Taxation issue will LesulL in an lOt a yc~r t~x increase on property in thA unincor- porated are~. The remainder of this list of MSTDs consists of approximately forty Special Dist~ict~ which Mr. Hall said do not apply to everyone in the unincorporated area. These consist of lighting districts, fire districts, etc. These, he said, are listed in one total on the previously-mentioned Notice. The last gro~p shown on the Exhibit is listed as "Other", con- tinued Mr. Hall, and cunsists of all the independent taxing districts such as the various independent fire districts, the South Florida Water Management District, Collier Mosquito Control, and the like, none of which are under the control of the BCC. Concerning the other information distributed, Mr. Hall said that there is a statement of the ad valorem taxes levied on a County- Wide basis and those levied on the two new MSTDs and noted that the Board, were it not for the double taxation settlement, has held the County-wide ad valorem tax level at the same level as it was the previous year. However, said Mr. Hall, individual's taxes might go up or down depending upon individual assessments. In general, \lDOK 056 P.~f 382 November S, 1980 howcver, in levying taxes in the first item on the Notice, the Doard did not increasc the taxes, said Mr. Hall, further commcnting that in the last five years ad valorem taxes, as a percent of total bud1e~, necre~sed from 67% to 50'. Mr. Hall concluded his comments with a brief etatement ex- plaining the TRIM Bill and describing Municipal Services Taxing Units, called MSTDs, explaining how such districts are formed, the areas served by the various districts, and the like. Responding to an unidentified member of the audience, Mr. Hall said that very few of the specl.al districts were voted by the public, as such, but came about under Florida Statutes and through the establishement of Municipal Services in accordance with Chapter 125 FS emphasizing that the assessment applies only to the g~ographical area and to the properties benefited by the service. A further question responded to by Mr. Hall pertained to the two new Districts in the unincorporated areas with Mr. Hall explaining that were it not for the establishment of t~ose districts there would be no tax increase for the people in the unincorporated area, and no tax increase for the people in the incorporated area. However, said Mr. Hall, those services which were deemed to be for the benefit of the unincor~Jrated residents were removed from the County-Wide services and County-Wide m!llage and placed in the unincorporated area millages which were two new funds established for that purpose. Therefore, he continued, those persons in the unincorporated area will pay, in dollars, approximately 18% more than the previous year. The following persons addressed the Board questioning various portions of the budget, requesting additional details, offering ways and means for reducing the millage and/or taxes, and other related mat- ters with regard to the FY 80-81 Budget: , eODK 056 PACE'383 tOOK 056 PACE 384 November 5, 1980 1. Elwood Tripp - Collier County Civic Federation 2. Howard Kaye 3. Jack Quecn 4. Steven Lulich 5. W.O. Benfield 6. Jordan I serman 7. Marshall Frcnkel 8. Edna ChanDi 9. Raymond Alyd 10. Carl Bomhard Responding to the last-named speaker's comments that there are no budgets which can't be trim;led or which can't be "held", Commissioner Brown moved that the Board require the staff to rework the budget and cut 10% off, and that the Board request that all of the Constitutional Officers cut 10% off their budgets. The motion was seconded by Com- missioner Wimer. Chairman Wenzel observcd that the "people" will have to be willing to acccpt the cuts. A Naples Park resident suggested that thc budget be cut 25% or possibly 30% - adding that a 10% cut would be unsatisfactory. Mr. Paige Hyland, Naples Park resident, among other comments, askcd that thc Board consider holding the second public hcaring on the budgct in a larger auditorium in order to accommodate all tho~~ who will be attending. Chairman Wenzel pointed out that during the budget review sessions there were no individuals present in the audience to provide input and to ask questions. Mr. Hyland said that sinrp the budget reviews were held prior to the mailing of the proposed tax notices, there has been more interest aroused. Mr. Mike Zcwalk, Naples Park homeowner, recalled that he was the lone represcntati ve \~hcn the budgets were bei ng revi ewed and suggcsted that possibly the rcason thc budgets were not trimmed was because there was insufficicnt interest shown. He expressed pleasure at the number of persons attending the public hearing. Further, said Mr. Zewalk, "When the heat is on, budgets can be changed" and urged the Board to cut down on non-essentials which he said will offset inflation for the essentiills. Novcmb~r 5, 1900 County Manager Norman assured the Board that their staff will cer-- tainly follow the Board's instructions and will offer alternatives. He said that in preparing for the hearing, he reviewed the budget, looking at it from a magnitude of change point of view. He said that 80X of the $3,000,000 increase is rcpresented in three primary areas -Payroll increases of approximately $600,000, noting that this figure represents two ycars of pay increases~ Approximately $980,000 in nine various de- partments of the almost 60 departments under the Board of County Commis- sioners which rcpresent "true" increases such as additional personnel, operating capital costs, routine inflationary incrcases such as increased utility costs, and the like; and, projected increase in the co~ts of motor fuel due to inflation of approximately $180,000, and the increase in the Sheriff's Department budget of $619,300 make up the third primary are~. Commissioner Wimer inquired about the source of funding for the bus system which was voted in by referendum the previous day with Mr. Norman responding that if it becomes operational before the end of the new fiscal year, the costs will have to be added in to the budget. Other interested persons addressing the Board with regard to various aspects of the budget were: 1. Joe Grimm 2. Nettie Phillips 3. Bill Sherman 4. Alvin Kruser, Forest lakes Condominium Association The last-named speJk~r voiced the opinion that Commissioner Brown's motion was "out of order" because the audience does not want to leave the meeting wi th a "crumb". At this point, Commissioner Brown withdrew his motion, noting that it was made in total sincerity. Commissioner Wimer withdrew his seconding of the motion. 800K 056 PAGE '385 &OOK 055 rACE '386 November S, 1990 Additional speakers heard were: ,. Joe OeRico' 2. Oliver Grootemaat 3. Terry Zykes 4. Mr. Benfield 5. William Snelling 6. Florence Nofrio 7. Bob Kuhling, Lakewood Homeowners Associfttion 8. Clarence J. Hashman 9. Robert Lessing 10. Howard Duckman 11. Evelyn Turner Throughout the discussion period, the following complaints and/or suggestions were responded to by the Commissioners and/or County Manager: 1. Double Taxation settlement and its effect on taxes in the unincorporated areas. 2. Employee inefficiency and lack of productivity. 3. Possibility of lowering costs for operation of the landfill fncilities if franchised to private operator. 4. Requests for additional services should be turned down unless funded by benefited property owners. 5. Increase in assessments should result in lower taxes. 6. County positions should be let out for bids and awarded to the low~st bidders. 7. High costs for maintenance of parks and recreational facilities, including parks programs. b. Growth fac.or should absorb increases in costs for operating government. L November 5, 1980 9. Effects of increased homestead exemptions on tax base, in~luding agricultural exemptions and lack of revenue from trailer lots. 10. Proposal for freezing assessments. 11. Rp-quest for Property Appraiser to attend second public hearing. 12. Mtnrlate by Governor for increase in assessments and lack of sufficient citizen participation in signing petitions opposing the mandate. 13. Effect of School Board Budget on millage for schools. 14. Provisions for appealing assessments before Property Appraiser Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Pursuant to the suggestion by a member of the audience that the discussion return to the agenda matters, Chairman Wenzel observed that the only recourse apparent to him is to in~truct the County l1anager to further review the budget to determine what can be cut and to come back before the Board with new figures and to set a date for a public hearing. County Ma..nager Norman empha'sized 'hat such "cutting" would require the layin9 off of personnel. Commissioner Archer, cOllll1enting on the fact that the budget under discussion covers only those operations over which the Board has con- trol and shows less than a 10% increase, moved that the tentative budget be approved and that the County Manager be requested to determine if there are any areas that can be cut, re-evaluating all the ordinances, all the services. and th~ like, and comp. back to the Board, prior to the next hearing, with a request for consideration of those "cuts". Following additional brief discussion, Chairman Wenzel remarked that there are time limits involved. Fiscal Officer Hall said that all days which go beyond the date for the final hearing, in approximately two weeks, will very likely result in the tax bills not being mailed out until the middle of December, at least. It was pointed out that delaying the matter will be costly because of the necessity for taking out tax anticipation notes, paying the interest involved, in order to pay the County's bills. Mr. Hall said that the next hearing will not be a con- tinuatio~ of the hearing being held this date, explaining that when the tentative budget is adopted the next step is to advertise the final MO~. 05'6 fACE'JB7, r &OOK 056 PACt 388 November 5, 1980 budget hearing. Under the new Legislation. he continued, the final hearing would be three days after it is advertised and that it can be advertised as soon as practical after the tentative budget is approved. Mr. Marvin Bell, resident of the unincorporated area of the County, expressed the opinion that the Board should be strong in di- recting the c;taff to make reductions since they know where the "feather- bedders" are. Mr. Harvey Pettit made the suggestion that one of the Commissioners move that the budget, as submitted, be cut by 15% and that the Chairman ask for a second to the motion. When asked for a source for such reduc- tion, it was the reiteration of a possible solution by a previous speaker that thtl proposed County employees' raise be "knocked off" which he said would not hurt anyone, adding the additional proposed solution that each department be reduced by one or two employees. Mr. Nonnan stated that the County was successful, during the cu:'- rent year, of having a union election defeated. He said that he and other mtlmbers of the s ta ff. and the Boa rd, can,pa i gned aga ins t havi ng the union accepted on the basis that an adequate personnel progr~m will be developed and maintained. He n6ted that the Board has initiated and tried to make good on that promise, as has he. The employees were advised, continued '1r. Nonnan, that an increase in productivity is ex- pected and explained the new performance, evaluation, and merit ~ay program under which plan employees who are not producing satisfactorily will not receive increases. Furthermore, said Mr. Norman, to suggest that no employee will receive an increase would be self-defeating in the case of producth'ity. He also said that the wages paid by Collier County are the lowest among the public employers in the County, a fact which is known by the employees. There was additional brief discussion, followed by a motion to close the public hearing made by Conmissioner Brown, seconded by Commis- sioner Archer and unanimously carried. Chaimlan Wenzel said that the County Manager could be instructed to s~e what can be done to cut the budget down and come up with some new figures as soon as possible prior to the next public hearing. [_J ..1 n j November 5, 19130 He said that he would not stipulate any p~rcentage figure but rather would ledve that up to Mr. Norman to see where cuts can be made, taking into consideration some of the advice heard during the hearing with re~ard to certain departments and areas. Mr. Norman said that alternatives will be offered to the Board and asked that the same request be made to the Constitutional Officers. Chairman Wenzel concurred. Commissioner Pistor moved to give tentative approval to the budget \'lith the understanding that the Chairman write a letter to the ConstitutionJl Officcrs requesting them to see where any possible cuts call be made in the budgets othcr than what has been cut over the last two n~nths; and that the next public hearing date be approved for No- vember 17, 1980 at 7:00 P.M. Chairman Wenzel seconded the motion with the COmmL'lt that the County Manager would be directed to draft the propLsed letter for his signature. Upon call for the question, the motion was unanimously carried. Submitted for the record was a copy of the following petition containing, 1164 signatures: "We, the und~rsigned, I''!tition all our County Representatives, including School Board Officials. We hereby demand that our taxes will not be raised more than 10% to compensate for in- flation. Any tax that is made or raised over that amount must be voted on by the public by bond, referendum, or peti- tion. Only if the citizens vote, can we insure NO TAXATION WlTHOUT REPRESENTATION." ^lso filed for the record were the following letters opposing the increase in tax rates being proposed. 1. M./M. Robert Ell ison - November " 1980 2. George and Sofia ,Revel as - October 28, 1980 3. John W. McKee - november 1, 1980 4. F. Donald Rothermich - October 27, 1980 5. J0hn M. Billings, M.D. - October 25, 1980 6. Gordon Caldis - October 22, 1980 7. Ruth M. Hug - October 24, 1980 8. Alan C. Russell - October 23, 1980 9. C.K. Chappuis - October 22, 1980 10. John M. Bankes - October 27, 1980 11. Miss Anna Papciak - October 18, 1980 12. Ernest D. Sinclair - October 26, 1980 13. James H. Callan - October ~8, 1980 14. Donald Remington - October 28, 1980 15. Carmen Dorta - October 31,1980 MOX 056 PACf 389 &OOK 055 PACE '390 November 5, 1980 16. Charles W. Montgomery - October 29, 1980 17. Walter C. Leibold - October 26, 1980 18. Bruce fl. True - October 25, 1980 19. The Pendleton Corporation - October 25, 1980 20. William H. Harper, Jr. - October 23, 1980 21. Vincent and Margaret Schooley - October 30, 1980 22. Collier County Civic Federation - November 5, 1980 23. The Glades, Inc. - November 3, 1980 24. Russell and Cornelia Haley - October 28, 1980 25. William H. Goodworth - October 29, 1980 26. Ernest D. Sinclair - October 26, 1980 27. M./M. ~ark E. Dav~nport There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 10:40 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S} OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~#~ ATTEST: WlLLIAM J. REAGAN, CLERK ~"y;:I. ~ ~~ ,1// ,~"BY~~ . ~ -.:' ...' Chl.a; 1(epu y en C" ,., .'